What's This "Soul Bossa" Thing Going On In Atlanta?

[Dan Gould]

"Not really free in the conventional sense -- but "free" with a seminal NY "New Thing" vibe that has a lot of post-ESP feel, never too hippy-dippy for us, but still very spiritual and soulful at the same time! The sax is kinda similar to the things ___ was working on towards the end of the '60s, but with a raw funky side that we know Dusty fans will love! (original pressing with a cut corner and both seams almost completely split. Vinyl has a fair number of marks, but you hardly ever see this one on wax. Trust us!)"

Make sense to you?

Is it time to dig up the old "DG Mad Libs thread"?

[Jim R]

It wasn't the influence of Mendes that I was questioning. It was the seeming dismissal of Brasil 66/77 as inconseqential fluff.

Dude - you give props (and rightly so, imo) to Andy Williams. Brasil 66/77 is every bit as worthy, I think.

Fair enough in principle, I guess, although you'll have to show me where I dismissed Brasil '66 as inconsequential fluff (maybe I was a bit harsh, but the intent was to point out that they were first and foremost a commercial band, and didn't and don't represent "Bossa Nova", except to people who don't know any better). Also, one thing I meant to say in that last hot air-fest was that I think I have more of a problem with Brasil '66's commercialism by contrast to what came before (I actually don't hate Brasil '66, I'm just trying to be real about who and what they really were, for those who might not have understood). So, if you're going to pretend like you know your history and suggest that you represent the return of Bossa Nova by virtue of the fact that you're strongly influenced by Brasil '66... that's kind of like saying you represent the return of big band music by virtue of the fact that you're strongly influenced by the Brian Setzer Orchestra (probably not the best analogy, but I think it'll suffice for our purposes).

Edited August 17, 2006 by Jim R

[JSngry]

Fwiw, I've never come across a Brasil '66 fan (in person or on the web) that showed much (if any) appreciation for the more pure/authentic/non-commercial forms of brazilian music that set the table for Brasil '66.

Well, I have, but that's neither here nor there. The point for me is that it is the nature of pop to "mainstream" differnt cultures, and that inevitably changes the "flavor" of the world in which we live. "Historical Musical Knowledge" is cetainly important for scholars and "serious musicians and fans". To the rest of the world, it's not a particularly relevant and/or ongoing concern, and I don't know that it really should be. It's nice when it is, but life goes on, if you know what I mean.

The ongoing evolution of popular culture is of interest to me, if for no other reason than that it inevitably has an effect on some aspects of my life. I could go all Mr. Wilson (and often have), but when I hear about something as culturally interesting as urban Southern African-American youth turning to Sergio Mendes for inspiration for dance music, well, hey, that's a cultural twist I sure didn't see coming! And if it means that at some point in the future there will be an influx of Brazillian influence (no matter how far removed from the source) into mainstream youth's pop culture - a big if - then hey, we're another step along the road towards pan-culturalism, even if it is a pan-culturalism of diluted sources. Same thing, perhaps, but different. Or vice-versa. But the world is becoming more and more a "melting pot", and this might well be another degree of melt.

Hey - I'm a "people person" at root, and this shit fascinates me at a level far beyond the music. Actually, the music is the least interesting part of it.

[JSngry]

I actually don't hate Brasil '66, I'm just trying to be real about who and what they really were, for those who might not have understood

What they were was a pop band that incorporated a Brazillian "flavor" into an "Americanized" product. Nothing more. Or less. Like it or not, that seems like a perfectly natural evolutionary step, just as it does for the next level of evolution to be to take it from there. Shit gets so diluted over time, but that's how it stays alive. Dinosaurs & birds, dig?

Gotta go to work now. Will continue tomorrow if you'd like.

[Jim R]

Fwiw, I've never come across a Brasil '66 fan (in person or on the web) that showed much (if any) appreciation for the more pure/authentic/non-commercial forms of brazilian music that set the table for Brasil '66.

Well, I have, but that's neither here nor there. The point for me is that it is the nature of pop to "mainstream" differnt cultures, and that inevitably changes the "flavor" of the world in which we live. "Historical Musical Knowledge" is cetainly important for scholars and "serious musicians and fans". To the rest of the world, it's not a particularly relevant and/or ongoing concern, and I don't know that it really should be. It's nice when it is, but life goes on, if you know what I mean.

Well, yeah. People are going to salt their watermelon, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Dude, go back and find my comment about how I'm fully admitting that my bitching is idealistic (and I may be combining comments here). I know that the evolution of culture is a mack truck, and I'm a half-asleep jaywalker. I'm just saying what I need to say, observing what I perceive to be some stupidity in labeling and marketing.

The ongoing evolution of popular culture is of interest to me, if for no other reason than that it inevitably has an effect on some aspects of my life. I could go all Mr. Wilson (and often have), but when I hear about something as culturally interesting as urban Southern African-American youth turning to Sergio Mendes for inspiration for dance music, well, hey, that's a cultural twist I sure didn't see coming! And if it means that at some point in the future there will be an influx of Brazillian influence (no matter how far removed from the source) into mainstream youth's pop culture - a big if - then hey, we're another step along the road towards pan-culturalism, even if it is a pan-culturalism of diluted sources.

And again I say, cool, great, more power to them (not very enthusiastically, in this particular case, but that may just be me). I don't have a problem with the musical evolution itself- it's absolutely inevitable. Dilute the sources. Yes. Go ahead and do it. But don't pretend to be (or assume that you are) something you're not, especially when you don't seem to know what that something is all about. In other words, I'll forgive you for lacking "Historical Musical Knowledge" and just playing your music, but I won't forgive you for bullshitting (unintentional or not). Seems fair to me (idealistically speaking).

[Jim R]

I actually don't hate Brasil '66, I'm just trying to be real about who and what they really were, for those who might not have understood

What they were was a pop band that incorporated a Brazillian "flavor" into an "Americanized" product. Nothing more. Or less.

I'm pretty sure we had established that...

Like it or not, that seems like a perfectly natural evolutionary step, just as it does for the next level of evolution to be to take it from there. Shit gets so diluted over time, but that's how it stays alive. Dinosaurs & birds, dig?

Again, my intent here is not to host a Brasil '66 slamfest. I don't go around slamming Brasil '66 in my private life (nor Astrud Gilberto, nor Edie Gorme, nor John Pizzarelli... well, maybe John Pizzarelli). Everything's relative, and as I've already pointed out, my previous comments about Brasil '66 had more to do with who they weren't than who they were. "Like it or not"? Um, I've stated numerous times in this thread that I don't object to musical evolution, new ideas, etc (note that way back in post #5, I said: I'm not objecting to the non-traditional music-making in this case.., which in essence is the same thing I've stated several different ways).

It seems like you're focusing on the things we agree about, as though we disagree. Your first post here was a question to me, which I answered in post #5. You didn't respond, to express agreement or disagreement, which left me wondering. Anyway, how 'bout if we both read this over again and see if there's anything left to talk about? (or better yet, argue about ).

[JSngry]

Hey, it's cool. You just seemed to be buggin' about the terminology, and I'm all like, hey, terminology pretty much went out the window when Paul Whiteman became the King of Jazz, so big whoop what it's called or what people think it is. People gonna do waht they do, like what they like, and now what they want or don't want to know no matter what the terminolgy applied to it is. I mean, "blues" don't mean Blues any more, "jazz" don't mean Jazz any more, "soul" don't mean Soul amy more, the list goes on. It used to bug me, but anymore, I really don't care. It's too far gone to worry about.

FWIW, the "bossa" sound has been infiltrating "club music" for quite a while now, I think, and the influence seems to be being reciprocated. I've got a 20-something drummer friend from Germany who tells me that using bossa keyboard samples over club beats (thus the "beats & keys" thing, or whatever it was that DG called it) has been commonplace over there for the last 4-5 years, & the Brazillian influence on Japanese club music has been noted by Rod earlier (and btw - what's the deal w/this Lisa Ono chick anyways? Any good?). Do a search at DG for just the word "bossa" and all kinds of club shit comes up that covers a time span of more than a few months. And then you got shit like Suba & Paula Morelenbaum's berimbaum (great side, imo) that come at it from the other end, taking club music techniques and applying them to pure(er) Brazillian songs. None of it's "bossa" in the textbook sense, and I don't doubt but that knowledge of the history & greats of the "real" bossa varies widely in the non-Brazillians who've been dipping into that bag for their thing, but there it is anyway, the back-and-forth of global cross-breeding that created "bossa nova" in the first place continuing on and on and on. After a while "Brazillian"="Bossa" in the general consciousness, and so it goes, no matter if the results are wholly cool or deadly dull. C'est la vie.

I'm neither surprised nor pissed about the inaccurate use of the term when it occurs. Sooner or later terms are used for comvenince's sake rather than any real identificational purposes, it always happens, if for no other reason than all living music eventually evolves to the point where it's stylistically not what it used to be, even if it still comes from essentially the same basic emotional place.

I'm to the point where I just don't care what anybody calls anything for marketing purposes. The band that started this thread might bug me just because they're not particularly interesting, based on the samples I heard. What they hype their music as is besides the point to me. Sooner or later, though, somebody's going to do much the same thing (hell, they might already have. I've been living in a jazz-cave for the last god knows how many years...), take a Mendes-based "bossa pop" groove, write really good songs, use club music as the underpinning, call it "bossa" or "neo-bossa" or some shit, and then I will get excited, just because it'll be good, fresh, interesting pop music, even if it's zt best tangentally related to real bossa nova.

Until then, names are just words, and words can mean any damn thing to anybody at any time. I don't sweat names any more. I really don't. It's all hype, really, or it becomes so sooner or later. "Swing" was/is hype, "BeBop" was/is hype, hell, "Jazz" was/is hype (maybe now more than ever). Convenient for both conversation & marketing, but that's about it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got Paula Morelenbaum's berimbaum playing as I type, and hell, that just about says it all. Jiva is kinda....unnecessary for me at this point.

[Jim R]

Well stated, Jim. Maybe my view of where we are in terms of terminology and labeling was slightly different from yours, allowing me to feel as though we still at least had some basis for using certain terms and expecting people (most people) to have a general idea of what we're referring to. I guess I felt like it was still worth talking about (just observing, not with the intent to try to "make things right"), but I think you've convinced me that it's probably hopeless and unnecessary. From generation to generation, I wonder what percentage of music fans tries to be aware and educated about music history, and what percentage either doesn't care or simply believes whatever they read/hear. My sense is that younger people these days are less interested in this than we were (say, in the 60's to early 70's), even though we had a pretty significant melting pot (across many genres) already happening even then (and I know the melting goes back much, much further, but generally I'd venture to say that the lines were less and less blurry before our generation came along).

I've been impressed by what I've heard by Lisa Ono. She doesn't stike me as someone who's going to reach any lofty heights in terms of reputation or legacy, but she has a good (not tremendous or highly distinctive, but solid) voice, and taste. I really haven't heard a whole lot of her work, primarily because for years, her CD's were priced two or three times higher than everyone else's (never saw anything by her for less than $25 until relatively recently).

[JSngry]

Hey - while we're at it, can somebody explain to me why it seems like you can go to damn near any dance studio in America and study "jazz dance" from somebody who's never heard "jazz music"?

That one's had me puzzled since the 70s.

[Michael Weiss]

It wasn't the influence of Mendes that I was questioning. It was the seeming dismissal of Brasil 66/77 as inconseqential fluff.

Dude - you give props (and rightly so, imo) to Andy Williams. Brasil 66/77 is every bit as worthy, I think.

(Didn't know where to post this, but here looked like the logical place)

Sergio Mendes was in the Vanguard tonight for our second set (Monday night big band). Hung out and talked for awhile - what a beautiful cat.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Michael Weiss