JSngry Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Sorry for the typo. Who will be the next jazz Grammie grabber? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six string Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 I couldn't find the video in that link posted but when I saw Spalding when on some tv show after the fact I watched Justin's response and it looked to me like he was expecting to get the award and was completely shocked and deflated as soon as it registered in his head that he had lost out to Esperanza. Move over Nora Jones, there's a new kid in town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeSpeech Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 I saw Spalding in Tyner's band when he played Yoshi's a little more than a year ago. She's awesome. I about fell off my sofa when she won best new artist over Bieber. I've never been so happy with an award result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I saw her in concert last night. Was part of a series including Ornette Coleman and Maceo Parker (now that's what I call eclectic) to which I'd bought tickets months ago. If what she played last night was typical, I'm really surprised she won the grammy-- it was pretty far out. She had a sextet consisting of violin.cello, viola, bass,piano and Terry Lyn Carrington on drums. (There was also another singer) All were women except the pianist. The whole thing was presented as a performance piece with a bit of acting and dance. Spalding seemed a singer who sometimes accompanied herself on bass rather than a jazz musician. (I don't think there were any numbers without singing.) The pieces rarely had a regular song form or steady rhythm for very long. (There was one fairly standard bossa nova with just the two singers and Spalding on bass.) The only song I recognized was Wild is the Wind and only because of the lyrics. I found it interesting but wasn't really drawn into it. However most of the audience seemed to love it. I'd say that those who seem to resent her for becoming famous without paying the same dues as most jazz musicians should relax: she's not really competing with jazz musicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Spalding seemed a singer who sometimes accompanied herself on bass rather than a jazz musician. (I don't think there were any numbers without singing.) The pieces rarely had a regular song form or steady rhythm for very long. Not really sure what this means.... Edited February 28, 2011 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeSpeech Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, Spalding sure seemed like a jazz musician when I saw her do bass duties for Tyner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Spalding seemed a singer who sometimes accompanied herself on bass rather than a jazz musician. (I don't think there were any numbers without singing.) The pieces rarely had a regular song form or steady rhythm for very long. Not really sure what this means.... It means (but you're just being your "new cosmos" self here, right?) that dealing with a regular song form and a steady rhythm are among the traditional ways in which one judges a jazz musician's skills. Not the only ways, of course, nor ways that are or ought to be exclusive any more, but traditional, even if they are (or are on their way to being) outmoded. Thus, I would think, not a cause for "not really sure what this means" puzzlement, genuine or "be fooling with you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) No, I really don't know what it means...should she not be considered (or seem to be) a jazz musician because she sings while she plays bass? Because the music rarely had regular song forms or steady rhythm for very long? If it's the former, then WTF? Either be a singer or a bass player, but don't be both because...you can't!?!?!?! And if it's the latter, then..."regular song forms or steady rhythms" haven't been "required" in jazz expression for..how long now? Almost 50 years? So yes, I am genuinely puzzled, because I'm hearing prerequisites applied that by any objective criteria are not relevant to the conclusion being reached, unless I took a nap in reverse and it's 1958 again or something.... Edited February 28, 2011 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Jim -- Was my "nor ways that are or ought to be exclusive any more" not clear enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't think those things are a pre-requisiste for jazz. (Hey I like Ornette and most of what came out of Chicago in the ''60s and '70s.) My point was that I was surprised she was so popular given her chosen style (In this concert at least-- which was advertised as something about Chamber Music.) . However though lots of jazz doesn't follow established song forms and rhythms this didn't sound like jazz to me. More like contemporary classical vocal music. Or a bit like Joni MItchell after Hissing of Summer Lawns. As to singing while playing bass: if you don't want to count Slam Stewart or Paul Chambers, how about Willie Dixon? (Or did he never sing-- I can't remember.) And why are you so angry? (Or is that just my misreading your tone which is hard to establish on line.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 He's not angry; he's Sangry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kh1958 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yes, Willie Dixon sang and played the bass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Jim -- Was my "nor ways that are or ought to be exclusive any more" not clear enough? That was hardly the main gist of your response, which was more like "I know (or at least seriously doubt) that you're not serious", when, for the reasons I gave, I was completely serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) I don't think those things are a pre-requisiste for jazz. (Hey I like Ornette and most of what came out of Chicago in the ''60s and '70s.) My point was that I was surprised she was so popular given her chosen style (In this concert at least-- which was advertised as something about Chamber Music.) . However though lots of jazz doesn't follow established song forms and rhythms this didn't sound like jazz to me. More like contemporary classical vocal music. Or a bit like Joni MItchell after Hissing of Summer Lawns. As to singing while playing bass: if you don't want to count Slam Stewart or Paul Chambers, how about Willie Dixon? (Or did he never sing-- I can't remember.) And why are you so angry? (Or is that just my misreading your tone which is hard to establish on line.) I'm not at all angry. I'm just confused - genuinely - as to what singing while playing the bass has to do with whether or not the music is "jazz", which, as you worded it, seemed to be one of your conclusions. It kinda reminds me of the alleged line of Mary Travers about Ray Nance that Ralph J. Gleason quoted - "I didn't know a violin could play jazz." I mean, what's the connection, even slightly? As for everything else, the pieces of Spalding that I've heard all do indeed bear a lot of non-traditional jazz influences, but hell, its the second decade of the 21st century, ya' know? A lot of things have happened past what came out of Chicago in the ''60s and '70s and have been heard by a lot of different people. About the only thing that definitely doesn't sound like jazz to me any more is music that tries to sound like jazz is supposed to sound. I guess it's the logical outgrowth of the fusion aesthetic (and although for all of us today it's impossible to really get a real-time sense of it, jazz itself has almost always had a fusion aesthetic to it to one degree or another), which doesn't bother me. It's one of the few logical choices people have these days, it seems to me. The one thing I think I'd stand firm on, though, is that I can't imagine a non-jazz player doing what Spalding does, either in content or execution, or feel. Other than that, if a 20-something year old woman can't bring a jazz sensibility to a music that might be reminiscent of contemporary classical vocal music (which I kinda doubt...I've never heard Spalding sound even remotely like Kathy Berbian) or a Joni Mitchell album that is almost as old as she is (if not older(?) - or vice-versa - without people thinking that it's "not really jazz", then hell, what's the point of even trying to make your own music? Just follow the rules and stay between the lines. Really, though, enough with the word "jazz". It's pretty much over as a living thing other than a marketing tool for elderly New Yorkers & Tuxedoed New Orleansians. Let them have it. Edited February 28, 2011 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Jim -- Was my "nor ways that are or ought to be exclusive any more" not clear enough? That was hardly the main gist of your response, which was more like "I know (or at least seriously doubt) that you're not serious", when, for the reasons I gave, I was completely serious. You have a point there, so let me amplify/modify. Your response to Medjuck's post seemed to me to say 1) that anyone who has the responses you understood him to have had is living deep in a semi-ancient past that may never have even really existed, and 2) that you're puzzled that anyone could think in those benighted ways in the 21st Century. I then took 2) to mean that you not only really didn't understand how anyone could think that way but also were puzzled that there even was anyone who still thought that way. This last is what I found it hard to believe that you believed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Jim -- Was my "nor ways that are or ought to be exclusive any more" not clear enough? That was hardly the main gist of your response, which was more like "I know (or at least seriously doubt) that you're not serious", when, for the reasons I gave, I was completely serious. You have a point there, so let me amplify/modify. Your response to Medjuck's post seemed to me to say 1) that anyone who has the responses you understood him to have had is living deep in a semi-ancient past that may never have even really existed, and 2) that you're puzzled that anyone could think in those benighted ways in the 21st Century. I then took 2) to mean that you not only really didn't understand how anyone could think that way but also were puzzled that there even was anyone who still thought that way. This last is what I found it hard to believe that you believed. I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a translator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 No sprechen zie Esperanto? P.S. I'm leaving the house for a good bit of the evening, so if I don't respond to any new hand grenades, that's the only reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted O'Reilly Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1060&bih=792&q=playing+bass+and+singing+at+the+same+time&aq=1b&aqi=g-b2&aql=&oq=%22playing+the+bass+and&fp=87c8eca960d3be59 ...and Bob Haggart could whistle and play the bass at the same time! Amazing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Jim -- Was my "nor ways that are or ought to be exclusive any more" not clear enough? That was hardly the main gist of your response, which was more like "I know (or at least seriously doubt) that you're not serious", when, for the reasons I gave, I was completely serious. You have a point there, so let me amplify/modify. Your response to Medjuck's post seemed to me to say 1) that anyone who has the responses you understood him to have had is living deep in a semi-ancient past that may never have even really existed, and 2) that you're puzzled that anyone could think in those benighted ways in the 21st Century. I then took 2) to mean that you not only really didn't understand how anyone could think that way but also were puzzled that there even was anyone who still thought that way. This last is what I found it hard to believe that you believed. No, I just found it hard to believe that Joe himself would think that way, which is why I really didn't understand. And I still don't get what singing and playing the bass has to do with being considered jazz or not. Sure, it's a really rare, almost unheard of thing to do, at least in jazz, but...I still don't see what it has to do with how to "classify" the music. There are singers who sing jazz, and there are bass players who play jazz, so... how does/why should somebody both at the same time result in a cancellation of jazz? jazz + jazz ≠Jazz? Only if jazz ≠jazz in the first palce, which is where I was again confused by Joe's apparent parameters for same, because he's posted here for a while, and like he says, he's not hostile to more "modern" sounds, at least not that I've noticed. So yeah, really, I was just trying to figure out what the man was saying, because as he said it, and coming from him, I did not know what he meant. Care for a cigar? It really is just a cigar, i promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeSpeech Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 She's a jazz musician...and she's worked hard. And she has natural talent. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 That describes thousands you've never heard of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm not sure any opinion of mine is worth this much explication. I was partly reacting to the impression I get that some of us resent any one who becomes too popular whatever their genre. But I was genuinely surprised at how fringy (is that a word?) she was. All of her group can be described as jazz musicians: individually they've worked with Betty Carter, Ornette, Wayne Shorter, McCoy Tyner etc.; but they've also worked with Terry Riley and Steve Reich (as well as Jay-Z, Elton John and Clay Aiken) and this music seemed to me to be closer to Steve Reich (whose work I love) than to Tyner, Wayne or even Ornette. As to singing while you play bass: why not? And just like Bob Haggart she whistles too. I'm not familiar with her records but I presume that they'd be categorized as jazz. However the night of the Oscars (I went to see her instead of watching them-- sour grapes on my part) the program which I didn't read before the concert says"Inspired by the classical training of her younger years, Spalding creates a modern chamber music group that combines the spontaneity and intrigue of improvisation with sweet and angular string trio arrangements encompassing elements of jazz, folk and world music in the enduring foundations of classical music." I admire her pushing the envelope, but I might have liked her earlier work better. BTW Can we all agree that she has a great haircut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Can we all agree that she has a great haircut? Only if you also agree that Oscar Gamble had a great haircut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeSpeech Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Haaaaaaaahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.