Mats Gustafsson's vinyl collection!

[HutchFan]

1 hour ago, kh1958 said:

"Hey Mats, how about we listen to some Johnny Hodges?"

What happens next?

crickets. . . 

 

As Austin Powers would say, "That's not his bag, baby."

[clifford_thornton]

Uh, I think you might be mistaken. He's pretty all over the map as you can see, not just free jazz and experimental music -- Gil Mellé, JR Monterose, Clifford Jordan... plus a lot of very in-the-pocket Scandinavian jazz.

[HutchFan]

1 hour ago, clifford_thornton said:

Uh, I think you might be mistaken. He's pretty all over the map as you can see, not just free jazz and experimental music -- Gil Mellé, JR Monterose, Clifford Jordan... plus a lot of very in-the-pocket Scandinavian jazz.

Oh. That's fine.  Either way, I don't think there's any one right way to do the collecting thing. It's just whatever you love. That's the thing.  No right or wrong in play.

Or at least that's how I look at it.  

[JSngry]

2 hours ago, kh1958 said:

"Hey Mats, how about we listen to some Johnny Hodges?"

What happens next?

YouTube and Ambien, that's how I do it these days.

[kh1958]

2 hours ago, clifford_thornton said:

Uh, I think you might be mistaken. He's pretty all over the map as you can see, not just free jazz and experimental music -- Gil Mellé, JR Monterose, Clifford Jordan... plus a lot of very in-the-pocket Scandinavian jazz.

Either way, he's my kind of guy (envious of his bookshelves).

[Dmitry]

4 hours ago, kh1958 said:

"Hey Mats, how about we listen to some Johnny Hodges?"

What happens next?

How about, Hey Mats. Can you play some Johnny Hodges? 

What happens next?

crickets..?

[clifford_thornton]

figure only Johnny Hodges plays Johnny Hodges.

[Dmitry]

1 hour ago, clifford_thornton said:

figure only Johnny Hodges plays Johnny Hodges.

Can Mats carry a tune? That's what I meant.

[clifford_thornton]

yes. I've heard him do beautiful renditions of Lars Gullin compositions on baritone.

But honestly, this music is well past the idea that one has to be able to copy the historical standard bearers of capital J-Jazz note for note in order to ensure the validity of their work. If Albert Ayler had been content to be Cleveland's "Little Bird" do you think he would've rewritten the rules of making music? If Bill Dixon had been all right with copying Diz licks, would he have helped to organize the Jazz Composers' Guild and shepherded new directions in improvisation and dance? I don't get bummed out listening to later Spontaneous Music Ensemble CDs thinking "well, yeah, but why didn't John Stevens just stick to that tinka-ting like Phil Seamen?" Sure he could DO the thing but I'd rather hear him be John Stevens.

[Dmitry]

2 hours ago, clifford_thornton said:

yes. I've heard him do beautiful renditions of Lars Gullin compositions on baritone.

But honestly, this music is well past the idea that one has to be able to copy the historical standard bearers of capital J-Jazz note for note in order to ensure the validity of their work. 

Validity?!  Sure, it's valid to you. Naturally, you, or me, can listen to whoever we want.

I'm just asking, can the man carry a tune? Has he been known to break into a recognizable melody, spontaneously? Never mind Hodges, you're right, not many can do that. How about Mary had a little lamb? Just curious.

[clifford_thornton]

yeah, have you listened to much of his music?

Of course he can carry a tune. But the point of his music is not whether he can or can't play melody in the traditional sense. 

I mean, you don't have to like it to agree that it's music and that he's setting out to do what he wants to do.

[Big Beat Steve]

13 hours ago, clifford_thornton said:

yeah, have you listened to much of his music?

Of course he can carry a tune. But the point of his music is not whether he can or can't play melody in the traditional sense. 

I mean, you don't have to like it to agree that it's music and that he's setting out to do what he wants to do.

I think what Dmitry was aiming at is whether the free jazz players really have gone where they are now because they have exhausted every "conventional"  possibility of their instrument and of the music and now have gone beyond the "conventional" contents of the music onto a "higher" (in the sense of "superior") level of the muisc that - according to diehards of free/avantgarde jazz - is the only way to go and to progress because everything else is just old hat and worn out. If this was so then any of the top free saxophonists would have to be able to play, say, ANY Hodges, Prez, Bird, Rollins, (yes, eben Bostic and his often.-acknowledged technical mastery of the instrument) etc. forwards and backwards and inside out and will just not remain there because he has played everything there. Or isn't it rather so that they have gone out on a DIFFERENT branch that is just that - different. But definitely not "superior" or "higher" in an evolutionary sense of the word. Which is fine and perfectly legitimate to do for those who prefer to go into that direction (preferences differ ...) and occupy their own niche there, but of course invalidates that oft-held notion of free or avantgarde being "superior". It's just different sides of a multi-faceted coin. And one is as valid as the other. In EVERY stylistic direction.

But this is getting us off course. I for one find rather more interest in what Mats Gustafsson said in his interview about the closeness (in HIS understanding) of free jazz and certain old-school honkers on the one hand and punk and their 2-chord structure on the other. Normally he ought to have come under heavy fire by avantgarde jazz "traditionalists" for that.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Big Beat Steve

[soulpope]

19 hours ago, HutchFan said:

My music collection is smaller than many of yours, but I'm fortunate in this regard: My oldest son is a musician and music-lover, and he's already said that he wants all of my records -- both CDs and LPs -- when I pass.

I know I'm blessed. One of my four kids understands that part of me, and it's nice to think that I can pass my collection along to him.

Now that's a reason to be envious  .... lucky you ....

[sidewinder]

No Mosaics ! 

Edited February 4, 2017 by sidewinder

[JSngry]

5 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

But this is getting us off course. I for one find rather more interest in what Mats Gustafsson said in his interview about the closeness (in HIS understanding) of free jazz and certain old-school honkers on the one hand and punk and their 2-chord structure on the other. Normally he ought to have come under heavy fire by avantgarde jazz "traditionalists" for that.

Actually, put me down as somebody whose tastes (and instincts) in so-called "free jazz") very much take inspiration from all the things that one could hear in - and take away from - a Little Richard record. Put me in the room with any of those so-called "avantgarde jazz "traditionalists"" who find that problematic and I'll call bullshit, and call it collect.

Thing is though, I've never really run into any of those types in the so-called "free jazz" world, the people I run into who are less likely to dig a Little Richard record are the "formal jazz" types, the ones who are all about centered tones and fully extrapolated chord/scale relationships, and totally digital ideas about time/precision of beat, etc. Where I live, those types aren't so much into the sweaty, juicy, sliding have some fun tonight of a Little Richard record. But...how are things in your town?

The thing is, though...it's all good, really. Or at least it all CAN be good. Should be good.

But this, hell yeah, this is good.

You can either be a cartographer and map out all those cracks, or you can be an explorer and never mind mapping them, just get down in them and feel your way around.

Or hell, you can just be a native to either and do what comes naturally to where you are.

[David Ayers]

I have MG down as a free player, but not a free jazz player. So he didn't come out of jazz, which makes a big difference. 

[Big Beat Steve]

Well, various  internet profiles of MG have him down as "a stalwart of the Scandinavian free jazz scene" or "free jazz heavyweight" or "prolific free jazz saxophonist". YMMV, though (as they say around here ): At any rate, I found his explanations quite interesting and if you think about it they do make some sense (at least to me). This IS one possible approach.

[David Ayers]

My mileage does vary. MG basically does not have a jazz background and never really sounds like a 'freed' jazz musician. 

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

of course he has the little richard lps dawg, if this fools gonna sweep ME if my feet, he needs to show me he has this!!!

 

 

 

 

[Big Beat Steve]

Copies are around. If he is that heavily into Little Richard I'd be surprised if he did not have that one too. 

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

I( wonder how he's set for 45s?

 

 

Lee Allen FTW.

[soulpope]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

I( wonder how he's set for 45s?

 

 

Lee Allen FTW.

Enchanting female background vocals vs vocals tough as nails  .... tough choice indeed ....

[JSngry]

Still and all, Lee Allen FTW!!!

[clifford_thornton]

On 2/4/2017 at 3:06 AM, Big Beat Steve said:

I think what Dmitry was aiming at is whether the free jazz players really have gone where they are now because they have exhausted every "conventional"  possibility of their instrument and of the music and now have gone beyond the "conventional" contents of the music onto a "higher" (in the sense of "superior") level of the muisc that - according to diehards of free/avantgarde jazz - is the only way to go and to progress because everything else is just old hat and worn out. If this was so then any of the top free saxophonists would have to be able to play, say, ANY Hodges, Prez, Bird, Rollins, (yes, eben Bostic and his often.-acknowledged technical mastery of the instrument) etc. forwards and backwards and inside out and will just not remain there because he has played everything there. Or isn't it rather so that they have gone out on a DIFFERENT branch that is just that - different. But definitely not "superior" or "higher" in an evolutionary sense of the word. Which is fine and perfectly legitimate to do for those who prefer to go into that direction (preferences differ ...) and occupy their own niche there, but of course invalidates that oft-held notion of free or avantgarde being "superior". It's just different sides of a multi-faceted coin. And one is as valid as the other. In EVERY stylistic direction.

But this is getting us off course. I for one find rather more interest in what Mats Gustafsson said in his interview about the closeness (in HIS understanding) of free jazz and certain old-school honkers on the one hand and punk and their 2-chord structure on the other. Normally he ought to have come under heavy fire by avantgarde jazz "traditionalists" for that.

yeah, Mats can do whatever he wants in my opinion. Not all of it do I like but I do respect it & him. I don't think that a Hegelian progressivism towards free music is necessarily realistic, because many of the progenitors of "free jazz" came up in parallel to a lot of post-bop musicians. For example, Bill Dixon was only eight years Dizzy's junior and was five years older than Ornette. I think it is indeed a different branch of the same tree but the latter certainly includes Bostic and Jeep, and I know that Mats internalizes everything he hears whether or not it's beyond obvious from phrase arc to phrase arc.

[Dmitry]

On 2/3/2017 at 3:24 PM, clifford_thornton said:

yeah, have you listened to much of his music?

Of course he can carry a tune. But the point of his music is not whether he can or can't play melody in the traditional sense. 

I mean, you don't have to like it to agree that it's music and that he's setting out to do what he wants to do.

Are you positive on that? I've played some of it on youtube, and I'm not so sure. Honestly. And I do agree, it's music.

This is music too. I could actually sit through a good hour of it.

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Dmitry