01 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonwhy dont you bother to read 'think of one's' comment before you comment...
We're talking solo piano, not trios. Someone should chime in with Art Tatum soon.
"As far as what can be done in a trio format, I tend to look at groupings such as Graewe/Reijseger/Hemingway, Crispell/Guy/Lytton, Fujii/Dresser/Black, etc."
01 Mar 08
4 edits
Originally posted by badmoonYou know, you have to be impressed by Tatum's technique, but I have to say that I wouldn't include him as a "favorite". I'm sure others would though.
We're talking solo piano, not trios. Someone should chime in with Art Tatum soon.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by eatmybishopSorry. Didn't mean to be rude.
why dont you bother to read 'think of one's' comment before you comment...
"As far as what can be done in a trio format, I tend to look at groupings such as Graewe/Reijseger/Hemingway, Crispell/Guy/Lytton, Fujii/Dresser/Black, etc."
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnefair point, is that implying revolutionary music is better than evolutionary?
Nah. The point of the list was more about "revolution" than "evolution".
peterson kept the same format just about all his life, luckily i saw him play before he died and even then it was a trio...
for me jarratt was just a little too way off, i just didnt really get the improvising.... almost felt at times all he has to do is moan a little and play off key and people would class it as genius
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by eatmybishopThat's a question that'd be difficult to answer fully without getting into a lengthy philosophical discussion about the role of art in general. But to be brief, in general I think that the further a work pushes art forward, the greater the work. "Revolution" inherently has more capacity for pushing further. However, this is not to say that all "revolution" pushes art forward. Often it pushes it in the wrong direction.
fair point, is that implying revolutionary music is better than evolutionary?
peterson kept the same format just about all his life, luckily i saw him play before he died and even then it was a trio...
for me jarratt was just a little too way off, i just didnt really get the improvising.... almost felt at times all he has to do is moan a little and play off key and people would class it as genius
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnewell said
That's a question that'd be difficult to answer fully without getting into a lengthy philosophical discussion about the role of art in general. But to be brief, in general I think that the further a work pushes art forward, the greater the work. "Revolution" inherently has more capacity for pushing further. However, this is not to say that all "revolution" pushes art forward. Often it pushes it in the wrong direction.
02 Mar 08
Most musicians, I believe, have a measure of time, usually in their 20's, when they do create and push art forward. Then they simply take what they've accomplished, and refine it without actually pushing forward any longer.
Miles Davis was an exception in that he created and reinvented his art for over a 20 year period. Others, like Dizzy or Oscar Peterson had their moment and then perfected what they had done.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by badmoonWhile Miles reinvented what he as producing, I don't think that he continued to push art forward. If anything, he pushed it backward by incorporating elements of rock and roll in an attempt to gain popularity. At that point in his career he seemed much more interested in fame and fortune than art. It took jazz a decade or more to recover.
Most musicians, I believe, have a measure of time, usually in their 20's, when they do create and push art forward. Then they simply take what they've accomplished, and refine it without actually pushing forward any longer.
Miles Davis was an exception in that he created and reinvented his art for over a 20 year period. Others, like Dizzy or Oscar Peterson had their moment and then perfected what they had done.
02 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonnot sure if anyone knows this, be great if someone can elaborate on this story..
Most musicians, I believe, have a measure of time, usually in their 20's, when they do create and push art forward. Then they simply take what they've accomplished, and refine it without actually pushing forward any longer.
Miles Davis was an exception in that he created and reinvented his art for over a 20 year period. Others, like Dizzy or Oscar Peterson had their moment and then perfected what they had done.
i'm a big fan of monty alexander, in his late 20's he was simply an awesome pianist, probably the best i ever heard, i've never heard anyone drive the music as much as him... anyway, the story goes he broke both his hands, he recovered but his playing was never the same... i have no idea if this story is true, but there is certainly a difference in his playing, still a great player, but there is a notably difference in his playing... not sure if the story is true or if he simply got older
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe Birth of The Cool nonet band is recognized as groundbreaking. The same for the mid 50's realxin', workin etc recordings. The Kind of Blue sextet is generally beyond criticism.
While Miles reinvented what he as producing, I don't think that he continued to push art forward. If anything, he pushed it backward by incorporating elements of rock and roll in an attempt to gain popularity. At that point in his career he seemed much more interested in fame and fortune than art. It took jazz a decade or more to recover.
I'm trying to isolate where your comments lie.
The band with Herbie Hancock, Williams and Carter remained acoustic...
In a Silent Way began the elecric guitar element. But that is surely groundbreaking and I don't thnk it set anything back. Are you addressing Bitches Brew which was about 69 I believe. Or Jack Johnson?
I think that he became "a sell out" perhaps, not sure, with "The Man With the Horn. Is that what you are speaking of?
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by SteinbergAhem, if i may be so bold? I played in Keith Jarrett's first band when we both in 7th grade. I played the sax (and sucked), he was considered a genius at the age of 5. I taught him how to make homemade bombs and he Tried to teach me Jazz. I think i went in the wrong direction.
Keith Jarrett, The Melody, at Night, With you
recorded after he had CFS for several years. Absolutely beautiful I think.
Granny.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by badmoonI really didn't have a specific cut-off in mind. I was speaking about the entire jazz-rock fusion era being a step in the wrong direction. I guess you could argue that it began with "Filles de Kilimanjaro" or even "Miles in the Sky".
The Birth of The Cool nonet band is recognized as groundbreaking. The same for the mid 50's realxin', workin etc recordings. The Kind of Blue sextet is generally beyond criticism.
I'm trying to isolate where your comments lie.
The band with Herbie Hancock, Williams and Carter remained acoustic...
In a Silent Way began the elecric guitar element. ...[text shortened]... l out" perhaps, not sure, with "The Man With the Horn. Is that what you are speaking of?
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWould you agree that the jazz rock fusion era was the last significant period of change in jazz?
I really didn't have a specific cut-off in mind. I was speaking about the entire jazz-rock fusion era being a step in the wrong direction. I guess you could argue that it began with "Filles de Kilimanjaro" or even "Miles in the Sky".
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by badmoonI suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant". For that matter, I have to question the significance of the jazz rock fusion era. From what I can tell, it pretty much died on the vine unless you want to consider "smooth jazz" alive.
Would you agree that the jazz rock fusion era was the last significant period of change in jazz?