Death of J*** Revisited

In todays Telegraph there was a good review of the jazz clarinettist Arun Ghosh. Has anyone heard him, and if so what did you think.

quote:

Originally posted by roger poll:
In todays Telegraph there was a good review of the jazz clarinettist Arun Ghosh. Has anyone heard him, and if so what did you think.

Roger - I have this album by him.


It is a fusion of Indian and jazz music. It is good and was very well received when it released in 2008. Well worth checking out if you fancy something a little different and that is your cup of tea.

Cheers Adrian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/45p2

http://www.vortexjazz.co.uk/cd...orthern-namaste.html

Thanks for that Adrian, I'm now in the process of ordering a copy.

Final note.

I received the final CD bought from recommendations or sent to me by generous fellow posters; Thierry Lang "Lyoba".

In all, my collection grew by 21 disks, all CD.

I am very pleased to have a representative collection of European Jazz for 2010 in the collection, along with some American samples from the 70s that were new to me.

Listening to these discs has really clarified what I want from my listening. They have collectively changed my world view of music, making it more complete.

Thank you very much for your time and patience. These were exactly the sorts of things I wanted to have happen to my collection, so I consider our chats a success.

A big part of my passion for music is music history, which is being made all around us every day. I've been picking the flowers as I walk by, and after 42 years, it has become an illuminating resource for speculation about how things are changing, and maybe even where things might go next. A small first person window on an enormous world.

:-)

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

GNU HIGH arrived today. We have given it one good listen. Nothing new here.
...
I have heard every change on GNU HIGH dozens, if not hundreds, of times before.

With all due respect, Mike, if this is your reaction then I'd sincerely suggest deeper listening.

I'd also be curious as to even just a few of the "dozens, if not hundreds" things you've heard that sound like Gnu High?

You mention Nicholas Payton, whose playing I really like and admire, but other than using similar instrumentation, where are the similarities? Can you point to a particular recording?

And even if there are readily apparent similarities, given that Wheeler is twice Payton's age and Gnu High was recorded when Payton was about 3 years old, perhaps Wheeler is the innovator here?

All best,
Fred

Fred, local bands that sometimes play in the style of "Gnu High" are clearly imitators, that style of music didn't originate in New Orleans.

But it is a style I was very taken with in the 70s that no longer floats my boat.

This has been entertaining and educational, but I am turning my attention to classical music that is new to me for a while.

I tend to agree with Mike on this one. I find Gnu High to be good, but not outstanding. Both Wheeler and Jarrett's playing are typical of their style, but not outstanding (Jarrett's early playing is far more interesting to me--how can anyone forget his solo on Forest Flower or his early solo work) Of course, there are relatively few trumpet/piano quartet recordings, but I found a recent one to be excellent--Lynne Arriale with Randy Brecker called "Nuance"--give it a listen Fred.

My copy of Gnu High arrived today. On first listening it's OK, but nothing more. I'm sure it needs a lot more attention. I've now moved on to Racconti mediterranei by Enrico Pieranunzi, Marc Johnson and Gabriele Mirabassi - now that is a brilliant record.

Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

But it is a style I was very taken with in the 70s that no longer floats my boat.

What style is that? I ask sincerely.

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Oldnslow:

Of course, there are relatively few trumpet/piano quartet recordings, but I found a recent one to be excellent--Lynne Arriale with Randy Brecker called "Nuance"--give it a listen Fred.

I'll have to check that out ... both fine players.

I'd urge you to check out Larry Golding's album Quartet, with the excellent cornet playing of John Sneider. Highly recommended album for many reasons.

Also, the phenomenal trumpet and piano album The Third Man by Enrico Rava and Stefano Bollani. Sublime.

By the way, Gnu High is indeed outstanding ... you're wrong!

All best,
Fred

No one is wrong! That kind of comment is what is becoming wrong with the forum ... silly smiley or not ...

Happy, playful, cheerful banter i would say George.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
No one is wrong! That kind of comment is what is becoming wrong with the forum ... silly smiley or not ...

George, your funny bone might be broken ... consult your physician.

I mean, really ... it's a painfully obvious joke, silly smiley or not (which I included only to make absolutely certain that no one would misunderstand that it's a joke ... apparently the smiley has failed ). The bald faced absurdity of saying someone's preferences are "wrong" is plain to comprehend. Do you really think I somehow don't understand that "no one is wrong"?

Although it does make me wonder how you would respond to someone saying that Bach wasn't a very good composer.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Although it does make me wonder how you would respond to someone saying that Bach wasn't a very good composer.

Exactly so! To be honest, the "no one is wrong" line irks me. It suggests that we can't draw a distinction between our personal preferences, and a more "impartial" assessment of a piece of music, which I think is incorrect (for a long time, I could see that The Velvet Underground were "interesting", "important", etc. but couldn't get "into" them myself). It also suggests that all of our arguments about music should go something like this:

Me: I like Bach's Cello Suites
You: I don't
Me: OK, fair enough

Which, again, is not the case. We often feel passionate about the music we like, and try to persuade other people to like it by drawing their attention to what we like about it ("try listening to this bit... think of it as a lament..."). It seems beyond dispute to me that there are more and less fruitful ways of talking about the value of a piece of music - the "no one is wrong" line closes down debate in an unhelpful manner.

Finally, if no one is wrong, how could we ever change our opinion about music based on repeated listening. Why not just listening to something once, form an opinion, and get rid of everything we don't like on first hearing. There is such a thing as getting to know a piece of music, and changing one's mind about it as a result. The reasons we change our minds are then available to us when we talk about it with someone else.

Having said all that, I would hesitate to describe someone who did not like the new Tomasz Stanko album as "wrong" (not sure about Bach though!). But I hope it's clear why I find the "no one is wrong" line simplistic.

George - not having a go at you, by the way. I've had a bee in my bonnet about this ever since I taught first year Uni students, and repeatedly encountered the "it's all relative" when engaging them in debate about ethics and aesthetics,

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Although it does make me wonder how you would respond to someone saying that Bach wasn't a very good composer.

Exactly so! To be honest, the "no one is wrong" line irks me. It suggests that we can't draw a distinction between our personal preferences, and a more "impartial" assessment of a piece of music ...

Nigel, this has been my mantra for decades, and I've said exactly the same thing in this forum many times.

And this failure to discern between the two is widespread ... it seems that for most people, what they like and what they think is good are identical sets. At its core this is narcissistic ... a self-referential feedback loop which betrays an inability to look outside one's self.

To take the example of Bach, his music may not be someone's cup of tea, but for that person to extrapolate from there that, therefore, Bach's music isn't very good, is pretty much "wrong." Certain things ... certain composers (Bach), writers (Shakespeare), ideas (all humans are equal), aesthetic ideals (the transcendent beauty of a mountain wilderness), etc. ... carry the overwhelming authority of nearly universal consensus sustained over a substantial period of time.

To say that Bach's music is the embodiment of greatness, whether one likes Bach's music or not, is just about as close to a purely objective declaration as a non-fact can get.

All best,
Fred

I think all the comments about what is good or bad miss a fundamental point. When I am adding new music to my collection, I often am only able to do a bit at a time, and not eat the whole elephant at once. In other words, I buy more CDs than I can cope with in a few months.

Finding myself immune to "Gnu High's" charms after three good listens, the only sensible thing to do is to put it away and come back to it later to see if things change in my perceptions.

As far as the style of "Gnu High", I placed it with my 70s jazz fusion recordings, as I feel it has that "vibe".

Accepting new music is like eating a meal in that you have to chew your food.

quote:

Accepting new music is like eating a meal in that you have to chew your food

Unless it is soup of course!

Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
... it seems that for most people, what they like and what they think is good are identical sets. At its core this is narcissistic ... a self-referential feedback loop which betrays an inability to look outside one's self.

To take the example of Bach, his music may not be someone's cup of tea, but for that person to extrapolate from there that, therefore, Bach's music isn't very good, is pretty much "wrong."

All best,
Fred

Fred-

to use Bach as an example of how one perceives a piece of music as good or bad according to personal preference, and therefore narcisstic, is a bit extreme don't you think?

" By the way, Gnu High is indeed outstanding ... you're wrong! " I'm wondering if given your own predilection for certain styles, aren't you falling into a nacisstic trap yourself.

On the strength of your recommendation, I did buy "Gnu High", and honestly was not that crazy about it. I'm not saying that it isn't a good album, or that I won't come back to it at some point. It's just that it really isn't a style of music I favor at this point in time. I definitely will come back and have another listen. But for now, the musical message is lost on me.

So my question is this, especially regarding free jazz . . . if the music is not comunicating the message from performer to listener, then how good can the music really be?

Thanks, Fred.
Max

quote:

Although it does make me wonder how you would respond to someone saying that Bach wasn't a very good composer.

Dear Fred,

I have heard it said! Even by a music teacher who went on to describe it as a musical form of barbed wire. No he wasn't joking!

In that case I simply kept my guilty thoughts to the contrary to myself.

Since then I also learned to take this sort of thing with a pinch of salt! I suppose now I would simply look away and internally shake my head in despair!

Sometimes I entirely fail to see the funny sub-text as anyone can when reading the written word without at least a knowledge of a person's voice and ways! If I know a poster here, I read it in their voice and the meaning is immediately clear - even the hidden humour!

Your analysis of people failing to see the distinction between what is great and what they like, and your linking of this to narcissism, is a point I could hardly be in greater agreement with! There is much great art - music and otherwise - that I do not enjoy very much, but at least I realise this is my loss, and not some failing either in the art itself, or widespread critical opinion!

ATB from George

Regarding the distinction between what is great and what you like, it is important to remember that music is at it's heart an entertainment.

Not every great entertainment is going to be in line with every listener's enjoyment.

When an unhappy disconnect occurs between some musical work and your personal enjoyment, you can try again. But if that doesn't work, you have to walk away and come back to it another day, or try to swallow the bad medicine, because the work has been proclaimed great.

I will never let anything other than my personal enjoyment dictate how long I spend on a given CD. Doing otherwise would turn a pleasure into a chore.

As George says, every disconnect is a missed opportunity, and not the fault of the work necessarily.

Such is life :-)

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

As far as the style of "Gnu High", I placed it with my 70s jazz fusion recordings, as I feel it has that "vibe".

This greatly puzzles me, and sends up a red flag.

What 70s fusion does it fit in with? Weather Report? And if so, earlier WR with Miroslav Vitous or later with Jaco? Herbie Hancock's Mwandishi band, or his Headhunters band? Mahavishnu Orchestra? Chick Corea's Return to Forever? Miles Davis' fusion?

I hear no connection at all between Gnu High and any 70s fusion. First of all, and probably most significantly, Gnu High is performed on all acoustic instruments ... fusion uses electric and electronic instruments. Further, fusion fuses jazz with rock ... there is no such fusion on Gnu High. It's much more an extension of several strains of acoustic jazz in the 60s and 70s, made by Bill Evans, Lennie Tristano, Lee Konitz, Charles Lloyd, Paul Bley, Miles Davis' later acoustic jazz (and especially his work with Gil Evans), Herbie Hancock's early acoustic jazz, as well as that of Chick Corea.

I'm sincerely intrigued ... where do you hear fusion in Gnu High?

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

As far as the style of "Gnu High", I placed it with my 70s jazz fusion recordings, as I feel it has that "vibe".

This greatly puzzles me, and sends up a red flag.

What 70s fusion does it fit in with? Weather Report? And if so, earlier WR with Miroslav Vitous or later with Jaco? Herbie Hancock's Mwandishi band, or his Headhunters band? Mahavishnu Orchestra? Chick Corea's Return to Forever? Miles Davis' fusion?

I hear no connection at all between Gnu High and any 70s fusion. First of all, and probably most significantly, Gnu High is performed on all acoustic instruments ... fusion uses electric and electronic instruments. Further, fusion fuses jazz with rock ... there is no such fusion on Gnu High. It's much more an extension of several strains of acoustic jazz in the 60s and 70s, made by Bill Evans, Lennie Tristano, Lee Konitz, Charles Lloyd, Paul Bley, Miles Davis' later acoustic jazz (and especially his work with Gil Evans), Herbie Hancock's early acoustic jazz, as well as that of Chick Corea.

I'm sincerely intrigued ... where do you hear fusion in Gnu High?

All best,
Fred

Chick Corea's "Return to Forever" comes to mind as being similar to "Gnu High". Off the top of my head, I would say the changes have a similar shape, and the use of short bursts of rhythmically intense lines to create dramatic tension is similar in intention.

Without reflection, I would say that if these two albums were played at a party, they would elicit similar responses from your guests.

I will give these two albums a listen today, to check my memory banks, as the Corea hasn't been played in years.

To be honest, I don't listen to jazz as closely as I do classical. Maybe I do jazz a disservice.

In ten minutes of listening I was able to put my finger on why I have "Gnu High" in the jazz fusion stack. In jazz fusion, a theme is presented and discarded in favor of "free" improvisation. The initial theme is not so important to the cohesion of the tune. As a result, the tune has no cohesion. The development of lines is not a development of thematic material, as in Miles Davis "Seven Steps to Heaven". I find this tedious and boring. I have an expectation in all music that if a theme is presented it will be developed. Jazz fusion denies me that pleasure.

Themes in music are like characters in a novel, and in their development lay the plot.

I think that is my most basic musical expectation.

When someone woodsheds a bundle of favored licks, then uses any excuse to put them into tunes, it destroys my focus and bores me.

Fred, just to give you a good focal point that demonstrates what I love in jazz, my two favorite jazz albums are Monk's "Solo Monk" and Coltrane's "SoulTrane".

To my ear, the "Solo Monk" demonstrates a consummate sense of style and a freedom in improvisation unequaled. Every listen is fresh and exciting, even after 20+ years.

"Soultrane" demonstrates an intimate understanding of melody, with every phrase illuminating the potentials in the melody.

These are all qualities I find utterly lacking in jazz from the 70s, which I haven't had an appetite for in many years.

I find Jazz [at least on records] to be very difficult to penetrate, but it is fascinating.

The kiss of death for me is the more modern style using electrically amplified instruments. The electric bass is for me [a former double bass player] the most horrible musical sonority created in the last hundred years, and this includes Stockhausen's "Music Concret" tape recordings to play along with real musical instruments opperated by real musicians! This is not to doubt that the electric bass can be great musically, but I have a severe aural alergy to it!

Fortinately for me, the style of music favoured by BBC Radio Three rarely touches on the Stockhausen school nowadays!

ATB from George