Originally posted by badmoon We're talking solo piano, not trios. Someone should chime in with Art Tatum soon.
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."
Originally posted by eatmybishop wow! and not one mention of the oscar peterson trio, they shaped the trio format, in the 60's no one could better them
Nah. The point of the list was more about "revolution" than "evolution".
Originally posted by eatmybishop 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."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Nah. The point of the list was more about "revolution" than "evolution".
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
Originally posted by eatmybishop 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
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.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne 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.
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.
Originally posted by badmoon 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.
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.
Originally posted by badmoon 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.
not sure if anyone knows this, be great if someone can elaborate on this story..
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
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne 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.
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. 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?
Originally posted by Steinberg Keith Jarrett, The Melody, at Night, With you
recorded after he had CFS for several years. Absolutely beautiful I think.
Ahem, 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.
Originally posted by badmoon 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?
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".
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne 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".
Would you agree that the jazz rock fusion era was the last significant period of change in jazz?
Originally posted by badmoon Would you agree that the jazz rock fusion era was the last significant period of change in jazz?
I 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.
01 Mar '08 21:131 edit
Favorite Jazz Solo Piano Albums
Back to Top