[MeanWillieGreen]

I know this is a Coltrane thread, and this is not an attempt to hi-jack, but rather to shed some light to some of this thread's participants

music is subjective - like beer, wine, food - you like it or you don't, and just because you don't like something doesn't mean you are a failure or defective as a music fan

Regarding Kind of Blue, Miles had a specific thought process and sought to go somewhere different with that record. I know Wikipedia is a McNugget of history, but check out the Wikipedia post here: Kind of Blue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Back to 'trane - enjoy him for what you dig, leave the rest alone; [/joke] even Foreigner recorded a bad record occasionally[/joke]

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then there are times when great musician's just suck. I got a copy of T. Monk at Carnegie Hall. I bow to the god Monk, but he just sucked that night. I'm sure some of the huge audience -- who might not have been totally familar with his work -- walked out saying, how the **** did he get into Carnegie Hall?

I'm learning tons from this thread—and for the record I mean that seriously, without a hint of sarcasm. First anarchy and Kind Of Blue (far from my favorite Miles Davis disc, but nowhere near anarchic to my ears), and now Thelonious Monk sucking on a widely-acknowledged classic time capsule. If there were walkouts then—and there definitely could have been among mainstream folk in 1957—it still wouldn't explain contemporary antipathy…not with such an extraordinary gulf of chronological (and creative) distance in between.

 

[Spyro]

Yes, there are some good comments on this thread. Many people either "get" Coltrane or they don't. I don't find much in between. The common thing I hear from those that don't care about him is that they feel he is simply trying to play (fit) too many notes in a measure. Can't say I fully agree with that. What can be interpreted as beauty to one person may be iterpreted as chaos to another. I only own 3 Coltrane releases so perhaps I can't fully judge but I find guys like Chris Potter, Bob Mintzer and (the late) Michael Brecker more up my alley as far as moving me emotionally. I think they are equally talented players as well.

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif I only own 3 Coltrane releases so perhaps I can't fully judge…

One Trane recommendation for anyone who doesn't own it: Crescent. Sublime and accessible…

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I got a copy of T. Monk at Carnegie Hall. I bow to the god Monk, but he just sucked that night. I'm sure some of the huge audience -- who might not have been totally familar with his work -- walked out saying, how the **** did he get into Carnegie Hall?

You are in quite the minority on that one. In fact you are literally the only person I have ever heard say a negative word about that record, let alone that negative. To each his own, but you are seriously missing out on one of the greatest jazz recordings ever. Monk and Trane are both in perfect sync on that record.

Quote:

On the other hand, I used to like Charlie Parker, lately he sounds run of the mill to me, not experimental enough. Monk. Yeah. Monk.

And here is where you are just plain wrong. Run of the mill? I suppose that might happen when you create a legion of imitators and basically create an entirely new style of jazz. Simply put, there is nothing about Bird that is run of the mill. Your ears are off on this one. WAAAAY off.

I recommend reading this thread:
So, you don't any Bird eh...... - organissimo jazz forums - The best jazz discussion forum on the web!

Particularly pay attention to Jsngry and Clementine. It is a board full of serious jazz writers, musicians, and lifelong fans.

 

[MeanWillieGreen]

Ballads was my intro to Coltrane, and still my fav

I would assert that there are no records as accessible as Ballads

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are in quite the minority on that one. In fact you are literally the only person I have ever heard say a negative word about that record, let alone that negative. To each his own, but you are seriously missing out on one of the greatest jazz recordings ever. Monk and Trane are both in perfect sync on that record. And here is where you are just plain wrong. Run of the mill? I suppose that might happen when you create a legion of imitators and basically create an entirely new style of jazz. Simply put, there is nothing about Bird that is run of the mill. Your ears are off on this one. WAAAAY off. I recommend reading this thread: So, you don't any Bird eh...... - organissimo jazz forums - The best jazz discussion forum on the web! Particularly pay attention to Jsngry and Clementine. It is a board full of serious jazz writers, musicians, and lifelong fans.

BLAT!

My theory behind music (and just about everything else) is that it's much more difficult to play within the rules and do something interesting than it is to break them and turn out something unique. Coltrane bores me because he takes off like a drummer let loose to fill a 5 minute costume change during a concert. Maybe technically brilliant and even inspired but, without backing, his extended soloing become cloying. To me, he's like the musical equivalent of Thomas Pynchon. I love reading passages of Pynchon, but can never finish his novels as I find them ultimately too self indulgent.

 

[Coltrane]

What f-ing rules?!?! Every rule that exists is based on someone breaking a rule and creating a new one. Virtually every harmonic rule we have now comes from the even-tempered system that is a relatively recent invention in human history. Do you disagree with that too because it broke the rules? You must only listen to middle ages choral music.

But beyond that, why do you care what is 'more difficult' to do? Music, and art, is about one thing only: emotional expression. Letting the world know what it is like to be alive at the very moment of creation. The rules have absolutely nothing to do with that.

Of course, all of this directly contradicts your statement that Bird was 'not experimental enough.' That statement is not only demonstrably false, but the exact opposite of your play within the rules theory.

Are you a musician by any chance?

 

[Currawong]

To tackle another angle on this, what personally affects me in music is playing that shows the beauty of an instrument, and playing that is so emotive that one is moved by every note. The examples that come to mind here are Stevie Ray Vaughan (though we're talking blues there) and John MacLaughlin and co. on Extrapolation.

I agree that at first for me, the dischord jazz players can have at times through their pieces were at first uncomfortable, until I felt the whole picture of the piece as the players flowed in and out of harmony with each other.

Another thought though, is big-band jazz. While it's still moving away from Coltraine, I've found the odd piece that's worked really well for me. Totally opposite is Hiromi Uehara, a Japanese Jazz pianist who is completely unbelivable live.

 

[Alpha 60]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SR-71Panorama /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my experience, you dont chose jazz, jazz chooses you. Sounds corny, I know, but I grew up playing alto sax all through school, and yet I only began to take a serious interest in jazz after graduating college. It just sort of made sense one day. One of the weirdest things to ever happen to me, the way it just sort of ambushed me, and demanded my full attention.

Amen! This is exactly how it happened with me. I was 28-years-old and was just watching TV one day when a commercial for some Time-Life CD of jazz classics came on. It hit me like a ton of bricks that all the songs sounded amazing. And the crazy thing is that I had owned several jazz CDs in the past, and I had already heard nearly every song on the commercial before at some point. I started collecting jazz and bought several guidebooks to aid in my purchases, such as the Penguin guide. Once I "got it", jazz compositions I once thought sounded extremely dated (traditional or big band) started sounding new to me--I could finally feel how all jazz "swings".

Since this OT is about Coltrane, I'd like to add that Soultrane is one of my favorites, btw.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif What f-ing rules?!?! Every rule that exists is based on someone breaking a rule and creating a new one. Virtually every harmonic rule we have now comes from the even-tempered system that is a relatively recent invention in human history. Do you disagree with that too because it broke the rules? You must only listen to middle ages choral music. But beyond that, why do you care what is 'more difficult' to do? Music, and art, is about one thing only: emotional expression. Letting the world know what it is like to be alive at the very moment of creation. The rules have absolutely nothing to do with that. Of course, all of this directly contradicts your statement that Bird was 'not experimental enough.' That statement is not only demonstrably false, but the exact opposite of your play within the rules theory. Are you a musician by any chance?

Speaking of rules, I understand Coltrane's frustration. Not to jack the thread but I happen to think Metheny's "Day Trip" is one of the best jazz releases of the year and happen to think that Christian McBride, Antonio Sanchez and Pat Metheny are among the top creative jazz musicians of our time. Yet many "purists" shake their head at what they play because it doesn't conform to tradiitional standards. Yet I see them moving the envelope forward.

 

[dvessel]

I like his earlier works but prefer late Coltrane. Especially "Ascension". The first time I heard that, it put me into an alternate state of mind. I felt like I was two feet off the ground. It lead me to getting all his late recordings. They never hit me as hard as Ascension but I still like them very much.