Steve Catanzaro wrote:
> Hey Elson!
>
> re: 7-8 guys being a pain in the a** to work with. Well, look at the
> Beatles, as a perfect example. There's 4 guys, who, after a while, couldn't
> get along. But I think it's generally agreed that individually, they haven't
> been able to produce what they did as a group.
as a contrast, i prefer both bryan ferry & brian eno *post* roxy music...
> Even though doing it yourself can be fun, (I'm talking music making, here),
> it seems to me the emphasis on the one-man producer-musician takes some of
> the interaction (i.e. chemistry) out of it. This seems especially true with
> jazz. In fact, Ellington was the master at getting individuals to relate
> together in a group setting.
what about solo pianists (e.g. art tatum)? sometimes one wants to get the idea
from the head to the speaker with as little outside influence as possible. i've
seen people that were in bands that made much better music once they didn't have
to rely on getting others to play what they wanted.
> As for retro vs. the future. Yeah, I think looking back, ala the Acid Jazz
> movement, may in fact be dead... but, I wonder if the real problems lie in
> the fact that there just aren't alot of real creative musicians playing
> instruments other than sampler right now. Is learning saxophone, or piano,
> etc., a dead end these days?
i don't think the problem is with playing instruments. i think that often
musicians assume that if they are proficient on their instrument that will be
enough. to illustrate my point, i listened to a cd today that someone gave me
and the tunes and playing were great, but the production sucked. they used the
same drum sounds and the guitar and all sounded exactly the same on each
tune--which made it boring! the bar has been raised on production
values--you're responsible to make your music sound good in addition to being
played well. as far as the acid-jazz movement thing, it was too hard for people
outside of the circle to understand what was going on--sure death for a
movement. in order to turn something into a real movement, you have to interest
people that aren't "heads" in addition to the core constituents. think about
hiphop--not just heads listen to hiphop.
> Or then again, maybe people just don't know how to appreciate real
> musicians? I mean, Charlie Hunter is just too bad... how many records is he
> selling? And, if not many, is that his fault, our fault, or both?
what charlie hunter can do is amazing. the problem (imo) is that he giving
people that aren't musicians less & less reason to listen to him--it's getting
too abstract.
> BTW, isn't it wierd that so many "categories" of music are defined solely by
> the rhythm programming alone? (2-Step, Happy Hardcore, Garage,
> blahblahblah.) It's as if the programming has transcended all else; melody,
> harmony, etc.
remember samba, mambo, cha cha cha & bossa nova? those are all defined by the
rhythm, not the melody or the harmony...
> Back in the day, Chopin wrote "waltzes" and "mazurkas" which were pieces
> dictated by the rhythm. But, his personal stamp was undeniable. You can tell
> its him in the first few notes. Are we getting as many "personal" musical
> statements nowadays?
i (and many others) can tell when dj premier is on the production tip within a
few bars. one could say the same for photek or mj cole.
> Still raging against machines as I chop, slice, cut and paste,
> Steve (an e-trinity fan, btw)
what i like is music that is musical enough to be interesting when you're *not*
dancing, but not so musician-oriented as to not be dance inducing...
-t
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 12:52:23 CET