Larry Kart

Just picked this up: http://www.amazon.com/Milhaud-Piano-Madeleine-Alexandre-Tharaud/dp/B00000148Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1334844416&sr=1-1 So far it's magical and often quite jazz-like (i.e. the Saudades de Brasil) , or at least it swings -- this thanks to both Milhaud and Tharaud's lovely playing.

Just ordered it

Sorry for the apparent rudeness, but I deleted the semi-duplicate thread on this topic because (damn it!) I've been unable to merge threads for some months now -- used to be able to, but no more. In any case, will people please look to see that there's not already a thread on a topic before starting a new thread yourself.

I too have the Barshai box, and that is good enough for me (though much of the music IMO is mediocre/banal, you name it).

$30 million in a town of 15,000?! What Chuck said.

I'm glad that Herbie acknowledged Chris---who was my friend and whose playing I adore---and that Chris got some play behind Herbie saying he studied with Chris. But I never heard what Herbie got from Chris. Ever. They're both very discursive, rambling, and with great harmonic ears but so, so different. Chris leaves a lot of space, especially in his rubato playing, and to me is a more authentic bluesman, even if he dips in and out. Burt Eckoff, a fine pianist who knew Chris longer and better than me, swears that he has recordings of Herbie where you can hear Chris's influence. I'd like to hear that. I think it's the Chris of the mid to late '50s that Herbie learned from. It's my impression, having heard CA some in-person back then and on the recordings he made around that time, especially the VeeJay album, that he was playing rather differently then than he was in his later "very discursive, rambling" years, fascinating as that later manner was.

Bud Powell?

Mr. Galbraith:

Puma took one of the most beautiful solos on "Body and Soul" changes I've ever heard, on a duo album with Chuck Wayne (who plays his ass off there too), originally on the Choice label: http://www.amazon.com/Interactions-Chuck-Wayne/dp/B006I01KFA Not the track I was thinking of but pretty impressive IMO (Wayne I believe is playing the lower-register "thrumming" figures early on; from there it's up to you): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEanhqHKkuk

As for Green just "punching in some 3-note chords behind" Willette, as Steve Martin used to say of comedy, "It's the tie-ming."

Sure, there's a difference in kind but not necessarily in quality/effectiveness/contextual fit. In fact, I can't imagine John Collins, Mundell Lowe, Jim Hall, etc. playing as effectively behind Willette as Green does. Barry Galbraith anyone? Billy Bauer? Let a thousand flowers bloom, as we/they used to day in the '60s. Or was it the Cultural Revolution when they said that, just before they sent you off to the countryside to be re-educated.

I love Green's minimalist but IMO ideal comping behind Baby Face Willette:

Well they did share something deep on a formal level. Strong clear tone, heavy use of be-bop chromaticism, sure. The deeper the space Raney presented on record with harmony-melody, was matched by what Green alternately presented in blues feeling and rhythmical slipperiness. However, to say that Grant Green idolised Raney (and thereby infer he studied his lines in more than a cursory way) is a different matter. Green did say he spent many hours studying Charlie Parker. And he obviously did the same with Sonny Rollins. It's a similar call perhaps to the arguments about Hancock that often emerge here. ie. Raney-Green as opposed to Hancock-Tristano/Evans. Raney was on record when Grant Green was still learning in St.Louis. And Grant Green didn't/couldn't listen to records when he was still learning in St.Louis? Isn't that when guys tend to do that a good deal? Also, aside from the obvious trait of bluesiness, Green sounds a whole more like Raney than he does like Bird, IMO. Also to idolize is one thing, to dig is another. I said that Green quite likely dug Raney.

Well, I love Grant Green and Jimmy Raney -- so there. The evidence for Green digging Raney may just be that one quote (maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that Green was a guy who made a habit of talking about his music that much), but different though he and Raney sound from several points of view, I think they did share something deep -- a feel for the pull of tonal gravity and how much one could do, rhythmically and melodically, by subtly, linearly pulling against it. In particular, both men knew the secret of how to make one's succession of pitches more or less swing by themselves (as those pitches pulled variously against the tonal gravity), quite apart from how individual notes were attacked. Yes, Raney was quite chaste in not attacking notes much, doing so less often than Green did, but even so, with Green primarily it was the pitches that swung, which is why he sounds a good deal different IMO than a lot of more conventionl bluesy-greasy guitar players. In any case, given that resemblance between Raney and Green, Green's quote, and the fact that Raney was around and prominent when Green was fairly young, I think the possibility was quite possible.

Which of course has little or no connection with the authenticity of the lives of other people let alone the authenticity of the lives of other groups of people, such as they may be. "No man is an island...' You can't worry somebody else into or out of "authenticity". That's for them to do themselves, if they become so concerned. As far as "authentic feelings", geesh, there's a job for a new breed of thought police. Again -- no man is an island. "Authenticity," as dubious a term as that might be, is not only an individual matter but also one of the individual in relation to his social surroundings, such as they may be. And no one (at least not me) said anything about worrying "somebody else into or out of" it.

Which of course has little or no connection with the authenticity of the lives of other people let alone the authenticity of the lives of other groups of people, such as they may be. "No man is an island...'

No, we're not disagreeing, but I think the middle class' penchant for turning critically upon itself needs to be taken into account, and I'm not sure that it's wholly a form of resistance --rather, off the top of my head, it's a kind of semi-unconscious collaborative effort that keeps the whole shebang rolling along.

Or change the title of this thread - Jonathan can do that himself: click on "edit" --> "use full editor" --> thread title at the top. Done.

One thing about the benighted, culturally destructive middle class -- it's generated its own most adamant and at times most trenchant critics, who proceed to attack along just those lines. See previous post. Thus some rethinking of the dynamic here would seem to be in order. And it often works that way in creative terms, too. Mike Bloomfield was a child of the middle class if ever there was one.

"Since I know Larry Kart and Allen Lowe are as knowledgeable a pair as there is in the world of jazz..." Oh, my God, no!

Just listened to all the electronic Herbie cuts that Jim and others have posted, and I have to say that I like them all much more than I do "Speak Like A Child." Seriously.

Oh, they get the Blues in Scarsdale, too, Baby! Oh, they get the Blues in Scarsdale, too, Baby! The yogurt shop's out of Cappucino Supreme and my 401K is down to $1 million, maybe!

That was among my points, I think, though I'd rather say, again, that timbre can become rhythm, just as any other parameter (sorry for that word) can become any other (as in take on some of the essential in-action language qualities of the other in the course of the making). Fpr me, "is" a tad too determinative; it tends to imply that rhythm (or something else, but in this case rhythm) is the obvious, righteous boss. Tain't always so, McGhee -- not IMO. Show me anything that happens at any level without vibration, and you'll be showing me something that doesn't exist. Everything is vibration. Now, if it suits your personal frame of reference to say that vibration is boss instead of rhythm, that's a deal I'll make on nothing more than a smile and a handshake, no problem. I'm good for that one. But- once you get past semantics and general usage oversimplifications of "rhythm = beat" and the like, I don't see how you get around vibration & rhythm being the same thing. Sure, nothing happens at any level without vibration, just as nothing in the material world happens unless atomic particles are whirling around and bumping into and off of each other, but the thoughts, acts, and reactions of human beings are not caused by atomic motion. At the micro level where vibration is everything, there are one would think no rhythms, because at that micro level no human ear can perceive or differentiate, nor can human muscles or machines generate, a vibration that can't be broken down further to the universal vibratory hum. Even the subtlest rhythms one is aware of take place many levels (of perception and action) above the micro one where vibration is everything. My point then is that while all the musical parameters -- rhythm, harmony, melody, and timbre -- are vibratory, even the subtlest perceivers and actors among us deal with them at a level well above the micro level where vibration is everything (that's "above" not in terms of value but as in a level where things are more coalesced -- think perhaps of sounds< words in a specific language< sentences in that language, etc.) .

@ Ben -- by "modal jazz" ( in quotes), I meant "the Miles/Evans modal project" and what flowed from it, not the Coltrane-Tyner thing. First, the Miles/Evans thing and all that flowed from it came first; second, it was (so I think) significantly about "protecting from disturbance a potentially fragile lyrical growth" -- which was not at all the case with Coltrane-Tyner; their music was about (if you will) the fact or the illusion of intense expressionistic heat (as you yourself pointed out a few post ago, Ben, in speaking of Tyner's differences from Hancock).

That was among my points, I think, though I'd rather say, again, that timbre can become rhythm, just as any other parameter (sorry for that word) can become any other (as in take on some of the essential in-action language qualities of the other in the course of the making). Fpr me, "is" a tad too determinative; it tends to imply that rhythm (or something else, but in this case rhythm) is the obvious, righteous boss. Tain't always so, McGhee -- not IMO.