JSngry Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 FWIW, Belden removed all the post-production reverb & reissued the album totally dry. Freaked me out at first (really freaked me out, actually, to the point of almost pissing me off), but it does let everything get heard cleared and better, which is a good thing, because them boys was playin'! And FWIW, and as sstricly a matter of personal taste, I can't say that I've ever heard a Rhodes sound "clean" and "good" at the same time. The "distortion" is part of the characteristic tone that those of us who like Rhodes like about the sound of the Rhodes. Lest anybody scoff at that, I had a guitar geek buddy back in college who would go off on jazz guitarist's bitching about rock player's "distorted" tone. "Listen to Barney Kessell," he'd scream, "that motherfucker's playing through a tube amp with so much distortion built into it that everybody just assumed it was a pure sound. BULLSHIT. You've got to use electronics to get the distortion OUT of an electric guitar sound!" So yeah, Rhodes was not really an "electric piano". It was a Rhodes, an electric "piano". Differnt species altogether, great for some music (like the eternal WHOOOOOSH of Captain Marvel), not so great for others, and downright inappropriate/unacceptable for others, unless the intent was to make it something else. But to put Tommy Flanagan on a Rhodes to play Bebop at face value....why? For such a music of such a supposedly "abstract" nature, a lot of jazz people, players and fans alike, sure do tend to be aggressively literal-minded.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeznuts Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 As far as my own two cents, I'm a major Stan Getz fan (and not a major CC fan, but I liked his work better in that period, probably his best). I remember Sweet Rain as being very beautiful. Stan's solo on Con Alma was a masterpiece. I rember Captain Marvel a bit and I'm sure I would love it if reminded---mostly for Stan. how big a getz fan can you be if you "remember sweet rain" and "remember captain marvel a bit"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFrank Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 I always thought of this album as an off-shoot of the original RTF. I liked it a lot at the time, but it probably wouldn't make any of my Top 10 lists these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 I always thought of this album as an off-shoot of the original RTF. Not sure, but I think this band actually preceded the original RTF. Chick contributes an essay to the reissue that delineates all this. I guess I should give a reread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Many people are highly positive about the Captain Marvel album, but I am not one of them. The electric piano is a big turn off for me. Also many of the tunes on this recording such as"La Fiesta", "Five Hundred Miles High" and the title tune "Captain Marvel" are not to my taste. This is among my least favorite Stan Getz albums. I much prefer the wonderful Getz recordings that came later with Lou Levy or Kenny Barron playing acoustic piano. ' I hear you, but it was still cool, mostly b/c of Stan. Ever hear 'Appassionata', with Kenny for Herb Alpert's label? Also good stuff..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFrank Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 I always thought of this album as an off-shoot of the original RTF. Not sure, but I think this band actually preceded the original RTF. Chick contributes an essay to the reissue that delineates all this. I guess I should give a reread... Actually.......right in the middle of the original RTF. RTF (ECM) - Feb 1972 Capt Marvel - Mar 1972 Light as a Feather - Oct 1972 So we're BOTH right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 No, actually, I am wrong. Chick says in the liners they he had formed the original RTF about a year before hooking up w/Getz, but that work was not constant. So when he heard that Getz had a tour coming up and was looking for a backup band, he carpe diemed & pitched him, Stanley & Airto from RTF + Tony as the band, and the RTF repertoire as the book. Stan went for the idea and the rest, as they say, is history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Yeah, I guess I don't know what all the fuss is with the electric piano. La Fiesta, I think, can't be heard any other way. The introduction is classic Corea electric piano, and I think that an acoustic piano just wouldn't sound the same here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Lest anybody scoff at that, I had a guitar geek buddy back in college who would go off on jazz guitarist's bitching about rock player's "distorted" tone. "Listen to Barney Kessell," he'd scream, "that motherfucker's playing through a tube amp with so much distortion built into it that everybody just assumed it was a pure sound. BULLSHIT. You've got to use electronics to get the distortion OUT of an electric guitar sound!" I think this guy makes too much of amplification regarding Barney. I'm a jazz guitarist that came up through blues and rock---distortion on amps. Barney was a heavy-handed player with a heavy touch. When you do that you sort of can overdrive the amp. Jimmy Raney or Jim Hall, light touch players, could've played the same equipment and it wouldn't have sounded as distorted. When you get into a lot of rock players, they do play the amp because they grew up on solid body electrics and are clueless as to getting a sound from the guitar. This is a misperception musicians and music lovers continue to have about amps, and it's damn annoying. An amplifier is only that, a speaker, an intensifier of what's already there. If a player is loud and with a heavy touch the amp will sound more distorted. Any decent player will tell you the sound comes from you, your touch fed into the acoustical qualities of the instrument. So your friend was as misinformed as many are IMO. Finally, an acoustic piano and a rhodes, or any keyboard, are totally different animals. One has weighted keys, the other a spongy action. (except for, say, a digital) They really are electronic instruments which cannot be heard without amps and have to be approached entirely differently. People are certainly entitled to their taste, though. I've dug Rhodes for certain things. I think they maybe blend better with electric guitars for reasons best left unstated here. Not a huge synth fan. Whatever. Edited February 8, 2009 by fasstrack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 The point about Kessell was that "jazz people" like(d) to bitch about how rock guitarist's use of electronics distorted" the "pure" tone of a guitar when in fact most of them wouldn't know a "pure" tone if it bit them in the ass. I think that's a valid point even today. It's like people who want to nag about pop music's use of post-production while overlooking, hell, probably not even noticing, the splices on so many "classic" sides of the 50s & 60s. Or even worse, praise the same shit in the creation of motion pictures. Making an informed argument on the matter of degree is something I can respect. Making an uninformed one on a "principle" that is at the very least partially imaginary isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 And oh, btw - the "misinformed" person who said that was a guitar player, and a damn good one at that, even then - James Chirillo, spring of 1974, I believe it was. Somewhere back in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 For that matter, the notion that a tube amp (which is what the conversation/comparison/whatever was going on about) is even capable of producing a true, 100% "pure" sound is one that is questionable at best. Some would even call it laughable, but hey, you know how geeky geeks can get... Ok, I'm done now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) And oh, btw - the "misinformed" person who said that was a guitar player, and a damn good one at that, even then - James Chirillo, spring of 1974, I believe it was. Somewhere back in there. James is one of my best friends and he is a hell of a musician. That doesn't sound like anything he would say, though. 1974 was a long time ago, anyway. Edited February 8, 2009 by fasstrack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 And oh, btw - the "misinformed" person who said that was a guitar player, and a damn good one at that, even then - James Chirillo, spring of 1974, I believe it was. Somewhere back in there. James is one of my best friends and he is a hell of a musician. That doesn't sound like anything he would say, though. 2974 was a long time ago, anyway. Well hell, it was 965 years in the future. Maybe he was senile by then. Seriously, the point he was trying to make was simply that there's a lot of chest-thumping about "purity" by people who don't have even half a clue as to what that really means. Good point then, good point now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) The point about Kessell was that "jazz people" like(d) to bitch about how rock guitarist's use of electronics distorted" the "pure" tone of a guitar when in fact most of them wouldn't know a "pure" tone if it bit them in the ass. I think that's a valid point even today. It's like people who want to nag about pop music's use of post-production while overlooking, hell, probably not even noticing, the splices on so many "classic" sides of the 50s & 60s. Or even worse, praise the same shit in the creation of motion pictures. Making an informed argument on the matter of degree is something I can respect. Making an uninformed one on a "principle" that is at the very least partially imaginary isn't. ? Wow, you are intense. You're making like 9 points at once and it's hard to follow. Anyway, why take this shit so seriously? It's all opinion. I do stand by what I said, though. I especially don't get your point about 'informed arguments and principle'. What the hell are you talking about? Explain. BTW, small point, admittedly but isn't it Kessel (one L)? You're confusing my addled brain now--and it don't take much. Edited February 8, 2009 by fasstrack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 OK, now it's making sense. You're talking about hypocracy re 'purity'---is that your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 More like ignorance, but that's a line that you can draw wherever it works for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) More like ignorance, but that's a line that you can draw wherever it works for you. Yeah, ignorance. There's a lot of that going around. Since time-fricking-eternal. What is that, like big news or something? Edited February 8, 2009 by fasstrack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Wow, you are intense. Dude - you're the New Yorker and I'm the Texan. Let's get our stereotypes straight, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 More like ignorance, but that's a line that you can draw wherever it works for you. Yeah, ignorance. There's a lot of that going around. Since time-fricking-eternal. Does that surprise you or something? No, what surprised me is that when they said that the McGriddle had the syrup baked in, they really meant syrup, and they really meant baked in. I did so not see that one coming... I mean, they call that shit "cheese", you'd think that everything would be off the table as far as reality goes. But apparently not. Helluva country, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Wow, you are intense. Dude - you're the New Yorker and I'm the Texan. Let's get our stereotypes straight, please! Everything's big there, right? Like your far-reaching suppositions (as opposed to suppositories...) I'm not only a NYer, BTW, but a NY Jew. I may as well get into a museum diarama, hang there, and be done with it Man, one time I was visiting my friend in London, Frank Griffith (also a friend of Chirillo's). This guy took me to a bar and his department chair was there and shit-faced. The guy kept asking me questions about being a Jew from Riverdale. Would not shut up. Jeez, he got on my nerves. Finally I said "Motherfucker, what do I look like to you, Time Out Magazine with pais?" He pissed me off so much he bought me a drink and I didn't even drink it with him. Edited February 8, 2009 by fasstrack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Well, there you have it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Okay, I just want to say. . . you can design a tube amp with nearly perfect linearity and about as "pure" a sound as a solids state sound. There are many audio amps that are this way. I love them. They don't necessarily make tube guitar amps that way. For a good reason. I love them. Almost every amp in my house, stereo and instrument, has tubes! At the moment the only exception is my Warwick bass amp. Give me time. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Well, there you have it! To quote a TV show title starring that great bard and humanitarian Art Linkletter: "People are Funny". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Okay, I just want to say. . . you can design a tube amp with nearly perfect linearity and about as "pure" a sound as a solids state sound. There are many audio amps that are this way. I love them. They don't necessarily make tube guitar amps that way. For a good reason. I love them. Almost every amp in my house, stereo and instrument, has tubes! At the moment the only exception is my Warwick bass amp. Give me time. . . . Well, Lon you gotta realize that the comment currently under discussion was made in 2974. A lot of things have changed before then. Edited February 8, 2009 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.