The Magnificent Goldberg Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 That said, I enjoy Roland Kirk's version of I Say a Little Prayer for You a lot more than Dionne Warwick's. Do you like Roland Kirk's version more than Aretha Franklin's? Edward, it's been years since I've heard Aretha's version. Thanks for the reminder! Comparing Aretha to an instrumentalist is a bit like apples and oranges, but I'll say that Aretha sings it straight while Roland plays it as a gag. Doesn't sound like a gag to me; 13 minutes of soul. Is his version of "Petite fleur" a gag, as well? MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danasgoodstuff Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 I'd say that the extra-musical (or, for lack of a better word, social) connotations of are a song are just another aspect that a musician can play with and that choosing to ignore them, esp'ly where they are particularly strong, is one way of playing with the audience's expectations just like Monk setting up rhythmic expectations then sidestepping them...I agree that Burt/Hal/dione are soulful in their way, prissy perfectionism is the soul of who they are, as is the hurt that comes through regardless, but not as soulful to me as Aretha or, for that matter, Lefty F., Willie or Merle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 I'd say that the extra-musical (or, for lack of a better word, social) connotations of are a song are just another aspect that a musician can play with and that choosing to ignore them, esp'ly where they are particularly strong, is one way of playing with the audience's expectations just like Monk setting up rhythmic expectations then sidestepping them...I agree that Burt/Hal/dione are soulful in their way, prissy perfectionism is the soul of who they are, as is the hurt that comes through regardless, but not as soulful to me as Aretha or, for that matter, Lefty F., Willie or Merle. You had me till that last sentence... Once it's recognized & acknowledged I don't hink that you can "measure" soul w/o at the same time measuring human worth, and that rapidly becomes a very slippery slope. 101 Strings, yeah, I'm willing to say that that probably has little or no soul. But Dionne/Bachrach vs Aretha is very much a matter of different expressions of different lives, and unless/until we're willing to say that one of those lives is more "meaningful" than the other, then I'm content to let it go that Aretha's (or Willie;s, etc.) "soul" is more easily grasped my "most of us" simply because it resonates closer to our life experiences (or percieved life experieces anyway...) and is more overtly expressed, not that she herself is a human being with more soul or that her music has more intrinsic feeling in it than Dionne's. Granted, Aretha is a force of nature, so perhaps that's not the best example. Probably isn't. But to get all Tristano-ish about it, there is a difference between "emotion" & "feeling". Too often that distinction is not recognized, and too often easy dismissals are made as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danasgoodstuff Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 "too often easy dismissals are made", no doubt about that...but that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't make informed, carefully considered value judgements of all sorts... Not too far apart, I hope...Dana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Not apart at all, as long as we recogognize those value judegements as being exactly that (and treat them accordingly). 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.