Kind of Blue - Mostly Other People Do the Killing

[Larry Kart]

Iconoclasm in this case might better thought of as"dicking around." Yes, the plan is for the fuss to become to some degree self-generating on our part, at least for a while -- if only because the actual "music-making" effort here is IMO so inept -- but Duchamp's urinal was put in place back in 1917 and was not IIRC full of fake "actual" urine.

[Larry Kart]

If those guys were really hip, rather than referencing Borges and, by implication, Duchamp, they would have linked up instead to Joe Schmidt, former star linebacker and then head coach for the Detroit Lions and author of the mantra "Life is a shit sandwich, and every day you take another bite."

[Hot Ptah]

Listening to this right now. Fascinating. It's very different, while being quite the same. An experience slightly different than I anticipated.

Well now, here is a novel approach--actually LISTENING to the album that everyone is discussing so much. I wonder how this discussion may have changed if everyone who has commented on this thread had first heard the album in its entirety..

[jazzbo]

The Iverson quote from the blog entry above that stuck with me:

I'm blogging about it mainly because I have heard so many musicians and fans react in horror. I'm afraid to tell all these folks this, but it's true: You have already had a sincere and strong reaction to the conceptual art, so therefore you have already validated the work.

[Big Beat Steve]

Iconoclasm in this case might better thought of as"dicking around." Yes, the plan is for the fuss to become to some degree self-generating on our part, at least for a while -- if only because the actual "music-making" effort here is IMO so inept -- but Duchamp's urinal was put in place back in 1917 and was not IIRC full of fake "actual" urine.

I hate to distract or derail this discussion, but talking about the idea of reproducing a known piece of music NOTE BY NOTE (as really seems to be the postulated intention here), do you condone or (even) appreciate the approach those big band coypcats followed with the TIME-LIFE series or don't you?

Not that I would want to FORCE this subject into the ongoing discussion but the two approaches strike me as being fairly comparable, and assuming that MOPDTK master their instruments well enough to tackle such a project at all, I would really like to know where the "ineptitude" comes in.

Knowing that the big bands that tackled those big band charts for TIME LIFE of course had loads of technically proficient players too, would that mean that if the one project is inept, so is the other?

Or where exactly is the "ineptitude", assuming it is NOT in the mastery of the instruments?

[Van Basten II]

The Iverson quote from the blog entry above that stuck with me:

I'm blogging about it mainly because I have heard so many musicians and fans react in horror. I'm afraid to tell all these folks this, but it's true: You have already had a sincere and strong reaction to the conceptual art, so therefore you have already validated the work.

Bingo , the performance is not the guys redoing the music, it's in the reaction of the people at the idea of redoing the music.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Van Basten II

[Larry Kart]

Iconoclasm in this case might better thought of as"dicking around." Yes, the plan is for the fuss to become to some degree self-generating on our part, at least for a while -- if only because the actual "music-making" effort here is IMO so inept -- but Duchamp's urinal was put in place back in 1917 and was not IIRC full of fake "actual" urine.

I hate to distract or derail this discussion, but talking about the idea of reproducing a known piece of music NOTE BY NOTE (as really seems to be the postulated intention here), do you condone or (even) appreciate the approach those big band coypcats followed with the TIME-LIFE series or don't you?

Not that I would want to FORCE this subject into the ongoing discussion but the two approaches strike me as being fairly comparable, and assuming that MOPDTK master their instruments well enough to tackle such a project at all, I would really like to know where the "ineptitude" comes in.

Knowing that the big bands that tackled those big band charts for TIME LIFE of course had loads of technically proficient players too, would that mean that if the one project is inept, so is the other?

Or where exactly is the "ineptitude", assuming it is NOT in the mastery of the instruments?

No, I don't think they're at all comparable. The TIME-LIFE series basically was a marketing decision based on the actual or supposed tastes of the hi-fi stereo era. That is, the original recordings were felt to be sonically inferior by then current standards, and if new state-of-the-art (in sonic terms) recordings that recreated the originals as closely as possible (in musical terms) were issued, the hope was that they would sell on the basis of their supposed sonic superiority. There were no "conceptual" issues involved, nor do I know of any reviewer of note who praised those recordings in musical terms in relation to the originals. Interestingly, perhaps, trends in sonic restoration/refurbishing that came in later on, during the CD era, led to the re-emergence in would-be restored/refurbished form of many of the original recordings of the bands of the '30s and '40s. I would imagine that as a whole that this bunch of reissues sold as well or better than the TIME-LIFE recreations.

As for the “inept” claim, some specifics, based on MOPTDK's "All Blues":

The whole conceptual thing was based on the idea that they had successfully/precisely reproduced the original recording; and they haven't. From the opening piano tremolo on, it's off -- sometime subtly so, sometimes grossly. The trumpeter sounds quite tense, as well he might; I know Evans' work, and his musical temperament is miles away (so to speak) from Davis'. Trying to shoehorn his typically agitated, multi-noted self into Davis' relaxed phrases screws up his own sense of timing and thus that of the would-be copying. The altoist has an easier time of it with Cannonball's greasiness, but it's still not precise; and the tenor solo is such a mess that I hardly know where to begin. He has been practicing to do this thing for how long? Sounds like this was maybe his second shot at it. And piano solo lacks Evans' timing and touch as much as Peter Evans lacked Miles' time and tone. And any comparison between this drummer and Jimmy Cobb is to laugh. I was going to say some other things before I heard this, but the actuality of how lame this turns out to be has kind of wiped my mind clean.

As for this piece of "conceptual" hoo-haa from the interview with the band:

"...they are going to be listening to us and meticulously trying to find moments where we deviate from the original text that are, like, a tell, and think, “Yeah that doesn’t quite sound like Miles Davis because when he misses that note, it’s a little bit different.” Or when you do that side key trill on the alto, I can tell it’s not Cannonball.

So then it’s like, why don’t you listen to all music like that? Hopefully, this will wake people up. Everyone should be listening, on some level, to everything like that. What are all these tiny little nuances doing in there? Maybe the least interesting about the music is the notes."

Well, their own "tiny little nuances" strike me as at once inept and pointless because, as I said or implied above, they seemingly arise not from more or less personal expressive reasons (as was the case with the members of Miles' band) but as a result of the practical problems these guys run into in the act of copying; they sound tense and anxious, as well (to repeat myself) they might.

[David Ayers]

So don't agree. It's a great idea and everyone should do it. I want more. I remember the most famous solo on that record note for note. That said I haven't played it for years even though I have rebought it even recently on CD. I actually don't care for KoB. I'd like a remake of ESP next. How many jazz albums stand scrutiny for every track and solo? They should all be redone.

Inept? Who said music was easy?

Edited October 15, 2014 by David Ayers

[clifford_thornton]

Listening to this right now. Fascinating. It's very different, while being quite the same. An experience slightly different than I anticipated.

Well now, here is a novel approach--actually LISTENING to the album that everyone is discussing so much. I wonder how this discussion may have changed if everyone who has commented on this thread had first heard the album in its entirety..

Totally. I did listen to it before posting. I don't know if I'm "fascinated" by it but it's curious and I agree that it's "different, while being quite the same."

Of course I'd reach for any of their other records as individuals or a band before this one, but whatever. Sangrey is definitely right on - the sacred cow has been turned into delicious steaks, eaten, and shit out long ago.

[AllenLowe]

people keep saying that the fact that other people are talking about this album shows that it was an important thing to do, and proves that it is art - but, you know, I'm always talking about my rash, and that doesn't make it art; unless someone here starts talking about it too, I guess.

but the truth is that this band has never been more than a musical gimmick, so this project is consistent with their past accomplishments.

Edited October 15, 2014 by AllenLowe

[Guy Berger]

Granted, maybe the O-Forums are an unrepresentative sample of people who have actually heard of this project, but describing the negative reactions as "horror" seems melodramatic and straw-mannish. Moreover, none that I've noticed seem to have the premise "OMG THEY DESECRATED KOB".

[Dan Gould]

Couldn't care less about the group or the recording but I will give them this - they've created the ultimate BFT track.

How long before someone uses this??

[ep1str0phy]

Watching this furor unfold from the sidelines has been astonishing--I've counted multiple Facebook posts on this topic whose comment sections exceed a count of 300, and I think the last time this happened with regard to a topic "in jazz" is when the New Yorker published it's incredibly short-sighted Sonny Rollins "satire" a few months back.

Tangential but very much related: I've been preoccupied with rediscovering the work of Jimi Hendrix lately, and after my efforts dovetailed at obsessive listening to Electric Ladyland, I began to get excited about the prospect of conceptualizing the sort of music Hendrix would have made had he lasted past '70--it was nothing more than an inspirational thought experiment, albeit a very fruitful one. That being said, this is a similar line of thought to what got us Valleys of Neptune, which was a supposedly "new" album of unearthed Hendrix recordings that really only repackaged demos, remixes, and run-throughs of tertiary importance. This is a double-edged sword of heralding genius: (1) it can inspire you, while at the same time (2) tethering you to the psychology of hero worship.

A few things seem very clear to me: (a) this is not a malicious or self-consciously crass attempt at riling up press for MOPDTK--like many (particularly Iverson) have noted, it's an attempt at conceptual art. To be fair, you can't record something like Blue without full cognizance of how audacious and infuriating the very idea of it is, but this is that band's wheelhouse--and I'll admit that (however much I admire all four of the band members) MOPDTK's aggressive leanings toward irony are not my taste. But like Jimmy Cobb said, "If these guys took the time to do this, the music must have meant something to them." You can't sit through hours of transcription, listening, practice, and rehearsal for what is merely a crass joke--the nuances on the posted version of "All Blues" are way too finely drawn for that. You'd either have to be an artist or a psychopath to do this.

(b) The notion that a project like this will engender deeper listening to the original Kind of Blue is nonsense and self-defeating. The very fact that MOPDTK attempted to even do this is a testament to the fact that listening to music in this way is already a part of the modern technician's toolkit--they're using the same basic transcriptional skills that every trained jazz musician has foisted upon them at the outset of learning. Moreover, it strike me as preaching to the choir--the only people who would be willing to listen to the differences between KoB and Blue are the very people who have listened to Kind of Blue hundreds of time already, so there you go.

© There is a really important "take away" from this, and it isn't so much that we are "not discussing new music" when the discussion of Blue takes up pages upon pages of text. This is the reason I thought to add my voice to this overstuffed conversation at all-

The issue isn't that the modern jazz audiences isn't willing to listen to new music--this is itself a highly condescending way of thinking. I'd wager that the majority of the posters on this thread could name any number of artists who have emerged in the past 5-10 years who are making interesting, legitimately thrilling music, much of it an extension of the ostensible jazz tradition. There are many posts on this very forum confirming that fact.

The problem is not with our listening habits as with the critical preoccupation with jazz as a closed form--we only get shit shows like this when someone is offended by how some aspect of this music rubs up against tradition. Remember Badbadnotgood? That entire conversation was predicated on how the technical ability of a trio of music students stacked up against their more thoroughly schooled "seniors," and how the relatively minute amount of positive press they'd accrued had somehow distracted from less-gimmicky, more qualified artists. The same thing happened with the Bad Plus, though they had very clear jazz chops, and the conversation was more about the validity of utilizing pop music as an inroads to a new listener base (somehow this was supposed to "corrupt" the music). As for Iverson--does anyone remember when he shat on Steve McCall's drumming on Air Lore? It was essentially because McCall's drumming was outside of the pocket of early jazz tradition. And unlike Blue, Air Lore was supposed to be a fucked up free jazz take on tradition.

The greater issue at stake is not whether new music can be appreciated by the appropriate listener base, but why it is so difficult for a project of new jazz/creative music to get any publicity. If jazz were defined by its clickbait and viral discussions, it would most certainly seem stuffy, self-invested, obsessed with only a dozen or so musicians, and deeply conservative--this is not the "reality" of most musicians and listeners I know, but it most certainly is the "reality" that MOPDTK are engaging with via Blue. There's plenty of new and innovative music out there, but it's drowned out by the noise of bullshit.

Depressingly, most people, even enterprising listeners, still communicative and absorb information through our well-trodden media outlets--this makes it no easier to get publicity for music that is against the grain. The only thing left to do is hustle, create, and (like the good people on this board) let people know when you hear something cool.

[JSngry]

...they're using the same basic transcriptional skills that every trained jazz musician has foisted upon them at the outset of learning.

That was the very first thing I thought about when I heard about this project, that this used to be something you'd do as, at best, a learning tool, maybe even as a challenging goof, certainly not something you'd do as an album, and certainly not something you'd try to sell to anybody!

So...apparently times have changed, and now it is, this is the type of thing you can get people to take seriously because it forces them to think or something equally inspirational to the betterment of thinking about thinking about things.

How 'bout that!

[xybert]

Someone should attempt to replicate the MOPDTK version of KOB as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version etc in to infinity!

Whoa.

[ejp626]

Someone should attempt to replicate the MOPDTK version of KOB as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version etc in to infinity!

Whoa.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a KOB/John Cage 4'33" mash-up where you release an album with the exact same timings as KOB (the corrected version) but the only think you hear are some random rustlings in the studio -- and the members of MOPDTK trying not to giggle.

[JSngry]

Someone should attempt to replicate the MOPDTK version of KOB as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version etc in to infinity!

Whoa.

And make YouTube videos of people watching people watching people watching people listening to it, on to infinity. And then do a deluxe box set of all these replications that includes a free webcam so you can watch yourself watch yourself listening and watching to other people listening to and watching it.

I mean, you really don't have to leave the house to be entertained these days, the thrills just keep multiplying on their own, and all you have to do is watch from home.

Perfect world!

[Chuck Nessa]

Someone should attempt to replicate the MOPDTK version of KOB as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version as exactly as possible and release it, and then someone should try to replicate that version etc in to infinity!

Whoa.

And make YouTube videos of people watching people watching people watching people listening to it, on to infinity. And then do a deluxe box set of all these replications that includes a free webcam so you can watch yourself watch yourself listening and watching to other people listening to and watching it.

I mean, you really don't have to leave the house to be entertained these days, the thrills just keep multiplying on their own, and all you have to do is watch from home.

Perfect world!

That's exactly how I see it.

[JSngry]

Kind Of Blue will bring the world together as one unibrained monosouled eco/psycho system.

And then we'll have world peace.

[JSngry]

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=kindofblue&t=1000&a=n

[jazzbo]

Watching this furor unfold from the sidelines has been astonishing--I've counted multiple Facebook posts on this topic whose comment sections exceed a count of 300, and I think the last time this happened with regard to a topic "in jazz" is when the New Yorker published it's incredibly short-sighted Sonny Rollins "satire" a few months back.

Tangential but very much related: I've been preoccupied with rediscovering the work of Jimi Hendrix lately, and after my efforts dovetailed at obsessive listening to Electric Ladyland, I began to get excited about the prospect of conceptualizing the sort of music Hendrix would have made had he lasted past '70--it was nothing more than an inspirational thought experiment, albeit a very fruitful one. That being said, this is a similar line of thought to what got us Valleys of Neptune, which was a supposedly "new" album of unearthed Hendrix recordings that really only repackaged demos, remixes, and run-throughs of tertiary importance. This is a double-edged sword of heralding genius: (1) it can inspire you, while at the same time (2) tethering you to the psychology of hero worship.

A few things seem very clear to me: (a) this is not a malicious or self-consciously crass attempt at riling up press for MOPDTK--like many (particularly Iverson) have noted, it's an attempt at conceptual art. To be fair, you can't record something like Blue without full cognizance of how audacious and infuriating the very idea of it is, but this is that band's wheelhouse--and I'll admit that (however much I admire all four of the band members) MOPDTK's aggressive leanings toward irony are not my taste. But like Jimmy Cobb said, "If these guys took the time to do this, the music must have meant something to them." You can't sit through hours of transcription, listening, practice, and rehearsal for what is merely a crass joke--the nuances on the posted version of "All Blues" are way too finely drawn for that. You'd either have to be an artist or a psychopath to do this.

(b) The notion that a project like this will engender deeper listening to the original Kind of Blue is nonsense and self-defeating. The very fact that MOPDTK attempted to even do this is a testament to the fact that listening to music in this way is already a part of the modern technician's toolkit--they're using the same basic transcriptional skills that every trained jazz musician has foisted upon them at the outset of learning. Moreover, it strike me as preaching to the choir--the only people who would be willing to listen to the differences between KoB and Blue are the very people who have listened to Kind of Blue hundreds of time already, so there you go.

© There is a really important "take away" from this, and it isn't so much that we are "not discussing new music" when the discussion of Blue takes up pages upon pages of text. This is the reason I thought to add my voice to this overstuffed conversation at all-

The issue isn't that the modern jazz audiences isn't willing to listen to new music--this is itself a highly condescending way of thinking. I'd wager that the majority of the posters on this thread could name any number of artists who have emerged in the past 5-10 years who are making interesting, legitimately thrilling music, much of it an extension of the ostensible jazz tradition. There are many posts on this very forum confirming that fact.

The problem is not with our listening habits as with the critical preoccupation with jazz as a closed form--we only get shit shows like this when someone is offended by how some aspect of this music rubs up against tradition. Remember Badbadnotgood? That entire conversation was predicated on how the technical ability of a trio of music students stacked up against their more thoroughly schooled "seniors," and how the relatively minute amount of positive press they'd accrued had somehow distracted from less-gimmicky, more qualified artists. The same thing happened with the Bad Plus, though they had very clear jazz chops, and the conversation was more about the validity of utilizing pop music as an inroads to a new listener base (somehow this was supposed to "corrupt" the music). As for Iverson--does anyone remember when he shat on Steve McCall's drumming on Air Lore? It was essentially because McCall's drumming was outside of the pocket of early jazz tradition. And unlike Blue, Air Lore was supposed to be a fucked up free jazz take on tradition.

The greater issue at stake is not whether new music can be appreciated by the appropriate listener base, but why it is so difficult for a project of new jazz/creative music to get any publicity. If jazz were defined by its clickbait and viral discussions, it would most certainly seem stuffy, self-invested, obsessed with only a dozen or so musicians, and deeply conservative--this is not the "reality" of most musicians and listeners I know, but it most certainly is the "reality" that MOPDTK are engaging with via Blue. There's plenty of new and innovative music out there, but it's drowned out by the noise of bullshit.

Depressingly, most people, even enterprising listeners, still communicative and absorb information through our well-trodden media outlets--this makes it no easier to get publicity for music that is against the grain. The only thing left to do is hustle, create, and (like the good people on this board) let people know when you hear something cool.

Thanks for this post.

[Teasing the Korean]

All of this reminds me of why I both love and hate jazz, increasingly the latter.

[JSngry]

Yeah, when you reach the point that all you can think about is thinking about what you already know you think about, it's probably best to find something else to think about.

[Head Man]

Yeah, when you reach the point that all you can think about is thinking about what you already know you think about, it's probably best to find something else to think about.

... or to stop thinking, perhaps?

[JSngry]

Well, good luck on that, but yeah, if you can block out your thinking while you're thinking and still remain conscious, that's always another route to pursue.

Or, if you mean, let your thinking do your thinking for you, then yeah, that's about as good as it gets, really, as long as it doesn't get you confined, or puts you in a position to be confined.

Maybe Mostly Other People Do The Thinking? Or, at least, THAT much thinking?

Loops. Loops and spirals.