| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NPR reports on new brain research music
Heard on NPR this AM the results of some more work done with regard to the
brain processing music. Scientists found that if the person under test was familiar with the music being played, and the music was interrupted briefly, the person was unawares and the brain continues to "fill in the blanks". If the music was unfamiliar, this did not happen. This "memory" appeared to occur in the area of the brain associated with musical processing; it was not clear from the report whether other areas were involved as well. I think the most important implication of this is how little we really know about how we hear, especially with regard to processing music. However, to my hobby horse (you knew I'd get there eventually, right? :-) I wonder if this may be involved with our ongoing disputes over testing. The scientist found the brain would seamlessly fill in the sound for 3-5 seconds (remember Oohashi's team also found a "lag" in the time it took for emotional response to build or subside). Is it not possible, therefore, that the "no difference" null from quick-switch blind testing results from the brain not really hearing the switch, but rather overriding it, so that there is no apparent change unless there is a radically (.5 db?) difference in volume or frequency response. Could this be why some audiophiles feel they learn more from alternately listening to the same (remembered) piece of music over and over again, switching (but not instantaneously)? Is it possible that people familiar with live acoustic music have brains that can do more of this "fill in the blanks" when hearing reproduced music, and that the better the reproduction, the more this "fill in the blanks" provides the emotional satisfaction of the live event, and the audiophile to rate the equipment in the chain as allowing a pretty good "live" facsimile? None of this is posted as "being true". All of it is posted as "what if" or "could it be" hypothesis. Wish I had chosen this field for study...there must be years of work an avid audiophile could do as follow up to some of the recent findings (hard-wired "rhythm" and "harmonic" patterns, for example). Harry Lavo "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" -- Duke Ellington |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Heard on NPR this AM the results of some more work done with regard to the brain processing music. Scientists found that if the person under test was familiar with the music being played, and the music was interrupted briefly, the person was unawares and the brain continues to "fill in the blanks". Somewhat related to this is the curious fact that so many professional and/or serious musicians who have truly crappy home audio systems. What seems to happen is that even though the system is in the boombox class of performance, their brains seem to fill in what is missing. Musicians listen for harmonic structure, counterpoint, and how the various components of a song work together. It strikes me that the things that audiophiles treasure are very much sensual - imaging, timbre, tonal balance, etc. To illustrate my point, I have a short video clip at my web site you might want to pull down and take a listen to. It's a trombone quartet consisting of four young women, whom I later learned are from Scotland. These women are really strong players and the quality of their performance comes through very well, even though the sound quality is that of an AM radio. http://www.button.com/Russ/videos/bones01.wmv I think the most important implication of this is how little we really know about how we hear, especially with regard to processing music. It's one thing to listen for the sensual pleasures that a great home audio system can produce. It's quite another to listen for musical content. Harry Lavo "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" -- Duke Ellington Russ Button Since we're quoting great musicians here... "You don't necessarily learn about jazz in school. Many folks have this idea that jazz means you're up there on the bandstand playing whatever comes into your head, and hopefully when you're done the other cats will be about done, too. It isn't like that at all. Jazz improvisation is the creation of blues-based melodies in the context of harmonic, rhythmic, and timbral variation. There's a logic to its imposition of order on what would otherwise be chaos. And we all create the logic as we go along. The most important emotion in jazz is joy. But you don't create that joy just by feeling good. You create it by feeling terrible. Worse than that. About all the bull**** that has been put on people and continues to be heaped on. You have an empathy, a desire to improve things, to say stuff can be another way, not just about black people but the spiritual condition of all people. You've got to play. Together. You can't play jazz alone." Wynton Marsalis - "Jazz in the Bittersweet Blues of Life" |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Heard on NPR this AM the results of some more work done with regard to the brain processing music. I bet I know where this is going... ;-) Scientists found that if the person under test was familiar with the music being played, and the music was interrupted briefly, the person was unawares and the brain continues to "fill in the blanks". If the music was unfamiliar, this did not happen. This "memory" appeared to occur in the area of the brain associated with musical processing; it was not clear from the report whether other areas were involved as well. I think the most important implication of this is how little we really know about how we hear, especially with regard to processing music. Do hearing and processing music have anything to do with one another? This study appears to suggest not. After all, subjects are shown to "process music" even when they aren't hearing anything at all! That should be an early clue to how far off the trail you are about to wander. However, to my hobby horse (you knew I'd get there eventually, right? :-) I wonder if this may be involved with our ongoing disputes over testing. The scientist found the brain would seamlessly fill in the sound for 3-5 seconds (remember Oohashi's team also found a "lag" in the time it took for emotional response to build or subside). Is it not possible, therefore, that the "no difference" null from quick-switch blind testing results from the brain not really hearing the switch, but rather overriding it, so that there is no apparent change unless there is a radically (.5 db?) difference in volume or frequency response. Lots of things are possible, but this study (at least as you have described it) provides no basis for such speculation. Now, if the study showed that people continued to "process" a piece of music when the testers switched to a different piece of music, then I might at least entertain the possibility that you are right. But anyone who's ever had that happen to them knows that what you actually hear very quickly overrides what you had been expecting to hear. It is inconceivable that switching to the *same* piece of music with some partial loudness differences would have the opposite effect. Could this be why some audiophiles feel they learn more from alternately listening to the same (remembered) piece of music over and over again, switching (but not instantaneously)? No. The reason some audiophiles feel that way is because it allows them to use psychoacoustic illusion to get the result they want--namely, proof that they have particularly discerning hearing. Is it possible that people familiar with live acoustic music have brains that can do more of this "fill in the blanks" when hearing reproduced music, and that the better the reproduction, the more this "fill in the blanks" provides the emotional satisfaction of the live event, and the audiophile to rate the equipment in the chain as allowing a pretty good "live" facsimile? Lots of things are possible, but this study (at least as you have described it) provides no basis for such speculation. Now, if the study had compared subjects' ability to fill in the blanks when listening to live music and recorded music, and found they did better when the live music stopped, then I might at least entertain the possibility that you are right. But that's not what this study compared; it compared people familiar with a piece of music to people unfamiliar to a piece of music. (Which, by the way, has nothing whatever to do with familiarity with "the sound of live acoustic music," if that were even a meaningful concept.) Furthermore, this study offers no evidence that this fill-in-the-blank skill is related to emotional satisfaction; the test was based on familiarity alone. Consider again the apparent disconnect between what people hear and what they process. Why should we believe that this disconnect occurs only when the music stops? Isn't it equally possible that, while we are actually listening to a piece of music that we are familiar with, our brain is processing it in some idealized form, and it is that idealized version that we are conscious of, rather than the sonically imperfect reproduction we are listening to? Doesn't this study suggest that it might be better, in listening comparisons, to use music you are *unfamiliar* with? Answer: No, it does not suggest that, any more than it bolsters any of your speculations. I just wanted to show you how easy it is to play this game. None of this is posted as "being true". All of it is posted as "what if" or "could it be" hypothesis. Wish I had chosen this field for study...there must be years of work an avid audiophile could do as follow up to some of the recent findings (hard-wired "rhythm" and "harmonic" patterns, for example). Sure. Those are very interesting topics, which is why scientists are researching them, rather than trying to prove that DBTs are flawed. bob |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Heard on NPR this AM the results of some more work done with regard to the brain processing music. [huge snippage] Two words: Daniel Dennett Read Dennett's works on human perception, conciousness, how our sensory apparatus informs our awareness, and (especially) how the entire concept of the brain "filling in" information that doesn't exits is complete horse puckey. Read and learn. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Since we're quoting great musicians here... [snip] Wynton Marsalis - "Jazz in the Bittersweet Blues of Life" With all due respect, Wynton may be a fantastic trumpet player, but he is an embarassment (and nothing more) when it comes to intellectual observations on what Jazz "is". Not even close. Not even in the same galaxy. Somebody shut that man up. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... Heard on NPR this AM the results of some more work done with regard to the brain processing music. Scientists found that if the person under test was familiar with the music being played, and the music was interrupted briefly, the person was unawares and the brain continues to "fill in the blanks". If the music was unfamiliar, this did not happen. This "memory" appeared to occur in the area of the brain associated with musical processing; it was not clear from the report whether other areas were involved as well. A more studied parallel is the filling in the blanks associated with visionary information. If you walk into a room, have a look around and come out again, you think you have looked at most things in that room and think you now know what that room is like. However, if you attatch sensors to the eyes and brain, it is shown that you only actually look at a few key points and the brain fills in the rest with what it expects to see based on stored images and previous experiences. In reality you see very little, yet have no idea this process is happening. It seems logical that at least some form of this would occur in auditory processing too. Gareth. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Do hearing and processing music have anything to do with one another?
This study appears to suggest not. After all, subjects are shown to "process music" even when they aren't hearing anything at all! Haven't you ever heard of persistence of vision? Eyes work this way also. When watch a movie, you are actually looking at a black screen about half the time. This study shows that we process vision and hearing in much the same way. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Somewhat related to this is the curious fact that so many professional and/or serious musicians who have truly crappy home audio systems. What seems to happen is that even though the system is in the boombox class of performance, their brains seem to fill in what is missing. Or maybe nothing's missing, at least nothing that a musician needs. Which suggests an obvious question: What is it that audiophiles "need" that musicians don't? Musicians listen for harmonic structure, counterpoint, and how the various components of a song work together. Sometimes, when they're thinking about a work on a technical level. But they also listen just to listen, like the rest of us. It strikes me that the things that audiophiles treasure are very much sensual - imaging, timbre, tonal balance, etc. I don't think you really mean to say that musicians aren't sensual in their listening. It would be more correct, I think, to say that musicians and audiophiles, when they are listening on a technical level, are listening to different things.Imaging, timbre, and tonal balance, are technical factors, just like harmonic structure, etc. bob |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Ross wrote:
Russ Button wrote: Since we're quoting great musicians here... [snip] Wynton Marsalis - "Jazz in the Bittersweet Blues of Life" With all due respect, Wynton may be a fantastic trumpet player, but he is an embarassment (and nothing more) when it comes to intellectual observations on what Jazz "is". Not even close. Not even in the same galaxy. Somebody shut that man up. I've only been playing big band swing for a bit more than 30 years and I like what Wynton had to say. Seeing as how Wynton was playing with Art Blakey at the age of 18, has at least a dozen recordings to his name, and is the leader of the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra, it struck me that there might be some merit to what he had to say. Opinions are just that. They are not gospel. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what jazz is, and what credentials you have to support your assertions. Russ |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Ross" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: Heard on NPR this AM the results of some more work done with regard to the brain processing music. [huge snippage] Two words: Daniel Dennett Read Dennett's works on human perception, conciousness, how our sensory apparatus informs our awareness, and (especially) how the entire concept of the brain "filling in" information that doesn't exits is complete horse puckey. Read and learn. Okay, here are the exact words from the NPR website summary. Read and learn. "Morning Edition, March 14, 2005 · Researchers at Dartmouth College find the "iPod of the brain." They've learned that the brain's auditory cortex, the part that handles information from our ears, holds on to musical memories. " The link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4533543 |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Mar 2005 00:48:53 GMT, "Bob Ross" wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: Heard on NPR this AM the results of some more work done with regard to the brain processing music. [huge snippage] Two words: Daniel Dennett Read Dennett's works on human perception, conciousness, how our sensory apparatus informs our awareness, and (especially) how the entire concept of the brain "filling in" information that doesn't exits is complete horse puckey. Read and learn. Bob, Dennett is but one of many voices in a conflicting symphony of ideas respeting imagery. Kosslyn, Fodor, Pylyshyn, Block (etc.) present a more balanced treatment of pictorialism and the analog-propositional debates. Keep in mind, most of this is pure conjecture -- a collection of brain theories with little objective science behind it. Here's a good introduction by philosopher Nigel Thomas http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/nthomas/mipia.htm JL |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Bob Ross wrote: Russ Button wrote: Since we're quoting great musicians here... [snip] Wynton Marsalis - "Jazz in the Bittersweet Blues of Life" With all due r espect, Wynton may be a fantastic trumpet player, but he is an embarassment (and nothing more) when it comes to intellectual observations on what Jazz "is". Not even close. Not even in the same galaxy. Somebody shut that man up. I've onl y been playing big band swing for a bit more than 30 years and I like what Wynton had to say. Seeing as how Wynton was playing with Art Blakey at the age of 18, has at least a dozen recordings to his name, and is the leader of the Lincoln Center Ja zz Orchestra, it struck me that there might be some merit to what he had to say. You would think. But if you ignore his credentials and just listen to what he says...or, more realistically, listen to what he says in the context of his credentials, you start to recognize a point of view that just doesn't jibe with the spirit and intent with which most jazz used to be made. Opinions are just that. They are not gospel. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what jazz is, and what credentials you have to support your assertions. (As an aside, to paraphrase a quote that I saw on one of the online music forums, "what credentials could I possibly possess that would cause you to accept my opinion when it clearly contradicts yours?") I've been a professional musician since 1974, playing jazz, rock, classical, theater, and experimental music. I also work as an audio engineer, so when I'm not playing music I'm listening (intently) to other cats play. And what I've noticed, and what Wynton appears hellbent on denying, is that the essence of jazz is about Progress: looking forward, taking risks, stretching boundaries, developing as a living thing. Wynton wants to put jazz in a museum, to encapsulate it and halt its progress. He wants it to cease to develop...unless it develops along strictly dictated lines. That's not jazz. That's a pair of cement shoes. w |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Ross wrote:
(As an aside, to paraphrase a quote that I saw on one of the online music forums, "what credentials could I possibly possess that would cause you to accept my opinion when it clearly contradicts yours?") Credentials hopefully will give us some perspective on where you're coming from. It's not about who's smarter, etc. I've been a professional musician since 1974, playing jazz, rock, classical, theater, and experimental music. I also work as an audio engineer, so when I'm not playing music I'm listening (intently) to other cats play. And what I've noticed, and what Wynton appears hellbent on denying, is that the essence of jazz is about Progress: looking forward, taking risks, stretching boundaries, developing as a living thing. Wynton wants to put jazz in a museum, to encapsulate it and halt its progress. He wants it to cease to develop...unless it develops along strictly dictated lines. That's not jazz. That's a pair of cement shoes. I agree with you that music, not just jazz, should be about Progress. But like so much else, unless you understand where you've come from, you probably won't have much direction on where you're going. Take the neo-swing scene of the 90's and all those bands like Cherry Poppin' Daddies, Indigo Swing, LaVey Smith and the like. All of those guys were playing for a very narrow audience of people who wanted to dance the Lindy Hop. None of them were really innovating. They were high energy and fun to listen to, but it was very limited. I didn't call it jazz and you probably didn't either. I can think of a gazillion guys who were and are much more inventive than those guys. The point I'm trying to make about them and their audience is that they latched onto one small piece of popular art from the 40's, the Lindy Hop (which people back then called Jitterbugging), and made it into an industry. Where they went wrong is in choosing to not experience the whole of the dance music genre of the time. When my band would play a ballad, instead of getting close with their partners and feeling romantic, they all sat down, went to the bathroom, or chugged from their water bottles. If these people were truly experience the whole of the music's history, they'd then be in a position to give it a future. It was Issac Newton who once said, "If I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." So it is with music's development as well. All the great composers and artists have always built upon what came before them. Bach was succeeded by Hayden, who begat Mozart, who begat Beethovan. Beethovan was followed by Shubert, Shumann, Berlioz and Wagner. They were in turn followed by Mahler, Debussey and Ravel, who in turn inspired Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shastakovich, Copland, Ellington and Gershwin. To my way of seeing it, Wynton extolls the virtures of Louis Armstrong in the same way one might speak of Bach, but it didn't stop with Armstrong or Ellington. Again, look at the history of the music and you see the progression of ideas and form. Jazz has always been about innovation, and great music is timeless. That's where a lot of guys miss it. Take big band for instance. `You listen to Ellington's Shakespearean Suite recording, Basie's Super Chief or Atomic Basie recordings, Woody Herman's mid-50's bands, Charlie Barnett, Stan Kenton or Shorty Rogers. All of these bands had their own signiture sound. Big band music did a major popular fade-out when it stopped being the dance music of the kids. You get to the 70's and all you've got is Buddy Rich, Maynard Fergusen and Don Ellis. Today we have college bands playing emminently forgettable Rob McConnell charts. They've lost sight of what it is that makes great music because they don't understand what came before them. It's not that you have to play "Corner Pocket" for the next 1000 years. But if you want people to take notice of what you're doing, then you have to understand how to reach them, and you do that by understanding what came before you. One contemporary band I really like is a latin band called Mamborama. Go to Amazon.com and do a search on them and take a listen to some of their tracks. Very catchy and they're a totally hot band. Tito Puente would have been proud to work with these guys. You can't possibly listen to great latin players like this and think it's stale. The way they got that way is that they all obviously know the music of those who came before them. I think that's what Wynton is trying to tell us. At least, that's how I choose to hear it. A lot of guys are bugged about Wynton because they think he's got a big ego. If having a big ego was a crime, we've have to put a *lot* of people away. At least he's not a psychopath like Buddy Rich was. Give Wynton credit for trying to preserve a tradition. Symphony orchestras play the same literature year after year, but nobody's saying that artform is dead or belongs in a museum (or maybe you didn't get to that part of your speech). Really great music is timeless. Listen to the Jazz Messengers from their 50's recordings, the Beethovan symphonies, Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique, Mozart's Requiium, Bach Partitas, and even a lot of the Beatles' work, and you'll hear music that will stand the test of time. But then listen to the music of people like Madonna, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, not to mention rap, and you're talking about stuff that 20 years from now will have all the relevancy of 70's disco, the Monkees, and the other bad pop music every era has had to suffer through. How can jazz strike out in a new direction if you don't know where jazz came from? Some guys are needed to preserve the traditions and some guys are needed to make new ones. Russ |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
I agree with you that music, not just jazz, should be about Progress. But like so much else, unless you understand where you've come from, you probably won't have much direction on where you're going. Take the neo-swing scene of the 90's and all those bands like Cherry Poppin' Daddies, Indigo Swing, LaVey Smith and the like. All of those guys were playing for a very narrow audience of people who wanted to dance the Lindy Hop. None of them were really innovating. They were high energy and fun to listen to, but it was very limited. I didn't call it jazz and you probably didn't either. I can think of a gazillion guys who were and are much more inventive than those guys. The point I'm trying to make about them and their audience is that they latched onto one small piece of popular art from the 40's, the Lindy Hop (which people back then called Jitterbugging), and made it into an industry. Where they went wrong is in choosing to not experience the whole of the dance music genre of the time. Wait a minute. Who's to say "they went wrong"? You, apparently. No wonder you're a Marsalis fan. Composers and musicians have taken many roads that turned out to be dead ends. It's because they are free to do so that others created what are now considered classics. But the "marketplace of ideas" ultimately determines what is a classic. Supposed experts shouldn't appoint themselves gatekeepers. When my band would play a ballad, instead of getting close with their partners and feeling romantic, they all sat down, went to the bathroom, or chugged from their water bottles. If these people were truly experience the whole of the music's history, they'd then be in a position to give it a future. It was Issac Newton who once said, "If I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." So it is with music's development as well. All the great composers and artists have always built upon what came before them. Bach was succeeded by Hayden, who begat Mozart, who begat Beethovan. Beethovan was followed by Shubert, Shumann, Berlioz and Wagner. They were in turn followed by Mahler, Debussey and Ravel, who in turn inspired Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shastakovich, Copland, Ellington and Gershwin. To my way of seeing it, Wynton extolls the virtures of Louis Armstrong in the same way one might speak of Bach, but it didn't stop with Armstrong or Ellington. Again, look at the history of the music and you see the progression of ideas and form. Jazz has always been about innovation, and great music is timeless. That's where a lot of guys miss it. Including, especially, Marsalis. He isn't interested in the whole history, only a piece of the history that fits with his own image of himself. Take big band for instance. `You listen to Ellington's Shakespearean Suite recording, Basie's Super Chief or Atomic Basie recordings, Woody Herman's mid-50's bands, Charlie Barnett, Stan Kenton or Shorty Rogers. All of these bands had their own signiture sound. Big band music did a major popular fade-out when it stopped being the dance music of the kids. You get to the 70's and all you've got is Buddy Rich, Maynard Fergusen and Don Ellis. Today we have college bands playing emminently forgettable Rob McConnell charts. They've lost sight of what it is that makes great music because they don't understand what came before them. It's not that you have to play "Corner Pocket" for the next 1000 years. But if you want people to take notice of what you're doing, then you have to understand how to reach them, and you do that by understanding what came before you. One contemporary band I really like is a latin band called Mamborama. Go to Amazon.com and do a search on them and take a listen to some of their tracks. Very catchy and they're a totally hot band. Tito Puente would have been proud to work with these guys. You can't possibly listen to great latin players like this and think it's stale. The way they got that way is that they all obviously know the music of those who came before them. I think that's what Wynton is trying to tell us. At least, that's how I choose to hear it. A lot of guys are bugged about Wynton because they think he's got a big ego. If having a big ego was a crime, we've have to put a *lot* of people away. At least he's not a psychopath like Buddy Rich was. Give Wynton credit for trying to preserve a tradition. Yeah--his. Symphony orchestras play the same literature year after year, but nobody's saying that artform is dead or belongs in a museum (or maybe you didn't get to that part of your speech). Actually, a lot of people are beginning to wonder about that. And some of us jazz fans are concerned that this is precisely where Marsalis is taking jazz. Really great music is timeless. Listen to the Jazz Messengers from their 50's recordings, the Beethovan symphonies, Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique, Mozart's Requiium, Bach Partitas, and even a lot of the Beatles' work, and you'll hear music that will stand the test of time. But then listen to the music of people like Madonna, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, not to mention rap, and you're talking about stuff that 20 years from now will have all the relevancy of 70's disco, the Monkees, and the other bad pop music every era has had to suffer through. How can jazz strike out in a new direction if you don't know where jazz came from? Some guys are needed to preserve the traditions and some guys are needed to make new ones. What we don't need are the guys who want to preserve only some of the traditions. bob |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
wrote: How can jazz strike out in a new direction if you don't know where jazz came from? Some guys are needed to preserve the traditions and some guys are needed to make new ones. What we don't need are the guys who want to preserve only some of the traditions. If Wynton wants to preserve a certain period of jazz history, then let him. He doesn't limit anyone else from playing any other art form. He's just doing his own thing. After the Ken Burns series (which I presume is where you've decided that Wynton is pedantic), I never once heard anyone say that jazz stopped with Duke Ellington. FYI: "Marsalis disparaged Davis for abandoning acoustic jazz in favor of jazz-rock fusion, and Davis sniped that Marsalis was spending too much time playing classical music and not developing his own improvisational voice." http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16763 WVK |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
WVK wrote:
"Marsalis disparaged Davis for abandoning acoustic jazz in favor of jazz-rock fusion, and Davis sniped that Marsalis was spending too much time playing classical music and not developing his own improvisational voice." http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16763 Actually this is pretty funny. If you go further in the article it reads: "In an infamous incident at the Vancouver Jazz Festival in 1986, a producer apparently tried to orchestrate a poignant intergenerational moment by having Wynton come up on stage to jam with Miles’ band, but Miles would have none of it, stopping his band and crudely telling Wynton to 'get the **** off the stage.'" Miles Davis was one of the great musical innovators of the 20th century and like Wagner before him, one of the great assholes of his time. So it's really quite funny to have people comment on Wynton Marsalis and by hold Miles Davis up in comparison. Let me tell you a story about Miles Davis. I heard this from a friend who used to work for the San Francisco based music producer, Bill Graham. Miles had come to town to play at an event that Bill Graham had produced. He shows up to the gig in a limo, and when he gets out Graham is there waiting to greet him saying, "Hi Miles! How you do feel?" You know, a typical polite welcome. Miles replies, "How do I feel? Hold up your hand." And he has Bill Graham hold up his hand, vertical with palm out. Miles then proceeds to punch Graham's hand *HARD*. He damn near broke it. As the above article indicated, Miles had been boxer. Graham was in pain for the next two weeks. He hit's Graham's hand and says in his heroin ruined voice, "I feel fine." Miles Davis was infamous for turning his back to the audience. If you listen to the pop and funk flavored stuff he recorded in the 80's and take away the rhythm tracks behind it, he really doesn't play anything new. The rhythm tracks are repetitive and without invention, which is typical of pop music. Miles' own playing is really just a lot of licks without a hint of the lyricism that marked his seminal work of the 50's. Frankly his 80's/90's stuff only sold because it said Miles Davis on the cover. It was crap then and it's crap today. Turn on any jazz station today and nobody is playing it. Turn on any pop station and nobody is playing it. As Bob Ross wrote in an earlier posting here, the marketplace of ideas is where artistic work gets judged. Go to Amazon.com and do a search under popular music for Miles Davis. Not a single 80's/90's vintage alblum comes up on the first screen, and only 2 post 1980 alblums show up in the first 30 listings. This is not an accident. Amazon.com is in the business of selling product and they're going to show first the things that sell the most. As for Wynton Marsalis, I didn't care for the stuff he did back in the 80's and early 90's. I like lyricism and harmonic development. Take a listen to his first "Standard Time" alblum and you'll hear what I mean. Too much intellect, not enough heart. At least for me. I didn't listen to him at all until last year when I was visiting Siegfried Linkwitz to audition his Orion loudspeakers and he played "Mr. Jelly Lord". The recording sounded was remarkable, both sonically and musically, and of course I was hearing them on the Orions, which was a real treat, never having heard them before. I'm not sure what the beef is about Wynton and why people get so worked up about him. He's got an opinion and has a venue to express it. We have a First Amendment for a reason. I don't agree with a lot of what Wynton says, but that doesn't mean I have to dislike everything he says, and that's the problem here. I posted a Marsalis quote last week and Bob Ross dumped all over it only because it came from Wynton, not because of anything in the substance of the quote. If you don't like Wynton Marsalis, then I recommend you not buy any of his recordings. But if you see someone quoting him, I suggest that your criticism will be more effective if you address the substance of the quote, rather than just say it's BS because you think Wynton's a jerk. As jerk's go, Wynton is truly minor league compared to Miles Davis. Russ |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stu Alden wrote:
In addition to his "seminal" 50s stuff, I think the 60's stuff with Herbie Hancock, Tony Williams, et al is quite amazing too -- not so much for Miles's playing but for everyone else's. I've always felt that Miles's best feature was the other people who played with him. Miles was much more than just a trumpet player. He was a musical innovator and a band leader. Look at the other great band leaders of the period. With the exceptions of Dizzy Gillespie and Buddy Rich, none of them were really considered to be great soloists and Grand Masters of their instruments. But their bands each had a signiture sound that you can readily identify. Consider Count Basie for a moment. He was a fine pianist, but when jazz buffs talk about the giants of the instrument, they talk about Oscar Peterson, Teddy Wilson, Bud Powell, Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, McCoy Tyner, Bennie Green, etc. They don't mention Count Basie, Duke Ellington or Stan Kenton as being at that level of performance. Compare Woody Herman to Buddy DeFranco, or Charlie Barnett to Sonny Rollins. The only two bandleaders I can think of who are also acknowledged to be giants of their respective instruments are Dizzy Gillespie and Buddy Rich. So it is with Miles. He was a good trumpet player, but certainly not in the same league with guys like Dizzy, Clifford Brown, or even Freddie Hubbard or Woody Shaw. But Miles was a musical innovator and visionary. Sure he had great players around him, but he also had the genius to not only recognize the great young talent when he saw it, he knew which of these guys would be able to do the things he wanted them to do. It was like that with Ellington as well. He was also a great musical innovator and needed not just good players, but the right players to carry off what he wanted to do. I expect that in centuries to come, music historians will see Ellington as one of the great 20th century composers like Aaron Copland, George Gershwin, Serge Prokofiev, etc. He was much more than a band leader. Russ Button PS. In the issue of Miles vs. Wynton, it is well known that Miles didn't care for Wynton. During the 1980's, Miles Davis' favorite trumpet player was Woody Shaw. If you're not familiar with Woody Shaw, his "Rosewood" alblum was Downbeat Magazine's 1978 alblum of the year and is a must for any serious jazz collector. Do a search for "Woody Shaw" at Amazon.com and that's the very first thing that comes up. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ferstler on Soundstaging | Audio Opinions | |||
| Howard's Three Channel Solution | Audio Opinions | |||
| Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing | Pro Audio | |||
| Frontline: "The Way The Music Died" PBS | Pro Audio | |||
| Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
