Showing posts with label music. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music. Show all posts

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Sam Cooke's "Blowin' in the Wind" (and Political Soul)



Just discovered Sam Cooke's fine cover of the Dylan classic. I like what Cooke does with the accents.



Well, I can't do political soul without something from Marvin Gaye:


How about a great one from Stevie Wonder?

Friday, July 06, 2012

Friday Awesome: Penny for Your Thoughts


The local paper reports:
A Massachusetts man who pledged to make the last mortgage payment on his home with pennies has fulfilled that promise.

After warning his bank, Thomas Daigle in April dropped off about 62,000 pennies weighing 800 pounds in two boxes for the final payment on the Milford home he and his wife, Sandra, bought in 1977.

He tells The Milford Daily News he just wanted to make his last payment ‘‘memorable.’’

He started saving his pennies when he moved in.

The optician says his wife laughed whenever he would pick up a penny he found on the ground and say it was going to the mortgage.

Daigle says he’s just glad to have the coins out of his house.
That reminds me....


and....


Saturday, June 30, 2012

A Long Strange Trip: The Song So Far (Q2)


As we come to the end of the another quarter-year, I see that it is again a year filled with drama--mainly professional and academic drama.

And so, I keep on truckin'.


I can't tell what will happen day-to-day:


But, I'm keeping it all together.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Book of Love

Family fun: We write our own book.
My middle child turned six years old this week. She's a very bright and sweet girl, self-assured and quiet. Like me, she's a homebody and an introvert. I have looked  closely at her this week. Her growing up fills me with more emotion than I think I can handle.


I get nearly as emotional concerning my two other children, but our relationships are different. The older girl is, by virtue of being first-born, the one whose growing up is most comfortable for me. As she grows, so do I: it's like we are on an adventure together. My boy, now four, is a wonder because of his autism. Although he's the baby of the family, I think of him as a little man and see his growth as just filling into what I know he will be.

Then there's the wife. She and I are getting older. We feel middle age coming on. Our lives are not monotonous or boring, but rather stable and muted. This is good. In her, I still see the girl who used to link arms with me when we walk, the girl who got a certain twinkle in her eye whenever she saw a baby. She's come a long way in managing her depression and setting herself up for a transition from stay-at-home mom to working woman. She's as beautiful as ever.

I've become all meh on religion. There's too much God and Jesus stuff in the house, but I have more important matters to think about than the biblical blah-blah. I know everyone in the family but me is a believer and a Christian, but I won't be surprised if the religiosity slowly tones down to nothing in the coming years. My presence in the house must pose questions everyone has either to ignore or face:
  • Why isn't there any evidence in favor of God's existence?
  • Why don't facts about the world/universe lend themselves to God as an explanation?
  • Why is there no good evidence of miracles?
  • Why is there no good evidence of the extraordinary events concerning Jesus, such as his birth, miracles, and resurrection?
  • Why do the so-called proofs of God's existence and the apologies for Jewish and Christian doctrines fail to complete what ought to be clear slam-dunks?
Besides, all the "God loves you" and "Jesus wants you to bleh" stuff butts up against the reality of Christian doctrine: You are a sinner who better beg for forgiveness. The more polite expression of the doctrine is that humanity is fallen and needs grace to be reconciled, but my formulation is no less accurate and may be the truer representation of attitude.


In short, I have the luxury of being meh about religion. Eventually, everyone will have a WTF moment on this. If anyone cares to share the WTF with me, I'll be ready to listen.

    Wednesday, June 20, 2012

    Why I Love Jazz and Why You Should Too


    The first jazz album I really liked was Take Five by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. "Blue Rondo a la Turk," the opening number, sold me. It was exciting, playful, shifting, artsy, adventurous, smart, swinging, and crisp. Like the album, that tune was a picture in sound: group sound, yet individual sound, too.

    The balance of group and individual, of vision and sound, is what makes jazz special. The group plays together, yet each one has a unique, foundational role. Each musician listens to the others, responds to them and lifts them. Any one may also have a turn (or more) to step out as an individual and explore the boundaries of song, sound, and group cohesion.

    As a listener, I traveled these boundaries with Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Archie Shepp, Evan Parker, and other innovators of the avant garde and free jazz movements. Their music was not always my favorite, but I heard beauty there. I heard effort. I heard space. I heard myself waiting for the next step.

    When I was a teenager, I gravitated to the big, classical guys: Count Basie, Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, Bud Powell, Errol Garner, Dizzy Gillespie, Art Tatum, Dexter Gordon. Their cassette tapes would go into my alarm clock, and they would play me to sleep. To me, theirs was Kerouac's night music, the music for those of us who wanted more...more night.

    Of all, the piano players were my favorites. I collected a ton of Keith Jarrett, whose solo concert album from Bremen and Lausanne changed me profoundly. How a man walked out and played and went on the way Jarrett did was amazing. So many of the pianists also moved me, and they continue to do so: Bill Evans, McCoy Tyner, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Bobo Stenson, Marilyn Crispell, Irene Schweitzer, Paul Bley, Horace Silver, Vijay Iyer, Esbjorn Svensson, Ethan Iverson, Michel Petrucciani, Marcin Wasilewski, Hiromi, Brad Mehldau, and many others. All of these musicians are superb alone, yet they also mesh in group contexts.

    Jazz, to me, has never been about sitting to receive a work of art delivered by musicians. Instead, it is about witnessing and maybe even being part of a process. In ensemble settings, the players communicate with one another. They don't just play the number or present it. They don't just imitate the song as it is on an album. They don't give a packaged product. No, jazz musicians build a song. They pass it amongst themselves like a beach ball in the bleachers, but seriously enough. They dialogue. They converse. They elaborate. They customize.

    I love jazz because nothing else is so creative and diverse. I love jazz because it is what it is, and it lets me be what I am. Other music, which I love too, is not the same as jazz. Rock is image, ideology, and performance. Classical is architecture. Blues is real. Hip Hop is a relentless beat that can become anything from a heart to a gun to a sob to a confrontation. Disco is escape. Funk is wild and fun. Folk is private.

    But jazz is democratic. It's not a spectator sport for either the player or the listener. Indeed, the listener is a player in a way that simply is not so for other musics. In my opinion.

    I love jazz for the democracy, for the opinions it offers, and for opinions like mine it allows. If you don't love jazz, you don't love participation.

    But if you want to hear and be heard, you must love jazz.

    (For Eric Jackson, whose weeknight radio program on WGBH Boston has recently been scaled back.)

    Friday, May 11, 2012

    Giant Steps, Illustrated

    A young Coltrane.

    John Coltrane is undoubtedly the greatest tenor saxophonist in jazz history. His influence is undeniable as a musician, composer, innovator, and cultural icon. There is even a St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church! He died in 1967, aged only 40 years ol.

    "Giant Steps" is the title track of one of Coltrane's many landmark albums. Recorded in May 1959 and released in January 1960, the version of the tune that made it on the album features Coltrane on tenor sax, Paul Chambers on bass, Tommy Flanagan on piano, and Art Taylor on drums. Although this line-up is terrific, Coltrane's later group is even better, with McCoy Tyner, Elvin Jones, and Reggie Workman/Jimmy Garrison.

    The video below shows the tune and solo coming to life on paper. The song and solo are remarkably complex, though they don't come across as being indulgently so.


    For more on Coltrane, there are a few videos online that are documentary clips.



    Incidentally, 1959 is a huge year in jazz. In addition to Giant Steps, several great, great albums were recorded (though not necessarily released) then:
    Ornette Coleman: The Shape of Jazz To Come
    Miles Davis: Kind Of Blue
    Charles Mingus: Mingus Ah Um
    Art Pepper: Plus Eleven
    Billy Taylor: With Four Flutes
    Gerry Mulligan: What Is There To Say (some tracks recorded in 1958)
    Horace Silver: Blowin' the Blues Away
    Dave Brubeck: Time Out

    Friday, May 04, 2012

    Stones World: The Rolling Stones Project


    Now THIS is what I'm talking about!




    On this next clip, the dancing and sound of Sara Baras are breathtaking. The version of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" is perhaps smoother than a Stones song should be, but it's soulful and powerful. If anything: it ends too soon!



    Friday, April 27, 2012

    Friday Blues: Little Red Rooster

    Happy Friday!

    Keith Richards and James Cotton play a song I sometimes have loved, sometimes have loathed:

    l

    Saturday, March 31, 2012

    Friday, March 09, 2012

    Friday Tunes


    Boston is sunny and mild today. I'm in the mood for new stuff.

    You all must know that I enjoy improvised music, including what folks usually mean by "Jazz." Artists such as Robert Glasper and Esperanza Spalding have been getting lots of attention. They deserve it, but several acts appeal to me more.

    Here, for instance, is Basquiat Strings:



    They have a nice sound, right? Here's one of my new favorite songs, "Found," by The October Trio:



    The Marcin Wasilewski Trio is an exceptional act. Have a listen.

    Friday, March 02, 2012

    Monday, February 06, 2012

    Single Petal of A Rose

    Single Petal of a Rose is a gorgeous song composed by Duke Ellington. It is one of several songs written for England's Queen Elizabeth II and included in The Queen's Suite. Recorded in 1959, the suite was pressed only once and presented to the Queen. It became commercially available in 1976, after Ellington had died.

    This, I believe, is Duke himself.



    And here is a charming version by Chris Potter:

    Friday, January 27, 2012

    Music Pick-Me-Up


    I'm totally drained today.

    How about some fun songs? Here's one from my childhood:


    And another:


    One more, this time from my adolescence:

    Friday, December 30, 2011

    Solo (The Song So Far, Q4)

    What's better than a great musician improvising a solo?

    Here's the brilliant and self-destructive Jaco Pastorius:



    And here's the no-less brilliant yet thankfully less self-destructive John McLaughlin, who soars in the solo, starting at 7:22:



    And finally...the Pat Metheny Group:

    Tuesday, December 06, 2011

    Why My Children Go to Church (and Why I Occasionally Go Too)


    At the risk of hurting my Gnu Atheist creds, such that they are, I want to explain why my children go to Christian services every week, and why I sometimes do too.

    I'm disclosing here because of a press release from Rice University with the headline, "Science and religion do mix." The release discusses a paper recently published by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund. It reads:
    They [Ecklund and co-authors] interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities. Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict, and 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict. Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not.

    “Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases,” Ecklund said. “Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.”

    Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (teaching of creationism versus evolution, stem cell research) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict.
    Ecklund's paper and her previous research have already been treated by others, including Jerry Coyne, Eric MacDonald, P.Z. Myers, and Jason Rosenhouse. If you can stomach the sanctimoniousness, Uncommon Descent (Denyse O'Leary) has also noted Ecklund.

    Now, I am not a scientist. But I am an atheist and I feel strongly that religious beliefs and rituals waste good human energy. That's why I stopped participating in and supporting my local Chabad Jewish center. One might therefore legitimately ask why on Earth I would agree to have my children go to church every week, and why I myself end up going to church stuff sometimes. So, if one should ask, these are my answers:
    • My wife takes the kids to church. She wants to go to church, she wants the children to be Christian, and I support her.
    • I go very infrequently, maybe two to four times a year. Usually, this is because one or more of the kids is singing or something like that. I would gladly go more often if my wife said that she wanted me to. I happen to like being with my wife. It's a love thing.
    • When I go, I don't pray or worship. I just observe and listen. Whatever opinions I have about it all are expressed here.
    • So far as I have gathered from asking questions and observing, most of what the kids learn at church is good stuff: be considerate, don't insult others, listen to Mommy and Daddy. The whole super-Jesus stuff is window dressing, as far as I can tell. It's another kind of Santa Claus belief, a metaphor for the stoic heroism that some think characterizes their lives.
    • I have no worries at all about my kids, religion, and atheism. I really don't. I might worry more about them becoming Republicans.
    • Do I want my kids to be atheists? No, I have no special desires about whether they decide to accept or reject religion. But I also have no special problem offering my opinion on religious beliefs and teachings. In the end, I trust that between what the kids learn from my wife's Christianity and from my own atheism, they'll find a religion or non-religion that makes them happy and supports their larger goals in life.
    • The real "prize," as it were, is the kids pursuing the education and professions that excite them. The endgame is for them to find love, happiness, and well-being. If they think kneeling before a cross is part of this, then I won't squawk. I just happen to think that supplication before imaginary beings is unnecessary. On the other hand, I imagine that church may provide professional networking benefits for the kids--and for my wife and me.
    • Do I think science and religion are in conflict? Yes, probably. I don't think they have a lot to say to each other, even though they would like to. But people negotiate conflicts all the time without being scarred.
    So, I disagree with the headline: science and religion don't mix, in my opinion. Atheism and religion don't mix, either. But they can co-exist, and they can even fall in love with each other. And they can stay in love together--ooh, time for some Al Green.

    Sunday, December 04, 2011

    Jazz Died in 1959

    For me, Coltrane is the best of those who pushed jazz music beyond the jazz label.

    Trumpeter Nicholas Payton has gotten attention with a post called "On Why Jazz Isn’t Cool Anymore . . . ." Payton's piece is not so much about the coolness of jazz as it is about what defines jazz as a genre.

    I like pieces like this because the challenge is enjoyable. I happen to love jazz. I love Miles and Coltrane, Monk and Ornette, Art Tatum and Keith Jarrett, Wayne Shorter and Tomasz Stanko, Bobo Stenson and Marilyn Crispell, Mingus and Avishai Cohen, Evan Parker and Charlie Parker. And many others. I love the music, that daring improvisational music.

    So Payton has written something daring. In sprawling, swirling fashion, he says:
    Jazz is a brand.

    Jazz ain’t music, it’s marketing, and bad marketing at that.

    It has never been, nor will it ever be, music.

    Here lies Jazz (1916 – 1959).

    Too many musicians and not enough artists.

    I believe music to be more of a medium than a brand.

    Silence is music, too.

    You can’t practice art.

    In order for it to be true, one must live it.
    I agree with Payton on the main part of his argument, that the name "jazz" no longer has any useful or meaningful resonance for working artists who are placed under the jazz umbrella.

    In the 1960s, Miles Davis started to place "Directions in Music by Miles Davis" on his albums. The term "jazz" no longer described what he was doing, according to his own conception. The contemporary artists I listen to, such as the Esbjorn Svensson Trio and The Bad Plus, do not consider themselves jazz artists, although they clearly love and respect jazz.

    I part company with Payton on at least one distinction. I don't see why he separates musicians and artists as groups of people. This seems a self-serving and doctrinaire classification.

    I like better the salvo Payton gives in a follow-up post:
    The music was just fine before it was called Jazz and will be just fine without the name.

    There is nothing to be afraid of except yourselves.

    I am Nicholas Payton and I play Black American Music.
    I appreciate that he stands his ground, that he defines his own music and makes it available to us. Maybe one day, Payton will decide he no longer plays Black American music but rather plays Nicholas Payton's music. That will be good, too.

    Monday, October 03, 2011

    I Do Not Fear the Time


    My mother and father are married 47 years today.

    In their honor, and in honor of the occasion, I have two mournful yet appropriate songs for them. This is, of course, a day to celebrate and be extremely joyful--partly because we know that it won't last forever. And so the celebration and joy includes mourning over the sweet receding past and the inevitable parting yet to come.

    Here's a beautiful song written by Sandy Denny.


    And here's a lovely one by Richard and Linda Thompson.

    Wednesday, September 28, 2011

    What a Rosh!


    What am I doing for Rosh Hashanah? Eating a meal with my family (yay) and avoiding shul (yay yay).

    But I wish all a happy day and the sweetest of life always.