Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Fri February 23rd, 2018, 06:24 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 06:10 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun November 28th, 2004, 02:57 GMT
Posts: 869
Location: I think I'll call it America
littlemaggie wrote:
Wrong. Jazz is as dead a musical genre as D'oyly Carte opera or doo-wop. To say that "these songs are deeply engrained (sic) in the DNA of jazz musicians" is the equivalent to saying that because woolly mammoth DNA exists, therefore woolly mammoths are not extinct. Whenever jazz songs are revived or imitated, the results are inevitably teeth-gnashingly torturous: Diana Krall, Manhattan Transfer, Harry Connick Jr, Kenny Ball and his bloody Jazz Men...it's an ever-growing pile of stinking rotten garbage that the general public laps up like candy floss at a fun fair somehow believing it represents some sort of 'sophistication' in musical taste.


Sorry, I know you're getting dumped on in this thread, but I wanted to say something to this. I think what you're referring to is a broad category sometimes referred to as contemporary jazz that tends to favor accessibility and smooth production over the daring creativity we should associate with jazz. Before dismissing a genre as "dead," it's important to have a reasonably comprehensive sense of what's going on in it. I'm not very hip to the last 20 years of jazz, but I know enough to know the Connick Jrs and Manhattan Transfers of the world aren't representative of the whole field. Some pretty cursory research will tell you that. Some lists below. One of them has a Krall album, but probably shouldn't be written off just for that. My point, by the way, is not to say all this music is great. Just that I think the point above is too oversimplified to be true.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/numeralnin ... ntury/amp/

http://www.jazzwisemagazine.com/feature ... five-years

http://culturecatch.com/music/best-twen ... ntury-jazz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 06:37 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri February 10th, 2006, 12:23 GMT
Posts: 2360
Read an interview today where even Chuck Berry said that he adored big band music and it had a profound affect on his musical upbringing... Is Chuck Berry's music dead today just because we lost him today he only recorded for 25 years of his seven decade musical career yet almost all the greats acknowledge his influence. John Lennon has been gone over 35 years does anyone think his music is dead and buried? So to claim the music Bob's covering now is "Dead" is absolutely absurd it has more life in it and is more real than your Ed Sheeran's or other popular "musicians" offer us today.

Dylan fans are fickle if any of this stuff had laid unreleased they'd be chomping at the bit to hear those songs, just look at how many lapped up the Self portrait outakes or complain about the Brormberg Sessions not being released.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 08:03 GMT 

Joined: Fri July 18th, 2008, 16:22 GMT
Posts: 4112
No link- transcribed from the magazine itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 09:47 GMT 

Joined: Tue September 25th, 2012, 19:24 GMT
Posts: 407
Location: England
smoke wrote:
7 from Uncut is a disaster.


They use a peculiar scoring system where 10/10 means 7/10, and (hopefully) vice versa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 12:30 GMT 

Joined: Tue December 30th, 2008, 09:05 GMT
Posts: 841
Location: Liverpool
Part of the issue I think, and apologies for speaking in broad generalities here, is that Dylan's audience is predominantly a rock 'n' roll audience, and for those people rock 'n' roll is the very antithesis to this genre of music. I'd also suggest that a 'rock' type of audience would be far more willing to accept covers of folk and blues than easy listening.
Personally I'd never heard of Nic Jones until I heard Dylan singing 'Farewell to the Gold' and 'Canadee I O' in 1992; I now own all of Nic's albums and cherish them dearly. I'd heard of, but never really listened to, Warren Zevon until Dylan's 2002 covers made me check him out further. I now have all of his albums and again, cherish them dearly. I could say the same for scores of other artists I've found through Dylan, but the point is that, in one respect, these covers are Dylan doing what he's always done. However....
Of course I'd heard of Sinatra, but never really listened to him. Still, I tracked down a few albums which featured the tunes Dylan had covered and...Much the same reaction to Dylan's covers to be honest; nice but really nothing that speaks to me on the level required for me to keep listening. It isn't 'bad' music, and if you like it and take something from it great, it's just isn't something I enjoy that much. I like songs like 'Autumn Leaves', 'I'm A Fool To Want You', 'Melancholy Mood', 'On a Little Street In Singapore' and the music does create a nice, laid back, late night, relaxing vibe but, for me, that's about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 13:57 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21732
Desolation Row wrote:
... Is Chuck Berry's music dead today just because we lost him today he only recorded for 25 years of his seven decade musical career yet almost all the greats acknowledge his influence. John Lennon has been gone over 35 years does anyone think his music is dead and buried? So to claim the music Bob's covering now is "Dead" is absolutely absurd ...


Perhaps it's all just perspective. Maybe think of it as the "new" Dylan & The Dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 14:04 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 10th, 2016, 12:46 GMT
Posts: 1704
Triplicate gets a three star review in Mojo as well. Guess that's one star per disc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 15:39 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat December 10th, 2011, 15:23 GMT
Posts: 280
Quote:
Wrong. Jazz is as dead a musical genre as D'oyly Carte opera or doo-wop.


That's not true. I'm a working musician and every weekend I'm employed playing a couple hours of live jazz music. Me and thousands of other guitarists, sax players, drummers, keyboard players, singers. People who perform doo-wop or d'oyly Carte (whatever that is) get very little work, if any at all. Jazz isn't flourishing like it was decades ago, but it is still very much alive in all it's different forms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 15:57 GMT 

Joined: Tue January 6th, 2015, 15:03 GMT
Posts: 335
It's night-time in the big city...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 16:07 GMT 

Joined: Sat August 25th, 2007, 21:54 GMT
Posts: 1726
bobfan wrote:
Part of the issue I think, and apologies for speaking in broad generalities here, is that Dylan's audience is predominantly a rock 'n' roll audience, and for those people rock 'n' roll is the very antithesis to this genre of music.


And once it was a folk audience, many of whom were as alienated by his rock'n'rolling as any of the whiners writing here. As he famously said after leaving Isle of Wight: people make too much of singers.

I wish the creeps who say you can only listen to this or that kind of music would just shove it. They can listen to what they want and so can I. Richard Rodgers' music will live as long as anything from the 20th century. So will Chuck Berry's.

You would think that any Dylan fan would be accustomed to him doing what he pleases. But, no, there's always some heresy they're going on about like a bunch of priests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 17:55 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 10th, 2016, 12:46 GMT
Posts: 1704
monklover wrote:
bobfan wrote:
Part of the issue I think, and apologies for speaking in broad generalities here, is that Dylan's audience is predominantly a rock 'n' roll audience, and for those people rock 'n' roll is the very antithesis to this genre of music.


And once it was a folk audience, many of whom were as alienated by his rock'n'rolling as any of the whiners writing here. As he famously said after leaving Isle of Wight: people make too much of singers.

I wish the creeps who say you can only listen to this or that kind of music would just shove it. They can listen to what they want and so can I. Richard Rodgers' music will live as long as anything from the 20th century. So will Chuck Berry's.

You would think that any Dylan fan would be accustomed to him doing what he pleases. But, no, there's always some heresy they're going on about like a bunch of priests.


That's bollocks. Nobody's really upset he is doing these 'standards' because of this remarkable genre - it's because they sound so bloody dreary and interchangeable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 19:37 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu December 27th, 2012, 20:36 GMT
Posts: 8957
Location: over the shadows & the rain
there were many previous, dissatisfied fans;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkrauH07MjM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75_ceACC7-o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8yU8wk67gY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCGPhzWWgco

time will tell
imo his performances of current chosen songs are dynamite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 20:15 GMT 

Joined: Sun April 1st, 2007, 10:39 GMT
Posts: 459
Why should historical considerations be better than current feelings and standpoints? And why must today's criticism be questionable, just because many years before people could not follow Dylans art too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 20:21 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon March 30th, 2009, 14:57 GMT
Posts: 1361
Location: Madly Across the Sun
Also comparing '66 Dylan to this guy today belching sweet nothings into the microphone is an offense to comparisons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 21:01 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 10th, 2016, 12:46 GMT
Posts: 1704
Yeah its like saying people have always complained about US Presidents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 21:20 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu December 27th, 2012, 20:36 GMT
Posts: 8957
Location: over the shadows & the rain
yopietro wrote:
Also comparing '66 Dylan to this guy today belching sweet nothings into the microphone is an offense to comparisons.

You are entitled to your rather harsh opinion yopietro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 21:34 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon March 30th, 2009, 14:57 GMT
Posts: 1361
Location: Madly Across the Sun
Quick experiment: Sit back. Put on Just Like a Woman from Blonde on Blonde. Next, give Stardust from Triplicate a spin. Harsh?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 22:10 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat December 10th, 2011, 15:23 GMT
Posts: 280
THe problem with Dylan doing jazz standards is this:

Jazz standards are usually great songs, but their main function in the current world is to provide a framework for jazz performers to show off their musicianship and to improvise. Being a great musician is all well and good, but not everyone can be a good song writer and you need good songs. That's why the jazz standards are "standard". Dylan's thing is that he's a lousy musician but he has great songs, and it works because he has his evolving styles. Now he's turned it around and it doesn't work, IMO. Nobody wants to hear a lousy singer doing jazz standards. His current style is a strained, crooning, damaged sounding vocal and it's tough to listen to. Especially when you compare it to people who bank on their vocal and musical abilities to deliver standards. It's a joke, really. Like the paintings that are copies of photographs. The Dylan era is over. The stuff he puts out now is not to be taken seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 23:00 GMT 

Joined: Tue September 25th, 2012, 19:24 GMT
Posts: 407
Location: England
yopietro wrote:
Also comparing '66 Dylan to this guy today belching sweet nothings into the microphone is an offense to comparisons.


It's completely comparable; not in terms of the music, but in the over-the-top reaction from the fanbase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 23:05 GMT 

Joined: Tue September 25th, 2012, 19:24 GMT
Posts: 407
Location: England
Winter Lude wrote:
THe problem with Dylan doing jazz standards is this:

Jazz standards are usually great songs, but their main function in the current world is to provide a framework for jazz performers to show off their musicianship and to improvise. Being a great musician is all well and good, but not everyone can be a good song writer and you need good songs. That's why the jazz standards are "standard". Dylan's thing is that he's a lousy musician but he has great songs, and it works because he has his evolving styles. Now he's turned it around and it doesn't work, IMO. Nobody wants to hear a lousy singer doing jazz standards. His current style is a strained, crooning, damaged sounding vocal and it's tough to listen to. Especially when you compare it to people who bank on their vocal and musical abilities to deliver standards. It's a joke, really. Like the paintings that are copies of photographs. The Dylan era is over.

The stuff he puts out now is not to be taken seriously.


And yet it seems you are taking it very seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 23:19 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon March 30th, 2009, 14:57 GMT
Posts: 1361
Location: Madly Across the Sun
Yellowgoat wrote:
yopietro wrote:
Also comparing '66 Dylan to this guy today belching sweet nothings into the microphone is an offense to comparisons.


It's completely comparable; not in terms of the music, but in the over-the-top reaction from the fanbase.


No. Outraged Dylan fans in '65 and '66 were decrying Dylan at his most brilliant. There is not a chance in hell that we will look back years from now and realize we were being served a helping of genius with these standards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 23:33 GMT 

Joined: Tue September 25th, 2012, 19:24 GMT
Posts: 407
Location: England
yopietro wrote:
Yellowgoat wrote:

It's completely comparable; not in terms of the music, but in the over-the-top reaction from the fanbase.


No. Outraged Dylan fans in '65 and '66 were decrying Dylan at his most brilliant. There is not a chance in hell that we will look back years from now and realize we were being served a helping of genius with these standards.


Fans wanted one thing but got something else. And then got very worked up about it. In that way, it's the same thing repeating itself.

The comparison isn't in the highly-subjective quality of the music (a lot of people don't like any Bob Dylan music, including his sixties stuff), but the outraged "he shouldn't be doing this!" reaction to what is just the latest in a long list of musical phases he has been through.

It's not like he's got a reputation for crowd-pleasing. More the opposite!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon March 20th, 2017, 01:46 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 16911
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
Winter Lude wrote:
THe problem with Dylan doing jazz standards is this:

Jazz standards are usually great songs, but their main function in the current world is to provide a framework for jazz performers to show off their musicianship and to improvise. Being a great musician is all well and good, but not everyone can be a good song writer and you need good songs. That's why the jazz standards are "standard". Dylan's thing is that he's a lousy musician but he has great songs, and it works because he has his evolving styles. Now he's turned it around and it doesn't work, IMO. Nobody wants to hear a lousy singer doing jazz standards. His current style is a strained, crooning, damaged sounding vocal and it's tough to listen to. Especially when you compare it to people who bank on their vocal and musical abilities to deliver standards. It's a joke, really. Like the paintings that are copies of photographs. The Dylan era is over. The stuff he puts out now is not to be taken seriously.


I strongly disagree. These songs may have turned out to be great vehicles for improvisation but they were written to be hummed on the way out of the theater and played via sheet music by a musician of average skill*. They don't, or shouldn't, need perfection on each pitch to be effective. On his first album jacket Dylan was said to be evoking the field hand, and more than once I've heard his standards described as a "drunk uncle" and such, but his interpretations often work for me. Often enough, anyway.


*it's interesting to consider how musical vocabulary has changed, in terms of what an amateur musician playing popular music of the day is going to be familiar with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon March 20th, 2017, 02:50 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri April 29th, 2016, 01:44 GMT
Posts: 898
Location: Heck
The people who bash Triplicate (especially before it is even released) are the same people who think Ringo Starr has no talent


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon March 20th, 2017, 06:34 GMT 

Joined: Tue December 30th, 2008, 09:05 GMT
Posts: 841
Location: Liverpool
monklover wrote:
bobfan wrote:
Part of the issue I think, and apologies for speaking in broad generalities here, is that Dylan's audience is predominantly a rock 'n' roll audience, and for those people rock 'n' roll is the very antithesis to this genre of music.


And once it was a folk audience, many of whom were as alienated by his rock'n'rolling as any of the whiners writing here. As he famously said after leaving Isle of Wight: people make too much of singers.

I wish the creeps who say you can only listen to this or that kind of music would just shove it. They can listen to what they want and so can I. Richard Rodgers' music will live as long as anything from the 20th century. So will Chuck Berry's.

You would think that any Dylan fan would be accustomed to him doing what he pleases. But, no, there's always some heresy they're going on about like a bunch of priests.


I don't think there's anything wrong with a healthy debate, I mean that's what groups are for right? Just because people express a dislike for the standards doesn't mean they're creeps. I would argue that the 1966 analogy doesn't hold up though; we were all so much younger then, we're older than that now.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Foggy


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group