Jimmy Garrison bootleg

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by Marc Piane

I was intending to stay a bystander since several pages ago but being an Italian (ever see my cousin Vinny) raised in a University community (U of C) I can no longer resist the urge. I apologize ahead of time of this post sounds condescending.

Reading this thread I am struck by how many definitive statements are made. Words like 'good', 'bad', 'valid', 'invalid', 'only', 'right', 'wrong', 'sucks', etc, etc. I believe that talking or writing in this manner ultimately influences the way we think and perceive... that includes hearing. In my mind taking the time to analyze the track to prove whether he was right or wrong is fulfilling a human need to get everything to fit into one camp or the other. Right or wrong. While I understand that is part of the point of any written discussion forum I think it also serves to take music out of its essence which is as an auditory experience. It also can never be definitively proven because Jimmy can't weigh in. We are then left with our experience of the sounds and ultimately that's all we are ever left with even if Jimmy were here. As an example Eric heard it as he was doing some interesting 'outside' stuff until someone 'proved' otherwise. Basically denying his experience. I enjoyed the track myself and have not gone back to prove or disprove anything. I feel no need to.

Again sorry if this sounds condescending. These kind of discussions really bug me on a base level because I don't think they are being respectful of experiences other than our own.

I have played a fair amount of free stuff but nothing like Damon so I'm going to pop some corn and sit back.

Marc, we are all influenced by outside things in our hearing/experiencing music. That doesn't have to be a bad thing. I hear music differently from when I was in my teens. I know more, have seen and heard more, and therefor have a better understanding of what I hear.
A saxophone player I know made an interesting observation. When his daughter was young (1 or 2 years old) she reacted differently to different types/kinds of music. She reacted "positive" on what he (and I for that matter) thinks is music of quality: classic composers like Bach, jazz icons like Bird and Trane. When she heard top 40 stuff she reacted indifferent at best. He suggested that we all are born with good taste, and through exposure to "bad" music we learn to like it.
I still think Garrison just simply made a mistake, and proved so with the transcription. That is not important for how I experience the recording, you're absolutely right about that. But I hope by recognizing these things I learn more about music, and my appreciation for good music becomes more intens.
Btw I don't think using words like good, bad, sucks etc. have as much influence as you seem to think. People will think what they think, and rightfully so. I call it like I see it, so when I think something sucks... If someone asks me what happens there, and I hear something I tell them. If someone asks for "proof", I'll provide it if I can. Some people will see it my way, some won't. End of story. But I ask anyone here: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Finally, I didn't notice anything condescending in your post.

[damonsmith]

I don't think it is impossible that Garrison lost the form. There are just plenty of other possibilities.
Instead of listening to what the notes are, we can listen to what they do - which is create some suspended harmonies, and start to push and pull at the form.
Like I said, if it were more clearly straight ahead guys, it would be more clear cut.
If Ed defers, I will defer.

Originally Posted by contrabart

I hope that with that you mean tonal or traditional material, because as I see it in "free" improv the only thing that can make it work (because of the lack of this material) is conversation.

At a certain point conversational playing became way too "chatty". Material was too often introduced to just say "yes, I am listening" than to create the structure.
What I have found is it is pretty near impossible to NOT listen to a person on the bandstand with you - there are plenty of situation where I'd have LOVED to be able to tune someone out.
This makes me think JG was hearing what was going on, and if it was a mistake I think it would have been shorter.

[quote=contrabart;13696660]You obviously being one of the free jazz guys on this forum, I have a question for you. And please don't think I want to do anything but ask an honest question.
Why is it that in a lot of free improvised music the musicians seem to think it's forbidden to let the "music" element (traditional melody, rhythm, sound of the instrument) play a part of their improvisation? If it is really free there should be no limits to what you want to play.[/QUOTE

The issue with traditional rhythm is that modern pop music tells us the listener will choke down ANYTHING with a beat. So keeping steady rhythm out of it lets the music stand on it's own.

It turns out that free improvising is a great format for exploring abstraction in music but there are far better formats for exploring melody and harmony - like jazz.

Even still, all things are generally there, just broken down enough to allow all the musician versions of music to co-exist. I play in some contexts with lots of melodic and harmonic material, and some with as much abstraction as possible.

So, generally, the goals are often looking for new sound territory exploring abstraction, AND free improvising.
You are also less likely to get a canned response (Ex. scale/chord relationship material) with sound based material.

I love working with melody and harmony, but I am not going to get much further than Shostakovitch with it... Where I have actually been able to find some truly new sounds on the instrument (with the help of Mark Dresser's research).

[damonsmith]

I don't think it is impossible that Garrison lost the form. There are just plenty of other possibilities.
Instead of listening to what the notes are, we can listen to what they do - which is create some suspended harmonies, and start to push and pull at the form.
Like I said, if it were more clearly straight ahead guys, it would be more clear cut.
If Ed defers, I will defer.

Originally Posted by contrabart

I hope that with that you mean tonal or traditional material, because as I see it in "free" improv the only thing that can make it work (because of the lack of this material) is conversation.

At a certain point conversational playing became way too "chatty". Material was too often introduced to just say "yes, I am listening" than to create the structure.
At this point, more autonomous material that adds to the compositional structure of an improvisation is more valuable.
What I have found is it is pretty near impossible to NOT listen to a person on the bandstand with you - there are plenty of situations where I'd have LOVED to be able to tune someone out.
This makes me think JG was hearing what was going on, and if it was a mistake I think it would have been shorter.

Originally Posted by contrabart

You obviously being one of the free jazz guys on this forum, I have a question for you. And please don't think I want to do anything but ask an honest question.
Why is it that in a lot of free improvised music the musicians seem to think it's forbidden to let the "music" element (traditional melody, rhythm, sound of the instrument) play a part of their improvisation? If it is really free there should be no limits to what you want to play.

The issue with traditional rhythm is that modern pop music tells us the listener will choke down ANYTHING with a beat. So keeping steady rhythm out of it lets the material stand on it's own.

It turns out that free improvising is a great format for exploring abstraction in music but there are far better formats for exploring melody and harmony - like jazz.

Even still, all things are generally there, just broken down enough to allow all the musician versions of music to co-exist. I play in some contexts with lots of melodic and harmonic material, and some with as much abstraction as possible.

So, generally, the goals are often looking for new sound territory exploring abstraction, AND free improvising.
You are also less likely to get a canned response (Ex. scale/chord relationship material) with sound based material.

I love working with melody and harmony, but I am not going to get much further than Shostakovitch with it... Where I have actually been able to find some truly new sounds on the instrument (with the help of Mark Dresser's research).

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

I don't think it is impossible that Garrison lost the form. There are just plenty of other possibilities.
Instead of listening to what the notes are, we can listen to what they do - which is create some suspended harmonies, and start to push and pull at the form.
Like I said, if it were more clearly straight ahead guys, it would be more clear cut.
If Ed defers, I will defer.



At a certain point conversational playing became way too "chatty". Material was too often introduced to just say "yes, I am listening" than to create the structure.
At this point, more autonomous material that adds to the compositional structure of an improvisation is more valuable.
What I have found is it is pretty near impossible to NOT listen to a person on the bandstand with you - there are plenty of situations where I'd have LOVED to be able to tune someone out.
This makes me think JG was hearing what was going on, and if it was a mistake I think it would have been shorter.



The issue with traditional rhythm is that modern pop music tells us the listener will choke down ANYTHING with a beat. So keeping steady rhythm out of it lets the material stand on it's own.

It turns out that free improvising is a great format for exploring abstraction in music but there are far better formats for exploring melody and harmony - like jazz.

Even still, all things are generally there, just broken down enough to allow all the musician versions of music to co-exist. I play in some contexts with lots of melodic and harmonic material, and some with as much abstraction as possible.

So, generally, the goals are often looking for new sound territory exploring abstraction, AND free improvising.
You are also less likely to get a canned response (Ex. scale/chord relationship material) with sound based material.

I love working with melody and harmony, but I am not going to get much further than Shostakovitch with it... Where I have actually been able to find some truly new sounds on the instrument (with the help of Mark Dresser's research).

Thanks for clarifying. Funny how in a way we do the same things, only with different material. Traditional or free, we listen, react by answering when we feel that's what is needed, or react by introducing new things when the situation asks for it.

To quote Branford Marsalis: we play what the music tells us to play.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by contrabart

To quote Branford Marsalis: we play what the music tells us to play.

To clarify about those guys: my issue is only with Crouch and Wynton's early behavior and ideals.
I like Branford, am a huge Revis fan, and think they usually have great bassists.

[Marc Piane]

Originally Posted by contrabart

Marc, we are all influenced by outside things in our hearing/experiencing music. That doesn't have to be a bad thing. I hear music differently from when I was in my teens. I know more, have seen and heard more, and therefor have a better understanding of what I hear.

Exactly. Your understanding of reality is shaped by your experiences. I don't look at it as bringing you any closer to some grand universal understanding though. My suggestion here is really just a semantic one. I think stating things as hypothesis and evidence like is done in science makes positions stronger rather than stating them as some irrefutable fact. It is something I've been playing with and become more sensitive too.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

Posting from my phone. Try this link if the other is broken.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

[MLysh]

Best thing about this thread: Robert Anton Wilson video.

As an aside: I met Jimmy a couple of times when the world was much, much younger, and he was one of the sweetest, most beautiful musicians I've ever met. Upon our first meeting, he told me, "Don't hang your head when you tell people you play electric bass. There's a lot of beautiful music to made playing electric bass."

[iona bass]

Originally Posted by contrabart

Here it is. Played changes above staff, original under. Starts at the first bar of the chorus in which it goes wrong. In bar 13 Ab major should be under staff.

"God is in the Details" (!)
Thanks, contrabart.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by contrabart

Here it is. Played changes above staff, original under. Starts at the first bar of the chorus in which it goes wrong. In bar 13 Ab major should be under staff.

Those chords below the staff are pretty loose and far from definitive. The transcription is nice, but it could REALLY go either way.
Again, what the notes are and what the notes are doing are two different things as is how they relate to a chord chart vs. how they relate to the music at hand.

[contrabart]

You kidding? The chords below the staff are the original changes. I give up. Go ahead and keep not using your ears and eyes.

[damonsmith]

No, I mean where you are trying make a case between Cmaj7 and Am7 (etc.), where his line could really be either one.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by contrabart

You kidding? The chords below the staff are the original changes. I give up. Go ahead and keep not using your ears and eyes.

All I am saying is, the transcription supports your case, but does not prove anything.

[hdiddy]

LOL this thread prob one of the more interesting/entertaining threads of late.

Emperor has no clothes vs. Emperor is a God vs. Emperor is in the eye of the beholder

[longfinger]

This thread is funny...

Reminds me of a quote I read in the newspaper that I don't recall who made or whom they were talking of.. maybe comedian George Burns.


> When a young unknown comic tells a joke and no one laughs, the audience thinks "This guy sucks, he is bombing!", but when a older famous comedian tells a joke and no one laughs, the audience thinks "Oh no, I did not get the joke, what did I do wrong?"

It is sounds pretty clear that Jimmy Garrison started the bridge 8m early in that chorus. If he actively chose to do that does not matter at all, given that the other two players are pretty straight ahead and stick to a form, it sounds like he alone made a mistake. He does not rejoin them until a minute and a half later.

If "Ionabass" or any one else here said "check out my group's performance last week" and posted a similar clip, I'm sure a lot of people would say, something about about getting lost at around the 4minute mark. But put a famous name on it and suddenly it is "Oh no, I'm not 'getting it' as a listener." Suddenly we get "Boosterism for celebrities", Ah well, celebrity has its advantages.

The track still has beautiful musical moments in it. No one says it doesn't. It's a very musical performance. (Still, it is a bootleg and not part of a "Live at The Town Crier" album release.)

[damonsmith]

I for one, am not saying it impossible JG got lost. What I will say - a without trying to be insulting - is that Garrison had a far wider concept of harmony than those who are saying he is "clearly lost" therefore opening up strong possibilities of other truths, as I have put forth.

[thepontif]

I gotta say, if you think Jimmy was just "stretching", it's nothing compared to some of the arguments I'm seeing here.

When you hear hoofsteps in midtown, think horse, not zebra.

This kind of grasping at straws in an effort to avoid just conceding that the most LIKELY explanation (by far) for what happened is he got lost is really just WAY academic, and doesn't help the advancement of art, IMO.

Lots of explanations for why what happened happened...and only one really makes any sense in the real world.

[thepontif]

By the way, Joe Locke asked me to send him this video link. I'll be interested to see what he says.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by thepontif

Lots of explanations for why what happened happened...and only one really makes any sense in the real world.

Only one makes sense to very conservative ears - that is my only point here.

[damonsmith]

The sureness the conservatives have here is really disturbing. SOMETHING clearly happens at the times mentioned.
Since it isn't Ray Brown and Jeff Keezar, and it is Jim Garrison, I say he could be pushing for something else or he could be lost.

The transcription is what makes things definitive for some.
For me, the length of time he is supposedly "tuned out" is a bit too long to be that lost.
My feeling is he'd hear it is sooner, but I could be wrong, and so could the "inside ears" in the discussion.
The implication that he is lost also implies he couldn't hear it and that he wasn't listening.

[Eric Hochberg]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

The transcription is what makes things definitive for some.
For me, the length of time he is supposedly "tuned out" is a bit too long to be that lost.
My feeling is he'd hear it is sooner, but I could be wrong, and so could the "inside ears" in the discussion.
The implication that he is lost also implies he couldn't hear it and that he wasn't listening.

Or he was ticked at the vibes player and decided to not let go... Could have been a bit of a pissing contest.