Re: [Harp-L] Suzuki SCT-128 and jazz...LONG

Joe and Cass Leone <leone@xxxxxxxx> · Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:40:38 -0500

On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Jonathan R. Ross wrote:
I was probably a bit harsh in my dismissal of Mark Russillo's dreams
about having then harmonica as a standard jazz instrument.

 I didn't think so. I don't see it either. :)
  Dreams aren't worthless if they inspire.  But, they also aren't 
reality, and

sometimes it is good to acknowledge that most won't or can't become

such.  That was the point I wished to make.

 I understand. I had a dream of being handsome. :)
 Thus, the harmonica (of any

sort) won't become a typical, often seen instrument in jazz or 
classical

music.  But, I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from becoming

one of the exceptions which proves that rule.
As for Smokey-Joe's point about jazz, I think you are defining things
too minutely.

 As I said, you're MUCH more knowledgable than I, so.... OK
  Medeski (sp), Martin and Wood for one seem to be getting

excellent crowds of mostly young people to their concerts.  Similarly

Charlie Hunter tends to pack houses.  I mentioned Norah Jones before 
and

I think the fact that a jazz album (and it is jazz, unless the

definition becomes so narrow as to be pointlessly confining) was a big

hit with radio airplay and even video airplay shows that the genre is

doing fine.  Similarly, Lincoln Center just built a huge new complex

devoted to Jazz performance (for better or worse).  It may not be the

jazz which you want, but that doesn't mean the genre is "dead" by any

means.

 But I was talking radio stations and clubs?

Although the wife likes recent musics (Moody Blues, Foreigner, 
Journey,

Paul Simon, Queen, Eagles, Steeley Dan, Bread, America, etc), I happen

to >like stuff from my PARENTS era, so until 'I' die, I will be a fan.

That and >the fact that before my 2 complete facial rebuilds, I played 
a

couple >different instruments.
All these bands began before I was born.

 Yes, but people play 25 to 50 & + year old blues, rock, country, 
classical, Latin?. So in other words anything that predates you is old 
fogeyish. I'm guilty. You caught me. You caught the elusive Smokey-Joe.
  I wouldn't call them recent except in the context of being later 
than what you like.  Recent music

would be Green Day, Radiohead, Franz Ferdinand, Joshua Redman, 
etc...And

even three of those are fairly old-hat now.

 Yeah, know whatcha mean. I'm just an old fossil. But that's pretty 
good for a wife that's 63. You would expect her to listen to stuff from 
the late 50 thru 60s, eh?

would be the last to even consider debating this and was only giving 
MY

perspective as I have seen it. I would say that any music seems to 
flow

in >cycles of X number of years. It's just that right now, jazz's get 
up

and go >has got up and went.
You're right, that is your perspective.  It's also wrong.

 OK
  The number of
jazz records being put out is very high (check out DownBeat or Jazziz
and their pages upon pages of album reviews) and the popularity is
higher than it has been since the 70's, when Herbie Hancock and Jaco
Pastorius got on mainstream radio.  Jazz is actually thriving in many
ways.  Perhaps not the traditional jazz format you like, but that
doesn't mean that other jazz formats aren't doing quite well.  Indeed,
there has even been a resurgence of _new_ big-band music recently with
things like Orkestrova, the Chris Walden Big Band and Maria
Schlessinger(sp--I might have the name wrong) doing quite well.  They
aren't playing Ellington or Miller charts, but many would be
recognizable in that genre and others are trying actual new things
(imagine, new styles and sounds in a music that had always defined
itself by such--how radical).
Jazz is doing quite well.  Perhaps you might want to pick up an issue 
of

the previously mentioned magazines or cruise the Amazon website for new

releases and see what is actually going on before declaring it dead.

 OK

You can get out there and do a great rendition of Song for my Father 
or

Little Sunflower and it goes over their heads, but a couple choruses 
of

Proud Mary or Mustang Sally, and that's just great.

Perhaps playing songs written long before the audience was born might
not be the best way to get their attention.

 See previous statement about time warps.
  The latter two songs were
written when my parents were young, but that is at least a little
closer--after all, most people grow up hearing to what their parents
played, if not actually listening to it.

 Then your parents are as old as my kids.....my my how time does slip 
away..sob.... :(
  Try playing something actually recent.  Indeed, Paul Anka has done 
just this and has gotten rave

reviews (amazingly, considering he is Paul Anka, after all) and new 
fans

to his style of music (big-band song).

 Just listened to Anka's new stuff Thursday nite after the gig. I think 
it's over done. The band is too loud, it's too big, it's too 
commercial. It's all flash. Anka STILL has a good voice (which isn't my 
cup of tea). The material was all 'Bling'.  I preferred the second 
CD..Joe Pesche. Yeah THAT one. The guy you watch the movie specifically 
to see get killed.
  It's the artist's job to connect with the audience, not the other 
way around.

 Yes, I have preached that for years.
  If you just want to play what you like, more power to you.  That's 
what I do.  But, I don't play

out, in large part for that reason.

 The only way you can play what you like is to be in the enviable 
position of calling the shots. Nice dream if you can get it. :)

Hell man, I just play the notes...AND, btw, making harmonica sound 
like

wax >paper folded over a comb, an ocharina, or a kazoo, just goes right
through >me. It's time to get serious.
I have no idea what this means.

 Excuse me J.R. and I don't want to cause a fuss, but yes you do. I'm 
speaking of this over muffling and distorting deal. A little is ok, but 
some people play TOTALLY distorted. If a person wants distortion, get a 
toy tuba and blow it into a metal waste paper can.
  Odd sounds are an integral part of
jazz, going back to Louis Armstrong's growling trumpet.  Was Louis not
serious in his music?

 Never met the fellow. I played trumpet, but I didn't follow his style. 
I was more into Maynard Ferguson
  He was a fun-loving, genial man but all accounts
say that his love of music and professionalism was top-notch.
Similarly, was Coltrane not serious with his saxophone honks?

 Now you're talking about a guy who you shouldn't even know of given 
the early date in which he was popular. I do some of his stuff and 
according to you, I should be doing more modern material. OK. I'll give 
it a whirl :)
  I may not always love them, but I've never heard anyone describe 
Coltrane or his

music as anything but serious.  Please explain what you mean by the

above, because I'm really not sure I understand.

 I'm talking harmonica players. While musicians DO have a tendency to 
pull some strange stuff out of their machettes, they still sound like 
that instrument. Meanwhile I hear harmonica that doesn't sound like 
harmonica. It sounds like caterwalling felines, breaking glass, 
rippling sheets of sheet metal, sweet potato/ocharina. I hear a lot 
notes that are CLOSE but due to being NOT there and being manufactured 
out of a note

that IS there, the timbre or pitch or whatever is off by a noticable 
amount and sounds 'cobbled up'.
 Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against experimentation, but too 
much of this can be really annoying. The human ear is capable of 
hearing many tones in between the 'established' ones, but after a while 
it all oozes into putty.
 Thanks for your time. A lot of people don't post because they don't 
want to spend a lot of time defending themselves. I find it 
exhilliarating and I think I learned a lot from this excursion. You 
remain on my 'respect' list as you certainly KNOW some s**t.
Jo-Jo  (p.s. give Snuffy a rub under the ears for me) :)

 oo    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()()   & Snuffy, too:)
`--'

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by EWOL using Declude Virus]