Contemplazione

If you want to listen to something more "orchestral," "Birth Of The Cool" is a must, highlighting the arrangements and the truly refined and muted group sound (drawing from the "cloud of sounds" of Claude Thornhill's orchestra), as well as the three albums made with Gil Evans, the great arranger and friend of Davis. These are "Sketches Of Spain," "Porgy And Bess," and "Miles Ahead." I recommend them in reverse order.

Dear OLE, what you're asking isn't easy... let’s put it this way, if you might be particularly interested in the improvisational side and in "digesting" and fully understanding the very concept of an acoustic quintet, you could start with the 4 Prestige records recorded in '56 by the first quintet: "Cookin'", "Relaxin'", "Workin'", and "Steamin'". Gorgeous music but still wrapped in "tradition." A young John Coltrane begins to expand the harmonic spaces, as if to free himself from chords, something he will achieve in the following decade. Red Garland on piano has a truly flavorful and swinging style, legendary are his "block chords" and his phrasing. He’s not a genius like Bill Evans or Herbie Hancock, but his comping is exceptional. Paul Chambers on bass is a model of walking lines, and his vibrato notes and solos (even with the bow) are from the textbook. Philly Joe Jones on drums can be abrasive like few others, or very elegant with the brushes, but his rhythmic language is still rooted in the be-bop canon (the '40s), despite becoming famous for his "Philly lick," a kind of special rim shot that he sometimes inserted before or after the start of various solos.

Oops, the grades. Anyway, Branford is definitely better, but we're still not there.

So: the album definitely deserves a solid 4. I admit that I prefer the acoustic Miles. DANILOQUAI, the marsalis (note the lowercase) are two hacks who aren't worth a damn! Wynton in particular has only excellent technical skills, but he hasn't contributed anything to provide vital blood, nor new ideas, nor any ARTISTIC contribution to jazz. He just shamelessly copied the sound of Miles' second quintet from the '60s. With terrible results. He then made some insignificant orchestral stuff. I'm afraid you know very little about jazz, otherwise there's no way you would praise the marsalis...

Lord, what do you mean by heavy? Slow? Lacking in decibels? It's definitely not a metal song, but it's precisely in its elongated rhythms and unique sounds that its charm lies! It should be listened to without hurry, with tranquility...

"Achilles" and "Tea For One". And the album becomes a 4. Tomorrow I'll read the review, but right now my eyes are closing.

P.S.: what would the debt be? Since he met him, he has done nothing but try to kill him and keep him on edge for 15 years... jokes aside, I imagine you are referring to a hypothetical "inner growth" (?) that D'Hubert would have enjoyed after coming into contact with his "dark half." As if Feraud had forced him to man up in life!

True courage, in my opinion, doesn’t mean not feeling fear, but feeling it and overcoming it, and D'Hubert does just that. If you fear death, you show respect for your life and for the very concept of life. Feraud, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to feel fear, but not because he is so self-assured that he considers himself invincible, rather due to... I don’t know, irresponsibility? Stupidity? Fanaticism? It’s clear that the two harbored a strong, unspoken admiration for each other, in fact hidden and inverted, each secretly seduced by the other's opposing yet complementary traits. However, seen from the outside, and from my perspective, Feraud comes off looking pretty foolish compared to D'Hubert ;-)

Yes. Of course, but: "gevuntù"??? How did you manage to make such a big mistake in just one word?

"Armand, but why the hell did you fight?" "Ah, ask him!" I sincerely disagree with bjorky; I find D'Hubert's character much more fascinating, sharp, human, capable of subtle irony—in a word: deep. Feraud, on the other hand, is just a bloodthirsty and idiotic madman, with a truly childish view of honor. Throughout the film, he suffers a series of moral slaps from his opponent, a true gentleman (not a DAMERINO). D'Hubert even intercedes to save his life when he could have just sat by the riverbank and waited to see his corpse float by. Not only that, but he ensures that Feraud does not know, demonstrating that his gesture was truly "clean." Not to mention Feraud's fanaticism regarding that pig Bonaparte! D'Hubert proves to be more measured, balanced, and aware even in that ("we belong to Bonaparte"..."I believe I belong to myself!"), and for this very reason, Feraud slanders him by shamelessly lying, telling everyone that he HATED the emperor and wanted him dead. D'Hubert, on the other hand, when questioned by his superior about Feraud's conduct and the reason for their duels, instead of discrediting his opponent's reckless behavior, defends him, saying that he certainly couldn't speak ill of him behind his back after having already faced him in three duels. D'Hubert is also braver; he could easily have refused to fight in the last duel, especially since his beautiful, young wife (whom he loved very much) was pregnant, and his life was very happy. He risks everything to put an end to that unacceptable madness once and for all. And what about the scene of the duel on horseback? His fear, his trembling like a leaf, does it not reveal his great humanity, his love for life, his RESPECT for life? The other, on the contrary, would kill someone and say: "THERE!"