puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8164 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Raf, I didn’t know about Holland’s work prior to Davis, which albums can I find it on? Lately, I’ve been listening to him a lot (he’s definitely the jazz musician I’ve listened to the most this fall) and I’ve also borrowed some of his DVDs, I’d love to hear him in the Pre-Davis era.
Voto:
Yes, but we are talking about people, not machines. It's not that everything is always chosen based on actual work or monetary performance. Patton knows very well that if he makes another record with Trey Spruance, it will be a blast and sell at least 200,000 copies, but they can't stand each other, so he makes records with Kaada, who he likes. Parker evidently liked Davis; he saw something good in him, and besides, he was Charlie Parker and knew he could mentor a rookie. Let's always remember we are talking about Charlie Parker, not Donald Duck and his orchestra. When Davis took Dave Holland, it didn't seem like Holland was some kind of monster; he was a good kid eager to play and to take lots of acid. Just watch a live performance by Dave Holland now and tell me if Davis didn't make the right choice. Davis could have called anyone; he was Miles Davis, yet he called Baby Holland. We're pretty much in the same ballpark.
Voto:
I believe that the Charlie Parker situation comes down to a choice for the human side. Miles was a born leader, he had charisma, he drew people in, he was a revolutionary at heart, sharp and clever, in short, he was cool. Everything I've read or heard about Miles described him as a special person, someone magnetic. Charlie Parker was certainly no fool, and he saw in Miles a potential rising star. Moreover, Parker was taking heavy hits, Miles was also taking heavy hits, and they likely became friends through opium and drunkenness. Anyway, in my opinion, Miles was a truly great genius. Beyond the phrasing and all the technical stylistic stuff about his trumpet playing, a Miles Davis record is a thousand times more enjoyable for me than a Navarro or a Gillespie. A record is a record as a whole; it doesn’t all have to come from the trumpet. In other trumpet players’ records, it’s all trumpet seasoned with other stuff, while on Miles' records, everyone plays, and they are also very metal, since all the members do a great job.
Voto:
Well, always from a non-technical listener's perspective (I don't know how to play any instrument), Metheny seems to me to be multifaceted and very advanced. Maybe his solo albums, let’s not even say maybe, are nice lengthy pieces too focused on showcasing how fast Pat is. However, when he joins other heavyweights of such caliber that he’s not the only star on stage, I really enjoy it. With Pastorius on the first album, both of them drive me crazy; of course, he needs a good bassist to "steal" a bit of the spotlight, even with Dave Holland, for example, but wow, does it pay off. He might be a show-off, that’s true, but damn, he can pull it off; he’s Pat Metheny, for crying out loud. Similarly, I understand that a musician might be more bothered by his vanity than I am, considering I'm not in the scene and never will be.
Voto:
Yes, yes, it's really him, the keyboardist who won the "Take-That award" for three years in a row. Really nice, not cool, just really nice.
Voto:
It's not that I wanted to say that music is divided into instruments; I just meant that we are ignorant and noisy, and we can't grasp it. Back to the records, the one with Gene Krupa seems like a great suggestion, I'll put it at the top of the list. I've been in love with Krupa since I heard a bit of Drum's Battle with Buddy Rich; those guys were really millions of years ahead, two true monsters that really knew how to bring it.
Voto:
Benny Goodman got there, but excuse me... he doesn’t play the guitar. And Metheny’s stuff doesn’t seem very Swing to me. We here are ignorant and raucous; to understand a reference, we need comparisons between people doing the same thing and playing the same instrument. If you tell us that Herbie Hancock is better than Coltrane, we can't quite grasp why. Lower yourself to our level. Anyway, to put it bluntly, Goodman bores me like all swing; I prefer the Metheny style.
Voto:
Well, damn, that thing about Metheny is a bit vague, Mr. Basentini; you should tell us more. Anyway, I had missed that impressive list of names (both for the number of names and because I know one out of fifty), sign and seek. But Tristram is right: it comes off as quite pretentious in the other review, arriving at "I am this and that, and you are just not gnè gnè," already here without introductions or anything it was much better. However, could we get a quick review from someone you like? Just 15 lines, putting only one is too easy. Share your knowledge, Basentini, share it.
Voto:
No no, he's short, has a military haircut, and works in a bank... damn, totally the opposite.
Voto:
But why should I tell him to fuck off? I don’t even know who the hell I am here, maybe he’s even right. If he had written it in a review of Metheny/Hancock/Holland/DeJohnnette , I would have told him to fuck off, but I’ve never even heard the DeMajo quartet mentioned, while I know him, so he’s already at an advantage, right? I mean, Iggy Pop can say that Fugazi suck, but he can’t say the same about Blink 182.