I Wanna Be Sedated

[Huggy Love]

Nothing's like "Bitches Brew", that's like comparing things to "Are you experienced".
I love the old Mahavishnu Orchestra stuff and acknowledge how sloppy it is in parts, but like Bitches Brew and Hendrix, it led the way in innovation. Snarky is not groundbreaking, it's just a very polished version of jazz rock fusion, a style of music that has been out of the limelight for a very long time. It *IS* much more valid to my ears & mind because it's done by humans and you can hear and feel that.

As for DAWs, I'm slightly familiar with the different products out there, and you can use almost all of them to record "old skool" like back in the days of tape (even most jazz with drummers are recorded digital). Most music coming out these days does not and uses loops, maybe that is what turns me off.

 

[László]

Here's my thing about the live recording of Snarky we heard -

Does Not Swing.

They could be great on other stuff, just talking about what I heard. Miles? Swings. Mahavishnu? Swings. Even BS&T and Chicago swung more than that. So...

I guess what I'm saying is that the style doesn't matter to me, the question is how well done something is. Not that I'm any paradigm of musical greatness, I know my limitations and basically I'm lucky to be doing commercial work. Very lucky indeed!

But we're talking about music here, and recordings. There's no wrong or right, just a lot of opinions. And that's worth discussing any old time.

 

[Huggy Love]

There's no wrong or right, just a lot of opinions.

That's the part of that statement that I can see as valid.

Fusion never "swings" to me and that's my musical roots, it's a different kind of critter. If anything BS&T and CTA had more swing elements to it than any of the fusion groups mentioned, but then my connection to that term is based on rhythm and phrasing connected to the traditional approach of jazz. Snarky is more funk based on the beats, and don't get me wrong, they're really good but I'm not getting a Snarky Puppy tattoo, so if you don't feel it I'm not tripping. They're just by far more enjoyable to listen to than *ANY* automated stuff out there to me, and that was the subject I was pointing out. I don't think you can change my view of that.

As for "Does not swing", I think that's coming from the debate aspect of this, listen more & read up on them. They're very highly respected in the jazz community (who think they swing), sell out venues fast, and are all very skilled musicians.

*Props for bringing up Blood, Sweat & Tears, a true fusion of jazz/rock/soul(& pop) that paved the way for bands like Chicago, the Brecker bros and Tower of Power.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Not dull I admit, but the "low-budget hooker with a binky" look doesn't do it for me.

The binky I could do without.

.... Even BS&T and Chicago swung more than that.

That's cold. I went to a bunch of those EW&F shows they played with Chicago (they're doing it again this year, and why I won't be going) and when you hear them back to back... the difference in swing was whitening.

 

[László]

I went to a bunch of those EW&F shows they played with Chicago (they're doing it again this year, and why I won't be going) and when you hear them back to back... the difference in swing was whitening.

That's why I made the point I made and mentioned them.

Incidentally, I first saw Chicago in 1966 in Detroit at a place called The Roostertail. The venue was a night club down on the Detroit River, and was where they raced unlimited hydroplanes every year that threw what was called a rooster tail of water behind the boat. Very dangerous racing, by the way.

They wore three piece suits and had a horn section like the Motown bands we liked back in the day. For teenagers at the time, they were a helluva band for those times. But...as you said...didn't swing like EWF. On the other hand, give them this: their material was far different. It was basic rock and roll of their era, only with a horn section.

So a very different concept. I liked Chicago's early records. I suppose that puts me pretty high on Sergio's Lameness Scale, huh?

I think it's important to remember that the basic idea of these bands was different, as was their material, and frankly, even their era. Chicago really got going in the late 60s and early 70s, and EWF came after the funk revolution. And there's a difference between R&B and pop/rock.

But I also think it's nice that they respect each other enough to tour together.

Fusion never "swings" to me and that's my musical roots, it's a different kind of critter.

Maybe this is a problem of definition. When I say something swings I mean that it's not stiff or academic sounding. Snarky is a very good band technically and the players are obviously very skilled, but I think they sound comparatively stiff as a unit on what I heard. I went and listened to some other stuff, but couldn't find anything but snippets here and there, so I'm not gonna judge based on what I heard.

I'm not talking about swing music. I'm using the term in a more vernacular sense. But if you say fusion never swings, well, I say you're in need of an attitude adjustment, or that you don't get it, but I'll bet that's not true at all. I'll bet you get it plenty.

Look, fusion music was in part defined by records like Miles' Bitches Brew. I remember buying that record when it came out (I was in college in 1970) and the top of my head blew off listening to it. It was a genre-maker. It was one of the first, if not the first, fusion records. And Miles always swung.

Please don't tell me that you think fusion never swings. Hell, Bach swings when it's done right.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

That's why I made the point I made and mentioned them.

Incidentally, I first saw Chicago in 1966 in Detroit at a place called The Roostertail. The venue was a night club down on the Detroit River, and was where they raced unlimited hydroplanes every year that threw what was called a rooster tail of water behind the boat. Very dangerous racing, by the way.

They wore three piece suits and had a horn section like the Motown bands we liked back in the day. For teenagers at the time, they were a helluva band. But...as you said...didn't swing like EWF. On the other hand, give them this: their material was far different. It was basic rock and roll of their era, only with a horn section.

So a very different concept. I liked Chicago's early records.

I think it's important to remember that the basic idea of these bands was different, as was their material, and frankly, even their era. Chicago really got going in the late 60s and early 70s, and EWF came after the funk revolution.

But I also think it's nice that they respect each other enough to tour together.

Well they do more than respect each other, one of their biggest songs "After The Love Has Gone" was co-written by Bill Champlin. I didn't realize that until he came out and sang it with EW&F and spoke about it. That was pretty cool to see and hear. Earth Wind and Fire didn't really come completely after the funk revolution, they formed in 1969, although they were very different sounding than what they became. They were like Psychedelic-Funk-Africans before Philip Bailey came along.

I don't dislike Chicago, I think they're an excellent band even though I don't need to watch them for another hour and a half again. Live, they are really quite good and I loved the vibe coming from the audience.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Maybe this is a problem of definition. When I say something swings I mean that it's not stiff or academic sounding. Snarky is a very good band technically and the players are obviously very skilled, but I think they sound comparatively stiff as a unit on what I heard. I went and listened to some other stuff, but couldn't find anything but snippets here and there, so I'm not gonna judge based on what I heard.

Sorry, I'm just going to flat out disagree. I can see how that one video doesn't necessarily swing -- I think they were going for more of a laid back beat in the first half of that, which, if I'm listening too analytically, might seem to drag -- but in general, they do freakin' groove. That's probably their greatest gift. I recommend listening without watching.

And I'm not trying to change your mind, Les -- music is as personal to the listener as it is to the player -- I just have a really hard time with "it doesn't swing", because to me, that's exactly what they do, in general.

Also, Huggy, check out anything recorded by Albini -- he requires that musicians he works with play live in the studio. Including stuff that is right on the cusp of musicality...here ya go. Can't promise everything will appeal to you -- it certainly doesn't me -- but if the genre is interesting to you (there's a lot of punk, hardcore, and noise bands in there), then I guarantee that what you'll get is exemplary.

 

[Huggy Love]

I just think the term "swing" is being used just to relate if you're inspired by some music.

Again, I relate it to music that taps straight to the root of the jazz tradition of rhythm & phrasing that kicks up the audience. My view of this comes from old jazz cats that were around in the 50's, my late father was one of them and when I was taking on learning jazz by ear (I can't read a note) we would play standards and not fusion. To them fusion, like modal jazz was interesting, intricate and innovative but swing is left for big band, bebop & jazz that has a strong connection to the root of New Orleans. Swing refers (mainly) to a type of rhythm, and if something has to swing, it has to have some small amount of that element. Bach doesn't unless it's redone in a jazz setting like Yo-Yo Ma did with Wynton Marsalis.

If you talk to some old Jazz cats, they just might agree with this.

And don't be slanted on Snarky just over debate, Dusty Chalk is right. I still like Al D, Mclaughlin, Chick, Cobham all a lot better but they're pretty damn good and doing a good job of bringing strong musicianship to folks attention.

 

[Boogie]

This is an interesting conversation to follow. I'll only add this...

EW&F vs. Chicago, especially early Chicago, is a vastly contrasting comparison. And being a sax player myself, think Sergio summed it up best..."whitening". It's the reason I moved away from sax to guitar (local teachers couldn't inspire me the way I was seeking). It's sort of like comparing Rush to Led Zeppelin or Cream. Terry Kath was the driving force in their transformation in the late '60s/early '70s and he was as far from EW&F as they get. More hard rock (as we called it then) than soul. Similar only in the application of brass in their respective musical genre. Both excellent acts and both a kick to see live. They each bring a completely different vibe to the audience.

 

[László]

Sorry, I'm just going to flat out disagree. I can see how that one video doesn't necessarily swing -- I think they were going for more of a laid back beat in the first half of that, which, if I'm listening too analytically, might seem to drag -- but in general, they do freakin' groove. That's probably their greatest gift. I recommend listening without watching.

I like the tune you linked better than the other one. But it still seems...I dunno. It's very well played, that's for sure.

It could be that what's bugging me is the horn arrangements, could be the groove. I just can't put my finger on what it is that's turning me off with these recordings. Could even be the tempo.

I feel it's just running through a bunch of changes. And I like, repeat like, most fusion music.

 

[László]

Bach doesn't unless it's redone in a jazz setting like Yo-Yo Ma did with Wynton Marsalis.

Yeah, but listen to what Glenn Gould did with Bach, playing a little with the time and tempo. Certainly not "swing music" but it definitely had a unique thing that was well received even in the world of traditional music.

I don't want to get into technical definition, which to me is as useful arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. How about if I substitute the word, "feel" for the word "swings" and we leave it at that?

We're all different, as I said. We all like different things.

You think electronic music that's sequenced or perform to loops sounds robotic. Well, it can, but that's the whole point of it. Playing with time and groove in a different way. A lot of electronica involves playing with the patterns, dropping ideas in and out, not a lot of chord changes, but concentrating on other things.

I think fusion music that isn't very well done sounds too stiff and formal. It's odd that in a way, each of us is critical of something that lacks what we like about feel. Feel is important.

 

[Huggy Love]

Electronic sequenced robot loops that can't do changes = the Matrix
I'll take the red pill.

(I coulda said ambientdrum&bassjungletechnohouse sounds more stiff than any human playing fusion and it would be true.)

 

[dogrocketp]

First off, no guitar is irreplaceable, although I might end up in jail if someone stole my Core Mira. I`m an old cat (North of 60) who has a very simple criteria for most music. Does it move me? My younger son had had this drilled into his head by his father (he`s a musician). Good music has a groove, bad music does not. Every genre has good and bad. From Bartok to the blues, it can be good. The players just have to play with conviction (talent helps).

 

[sergiodeblanc]

They each bring a completely different vibe to the audience.

They do, and it was really cool to see/hear it. If you like them both, I highly recommend checking their show they do together out.

I don't want to get into technical definition, which to me is as useful arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. How about if I substitute the word, "feel" for the word "swings" and we leave it at that?

We can leave it at that after I agree with you that the word "swing" has many uses in the world of music. Plenty of musicians use the term to denote the subtle timing differences within their playing while remaining locked into a solid tempo.

As a bonus, I'd like to throw out Nigel Kennedy's adaptation of Vivaldi's Four Seasons as an excellent example of classical music having swing/feel/groove. Listen to that, and then any other version, and I defy you to tell me that that version isn't "the jam".

Electronic sequenced robot loops that can't do changes = the Matrix
I'll take the red pill.

(I coulda said ambientdrum&bassjungletechnohouse sounds more stiff than any human playing fusion and it would be true.)

Here's the thing though... You can program "electronic sequenced robot loops" to do changes. There's nothing keeping anybody back from not hitting the quantize button, and you don't have to line everything up on/to the grid. It's up to you to do what you want with the tools in order to make the music you prefer.

I've heard sh!tty fusion bands with less feel/groove/swing than a Emu SP1200. So as much as I love real drummers, I'll have to disagree.

Every genre has good and bad. From Bartok to the blues, it can be good. The players just have to play with conviction (talent helps).

Truth.

 

[Huggy Love]

Serge you're right about "changes". Mess with the quantize, program song mode and you CAN get the technology to do just about anything, I was totally overemphasizing on that one. I try not listen to any $h!tty any kind of bands or compare anything to it, to make that an even comparison you'd have to use a broken,defective, or poorly designed beatbox. I'd still take a human.

People can use "swing" however they want to, but jazz folks invented it and I'll go by their definition. (I'm a traditionalist in a lot of respects)

 

[László]

(I coulda said ambientdrum&bassjungletechnohouse sounds more stiff than any human playing fusion and it would be true.)

Yes, it would be true. Because it's supposed to sound more stiff than any human playing fusion. It's all ABOUT being more timing-accurate and quantized than any human playing fusion. It's all about using the machine and its unique machine-like capabilities to create a certain genre of music. It's all about pushing the boundaries of that genre.

Maybe a decent analogy: Cubism in painting was not intended to create lifelike images. It was a response to the machine age.

Fusion on the other hand is the opposite -- it's not intended to sound stiff and robotic. And therein lies the difference between one kind of art and the other. To push the boundaries of fusion between rock and jazz, it's not supposed to sound formulaic, stiff, machine like, etc. It's supposed to rock, and groove, and at the same time incorporate elements of jazz styles.

Think maybe Edward Hopper and his modern but realistic paintings.

Artistic intention is not the same thing as artistic merit. However, one's preferences matter.

You don't have to like what I like, and vice-versa. That's fine, and it's OK. But at the same time, it might be nice to try and understand the best of the styles that other people are into just to be able to have a mutually respectful discussion about it.

 

[Huggy Love]

understand the best of the styles that other people are into just to be able to have a mutually respectful discussion about it.

Oh I have to respect it, it runs the media world at this time, and I understand the latest technostuff more than even my kid had realized when I knew about "nitecore", a very recent trend of techno inspired by anime. It's so new there isn't even a wiki page on it yet.
To put in painter's perspective, I've always liked Hopper, but I like Vargas more. ...........OK the pinups helped on that one.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Kraftwerk. Meticulously crafted and metronomically played, yet grooves.

 

[László]

Kraftwerk. Meticulously crafted and metronomically played, yet grooves.

Wir fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn

Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal
Die Sonne scheint mit Glitzerstrahl

Die Fahrbahn ist ein graues Band
Weisse Streifen, gruener Rand

Jetzt schalten wir ja das Radio an
Aus dem Lautsprecher klingt es dann:
Wir fah'rn auf der Autobahn...

 

[Blues Trucker]

Im not a big Greenday fan. I only listened to a bit of the song and turned it off. What was the point that was trying to be made with it?
As far as replaceable guitars goes, I have only owned three. They were all fairly cheap. I traded one for an amp. I kinda wished I had that one back, but I like the amp better.
So, in a way yes I would be kind of out of my mind if I lost a "few" of my guitars, because I only have a couple. That means I would have lost all of them, and I would have to get a pawn shop S type knockoff. That would suck.
But mine ARE replaceable.
Good job on the music score for the video Les. Cool car, cool music.