On 3 Apr 2008, at 6:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 3 Apr 2008 at 13:55, Darcy James Argue wrote:
My generation views songs as analogous to movies, which are released
in a fixed, immutable form. When you watch the late Jules Dassin's
brilliant film _Rififi_ at an repetory cinema, or on DVD, it
On 3 Apr 2008 at 13:55, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> My generation views songs as analogous to movies, which are released
> in a fixed, immutable form. When you watch the late Jules Dassin's
> brilliant film _Rififi_ at an repetory cinema, or on DVD, it's the
> same movie audiences saw when it
On 3 Apr 2008 at 16:42, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2008, at 3:46 PM, dhbailey wrote:
> >
> > I agree that a person's personality can definitely affect the way a
> > group plays. But the music lives on even when that person has left
> > or died, even though the interpretation changes.
At 1:55 PM -0400 4/3/08, Darcy James Argue wrote:
John,
This is actually an excellent example because it highlights the
generational difference I'm talking about.
Your generation views songs as analogous to theatrical roles, which
we expect can and should be played by many different actors o
On 3 Apr 2008, at 3:46 PM, dhbailey wrote:
I agree that a person's personality can definitely affect the way a
group plays. But the music lives on even when that person has left
or died, even though the interpretation changes.
Or it lives on in recorded form, where the original interpreta
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:32 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Then it's a pretty poor piece of music, if it depends more on the
personality of the performer than the quality of the music.
Can I offer a different example in jazz?
The Charles Mingus band, even when he was sick and in
And... well, I just found out that a remake of _Rififi_, starring Al
Pacino, is in the works.
I fully expect it to be every bit as dreadful as Gus Van Sant's
_Psycho_ remake from a few years back. But the fact that _Rififi_ is
being remade bears absolutely no bearing one way or the other on
John,
This is actually an excellent example because it highlights the
generational difference I'm talking about.
Your generation views songs as analogous to theatrical roles, which we
expect can and should be played by many different actors over time.
Theatre is necessarily mutable, and i
On 3 Apr 2008, at 6:40 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Well, I would hate to make a sweeping generalization such as "those
that have tried have all failed very badly, in my estimation" based
on a single person's interpretation. Only when you've heard a
significant number, could such a statement have a
At 6:40 AM -0400 4/3/08, dhbailey wrote:
I personally think any of Coltrane's originals can stand up to
reinterpretation (just as most pieces of music can) and if they
don't match the original, that's fine. They can't because the
original depends on the tone and personality of the original a
dhbailey / 08.4.3 / 6:40 AM wrote:
>I think that in another 10 years we'll see a lot more new versions of
>Coltrane's music, as newer people who don't have the same reverence for
>the original recordings see past Coltrane's performance of them into the
>soul of the music and take it out of his
On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:32 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Then it's a pretty poor piece of music, if it depends more on the
personality of the performer than the quality of the music.
Can I offer a different example in jazz?
The Charles Mingus band, even when he was sick and in a wheelchair in
front o
Well, I would hate to make a sweeping generalization such as "those that
have tried have all failed very badly, in my estimation" based on a
single person's interpretation. Only when you've heard a significant
number, could such a statement have any validity.
I personally think any of Coltran
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:13 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
All I am saying is that a works suitability for reinterpretation
(whether its arranging, covering, remixing, making mashups, or
something else entirely) bears absolutely no relation to its quality.
Few people have
Hi Chris,
I have not heard Kenny Wheeler's version -- in fact, I wasn't aware he
had arranged it. I'll have to check it out sometime.
I was thinking more of Branford Marsalis's recording. I generally like
Branford, even on those occasions where he is shamelessly stealing
from Coltrane. Bu
On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:13 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
All I am saying is that a works suitability for reinterpretation
(whether its arranging, covering, remixing, making mashups, or
something else entirely) bears absolutely no relation to its
quality. Few people have tried to cover Coltran
On 2 Apr 2008, at 11:25 PM, John Howell wrote:
At 6:15 PM -0400 4/2/08, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 2 Apr 2008, at 5:45 PM, John Howell wrote:
But replays of the original are just nostalgia. Covers or new
approaches are what establish longevity, for me.
This isn't how the popular music wo
At 6:15 PM -0400 4/2/08, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 2 Apr 2008, at 5:45 PM, John Howell wrote:
But replays of the original are just nostalgia. Covers or new
approaches are what establish longevity, for me.
This isn't how the popular music world works. The original recording
*is* the work.
On 2 Apr 2008, at 5:45 PM, John Howell wrote:
But replays of the original are just nostalgia. Covers or new
approaches are what establish longevity, for me.
This isn't how the popular music world works. The original recording
*is* the work. The vast majority of covers (well over 90 percen
At 4:02 PM -0400 4/2/08, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 28 Mar 2008, at 10:12 PM, John Howell wrote:
But are you talking about replays of Elvis' recordings, or up to
date covers by other people?
Elvis's own recordings.
I just remembered that "A Little Less Conversation" was Mitt
Romney's camp
20 matches
Mail list logo
