this guy swings Bach

http://www.kenneth.nu/bachacro.cfm

Don't know if I've posted this to these lists
in the past, but if you haven't seen this you
should def. check it out!

I've long heard this potential in Bach; I was
thrilled to find somebody was so skillfully
delivering it!

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> http://www.kenneth.nu/bachacro.cfm
>
> Don't know if I've posted this to these lists
> in the past, but if you haven't seen this you
> should def. check it out!
>
> I've long heard this potential in Bach;

Is there some way you can describe what this potential is -- as
opposed to, say Loussier? More of a fusion thing?

> I was
> thrilled to find somebody was so skillfully
> delivering it!
>
> -Carl

> > http://www.kenneth.nu/bachacro.cfm
> >
> > Don't know if I've posted this to these lists
> > in the past, but if you haven't seen this you
> > should def. check it out!
> >
> > I've long heard this potential in Bach;
>
> Is there some way you can describe what this potential
> is -- as opposed to, say Loussier? More of a fusion thing?

Don't know Loussier. Like monz, I like extreme rubato
in all my music. I might even like more than monz. In
fact, you, you might even say that "more rubato" is my
prescription for everything.

As for Bach, it's just a good source of eighth notes.
Nobody knows how they played them. I suspect more bouncy
than the average recording of Bach, but I doubt they had
figured out that funk works yet.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Don't know Loussier. Like monz, I like extreme rubato
> in all my music. I might even like more than monz. In
> fact, you, you might even say that "more rubato" is my
> prescription for everything.

Did I ever upload my version of the second Brahms piano concerto? It
may have gone to far even for you--or maybe not.

> > Don't know Loussier. Like monz, I like extreme rubato
> > in all my music. I might even like more than monz. In
> > fact, you, you might even say that "more rubato" is my
> > prescription for everything.
>
> Did I ever upload my version of the second Brahms piano
> concerto? It may have gone to far even for you--or maybe
> not.

I don't remember downloading it, but if you post a link,
I will.

-C.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > http://www.kenneth.nu/bachacro.cfm
> > >
> > > Don't know if I've posted this to these lists
> > > in the past, but if you haven't seen this you
> > > should def. check it out!
> > >
> > > I've long heard this potential in Bach;
> >
> > Is there some way you can describe what this potential
> > is -- as opposed to, say Loussier? More of a fusion thing?
>
> Don't know Loussier.

Jacques Loussier is da man! Get ye some _Play Bach_ post haste!

How about Modern Jazz Quartet? Not nearly as exciting.

> but I doubt they had
> figured out that funk works yet.

Yeah, that had to wait until Beethoven :)

> > > > http://www.kenneth.nu/bachacro.cfm
> > > >
> > > > Don't know if I've posted this to these lists
> > > > in the past, but if you haven't seen this you
> > > > should def. check it out!
> > > >
> > > > I've long heard this potential in Bach;
> > >
> > > Is there some way you can describe what this potential
> > > is -- as opposed to, say Loussier? More of a fusion thing?
> >
> > Don't know Loussier.
>
> Jacques Loussier is da man! Get ye some _Play Bach_ post
> haste!

Noted.

> How about Modern Jazz Quartet? Not nearly as exciting.

? What is not nearly as exciting as what?

-Carl

Boys,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > How about Modern Jazz Quartet? Not nearly as exciting.
>
> ? What is not nearly as exciting as what?

Beyond that, is "exciting" an ultimate benchmark? What about elegance? what about depth and insight? What about subtle mastery, or raw brashness, or seasoned understanding, or even refined and passionate understatement?

Must be a lot of ways to interpret great music...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > > http://www.kenneth.nu/bachacro.cfm
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if I've posted this to these lists
> > > > > in the past, but if you haven't seen this you
> > > > > should def. check it out!
> > > > >
> > > > > I've long heard this potential in Bach;
> > > >
> > > > Is there some way you can describe what this potential
> > > > is -- as opposed to, say Loussier? More of a fusion thing?
> > >
> > > Don't know Loussier.
> >
> > Jacques Loussier is da man! Get ye some _Play Bach_ post
> > haste!
>
> Noted.
>
> > How about Modern Jazz Quartet? Not nearly as exciting.
>
> ? What is not nearly as exciting as what?

Modern Jazz Quartet's renditions of Bach are not nearly as exciting
as Loussier's.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Boys,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > How about Modern Jazz Quartet? Not nearly as exciting.
> >
> > ? What is not nearly as exciting as what?
>
> Beyond that, is "exciting" an ultimate benchmark?

Ultimate benchmark? What does that mean?

>What about >elegance? what about depth and insight? What about
>subtle mastery, >or raw brashness, or seasoned understanding, or
>even refined and >passionate understatement?
>
> Must be a lot of ways to interpret great music...

Did anyone say that "exciting" is the only dimension by which to
judge great music? I sure didn't!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> > Beyond that, is "exciting" an ultimate benchmark?
>
> Ultimate benchmark? What does that mean?

Exactly - you said one thing wasn't nearly as exciting as another, and that is hardly a benchmark for me when it comes to Bach, at least in the hands of MJQ. I haven't heard Loussier, so I'm not comparing, but I find the elegant handling of J.S. in the hands of Milt, John, and the Heath men to be worthy of the highest listening.

> Did anyone say that "exciting" is the only dimension by which to
> judge great music? I sure didn't!

Neither did I.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> > > Beyond that, is "exciting" an ultimate benchmark?
> >
> > Ultimate benchmark? What does that mean?
>
> Exactly - you said one thing wasn't nearly as exciting as another,
>and that is hardly a benchmark for me when it comes to Bach, at
>least in the hands of MJQ.

I know what you mean, and I agree, which is why I recommended the
Modern Jazz Quartet to Carl. But I don't think this is a correct use
of the word "benchmark". Instead, (insert favorite artist) could be
said to be a benchmark for the jazz intepretation of Bach, or
whatever. "Exciting" can't be a benchmark. Sorry for the pedantry.

>I find the >elegant handling of J.S. in the hands of Milt, John, and
>the Heath >men to be worthy of the highest listening.

Likewise.

> > Did anyone say that "exciting" is the only dimension by which to
> > judge great music? I sure didn't!
>
> Neither did I.

Yes, that was abundantly clear.

Long ago, Paul wrote...

> > http://www.kenneth.nu/bachacro.cfm
> >
> > Don't know if I've posted this to these lists
> > in the past, but if you haven't seen this you
> > should def. check it out!
> >
> > I've long heard this potential in Bach; I was
> > thrilled to find somebody was so skillfully
> > delivering it!
>
> Is there some way you can describe what this potential
> is -- as opposed to, say Loussier? More of a fusion
> thing?

Just got ahold of Loussier Plays Bach last night. NB,
several months ago I sent away for Kenneth's disk, my
paypal account got charged but I never got anything,
and repeated e-mails to Kenneth have gone unanswered.

I don't see much similarity between Jonsson and Loussier.
If the former is 'polyrhythmic Bach', the latter is 'jazz
based on themes from Bach'. Jonsson's are much closer
note-for-note transcriptions. Loussier's are sectional,
oscillating between swing and straight time, and
importantly they discard most of the counterpoint. Yes,
jazz is often polyrythmic, but this is usually between
the melody and a fixed pattern of beats. Jonsson is
doing polyrhythmic counterpoint.

The performance values on the Loussier album are
excellent, and the music very charming and fun to listen
to, but I find it less interesting from a compositional
perspective, and less stimulating intellectually.

Does this make sense?

-Carl