Avg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 2202
Length: 3:24
Plays (last 30 days): 2
What original album was this track from? I expect not 20th C Masters!
Google is your friend.
"Bloomdido" is a jazz standard written by Charlie Parker.[1] It was originally recorded on 6 June 1950 and was released on the Clef Records album Bird and Diz.
GODS!!!
each and every one
A very clever, yet ultimately dumb statement. People that play jazz obviously understand their own genre, or do you think that they are just poseurs, honking away to their gullible audience? Fellow musicians from other genres show great appreciation for jazz, so I doubt it's simply a matter of finding a group of suckers who wouldn't know good music if it hit them. Are there musicians that don't get jazz? Sure, just as there are plenty of fans that have no ability to reproduce what they hear, or act out their favorite movies/shows, write poems like their favorite author, or play sports like their favorite player. It doesn't mean that their interest is less worthy than anyone else's.
If someone else likes jazz, good for them. If they don't, so be it. Neither condition is indicative of their intelligence or ability, just their taste.
Well Said.
Can be summarised as "I dont need to know how to make an apple pie to be able to enjoy one"
Like any art, if it connects at what ever level great, if not just move on and leave it for others. No need to judge.
Charlie Parker - saxophone
Dizzy Gillespie - trumpet
Curley Russell - bass
Buddy Rich - drums
Thelonious Monk - piano
GODS!!!
Charlie Parker - saxophone
Dizzy Gillespie - trumpet
Curley Russell - bass
Buddy Rich - drums
Thelonious Monk - piano
Sometimes ya just gotta make do.
(Holy cats what a line up!)
c.
I think it's fantastic that people like all kinds of music... people should listen to what they like and skip what they don't. I'm one of the ones who "don't get" jazz and i'm almost envious of those who do. I think of jazz as "musicians' music" (i.e. most appreciated by people who play music and can appreciate the technical difficulty of the piece).
anyway, to those who like this: more power to you! keep the genre alive. To those who don't: don't whine, hit PSD and move on (i write this as i listen to Traffic, Can't find my way home - much more to my liking).
Do yourself a favor and listen to some song 'break down' podcasts or You Tube videos. For instance:
Strong Songs - 'Moanin' by Art Blakey
It helps to have the song dissected by a knowledgeable host.
It’s the Engineering Ground of most music since the early 20th century.
Charlie Parker - saxophone
Dizzy Gillespie - trumpet
Curley Russell - bass
Buddy Rich - drums
Thelonious Monk - piano
11+
What a line-up!
God like!!!!
Fantastic!
Charlie Parker - saxophone
Dizzy Gillespie - trumpet
Curley Russell - bass
Buddy Rich - drums
Thelonious Monk - piano
What a line-up!
Charlie Parker - saxophone
Dizzy Gillespie - trumpet
Curley Russell - bass
Buddy Rich - drums
Thelonious Monk - piano
That was one hell of a band!
Charlie Parker - saxophone
Dizzy Gillespie - trumpet
Curley Russell - bass
Buddy Rich - drums
Thelonious Monk - piano
Please take your negativity elsewhere. Why do you think it important to insult me?
I enjoy jazz immensely, and will often spend a quiet evening with bourbon, ice, Cannonball, the Birdman, or either of the Dorsey brothers. I also played in jazz bands during high school: upright bass and trumpet -- a cornet, if you want to get precise.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but please don't think everyone else should share your taste in music.
Idiocy. Practice is more important than “unlimited” training. Anyone can play and play well. To play like Bird? Not many have been as great and original.
what a great surprise!
and yes, it’s very hard to play!!
Please take your negativity elsewhere. Why do you think it important to insult me?
I enjoy jazz immensely, and will often spend a quiet evening with bourbon, ice, Cannonball, the Birdman, or either of the Dorsey brothers. I also played in jazz bands during high school: upright bass and trumpet -- a cornet, if you want to get precise.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but please don't think everyone else should share your taste in music, or that we want to hear you chide us for our taste in music.
The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.
I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone. I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."
On the other hand, I don't "get" jazz most of the time, but I know other people do and I assume that there is a lot they hear that I don't. If anything, I am impressed by people who really enjoy it.
I think I'm going to enjoy this fantastic track and focus on the SWEET.
The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.
I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone. I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."
The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.
I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone. I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."
Jazz: The people who understand or boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.
A very clever, yet ultimately dumb statement. People that play jazz obviously understand their own genre, or do you think that they are just poseurs, honking away to their gullible audience? Fellow musicians from other genres show great appreciation for jazz, so I doubt it's simply a matter of finding a group of suckers who wouldn't know good music if it hit them. Are there musicians that don't get jazz? Sure, just as there are plenty of fans that have no ability to reproduce what they hear, or act out their favorite movies/shows, write poems like their favorite author, or play sports like their favorite player. It doesn't mean that their interest is less worthy than anyone else's.
If someone else likes jazz, good for them. If they don't, so be it. Neither condition is indicative of their intelligence or ability, just their taste.
I made it with both scotch and jazz, and they are some of my favorite things/experiences. Cigars are still meh.
This is wonderful music.
That's fine f you don't like jazz. However, I suggest you give it a fair hearing. It can be an acquired taste. I try not to dismiss any musical style, although I am as yet immune to the charms of hick-hop...
And for the unconvinced, try to check out an intimate jazz club when you travel. It can be a fun, immersive experience. Went to two clubs in Madrid last week; and Tokyo (Blue Note) and Paris (Caveau de la Huchette) earlier this year. Felt all grown up :)
anyway, to those who like this: more power to you! keep the genre alive. To those who don't: don't whine, hit PSD and move on (i write this as i listen to Traffic, Can't find my way home - much more to my liking).
Jazz: The people who understand or boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.
The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.
I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone. I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."
Jazz: The people who understand or boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.
Your point being ... ?
Jazz: The people who understand or boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.
That's promising, it means I should be able to play all other genres in short order.
i do understand what you are saying
but to me they are very much connected and rely on each other
i understand you because there is some music that i too don't hear
for example REM and Pink Floyd
i have tried and tried but they both seem bland, shallow and superficial to me
not that i am correct and you are not
who knows?
Jazz: The people who understand or boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.
As a consequence, I'm bumping this 8 > 9.
I just don't get it.
Sounds like someone playing random scales on a horn with some unrelated percussion and piano in the background...
PSD for me.
i do understand what you are saying
but to me they are very much connected and rely on each other
i understand you because there is some music that i too don't hear
for example REM and Pink Floyd
i have tried and tried but they both seem bland, shallow and superficial to me
not that i am correct and you are not
who knows?
No, it is not. There is no truth in this analogy. We should rate songs not on how well someone plays an instrument, but how good the song is, which is subjective. MJ can be measured by objective methods. It would be a very bad thing for jazz in any case to insist on an objective criteria. The most commonly used objective measurement in art is sales, of course, and jazz sells very poorly.
Oh. Gee.
Truth is, Vincent Van Gogh died pretty poor, indebted to his brother Theo.
Beethoven had to sometimes scrounge for commissions and get enough money to eat.
Renowned film director John Cassavettes had a very modest income.
Are we consuming their work subjectively, or with an objective awe of their art, despite how much money they made?I think when someone plays their instrument, or composes, or writes lyrics very well, the track, is by definition, quite good, even if I/we choose to not like it, which is quite another matter. I don't have to like Neko Case or Thom Yorke to recognize that they are talented by most definitions. There are a few songs by, for instance, The Beatles, I don't care for very much, but they are on my short list of desert island music options. I semi-loathe The Stones post-78, but they are the same fellows who more or less gave birth to Gimme Shelter and Dandelion, I must give them their due, and them selling 50 million more records after '78 is almost objectively irrelevant to whether I listen to them with enjoyment or not.
I just don't get it.
Sounds like someone playing random scales on a horn with some unrelated percussion and piano in the background...
PSD for me.
and soars
And take giants steps like in a Monty Python skit. And spin around on the floors like Curly of the Three Stooges.
And then several minutes later you find yourself in a different place and time (e.g., farther down the street) but somehow things are different.
It's about time, space, and light all coming together and messing with ya.
That is an amazing comment, rdo.
Of the be-bop era. When jazz first got crazy... and wonderful.
I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't get into it. I'm rating it a 6 because Charlie Parker does not deserve anything less.
Don't rate it based on anything except how you like it; how it makes you feel. Other people's opinions are based on ... well, who knows what motivates other people? Why does Charlie Parker "deserve" a minimum score of 6? Because hipsters from NYC thought so in 1958?
With all due respect, Byronape -- and I've read lots of your posts -- you should just say what you feel and ignore hipsters whether they be from NYC, SoCal, Liverpool, Hamburg, or eastern Mali.
Me? This style makes me laugh internally, because it makes me feel good and flies in the face of 6 years worth of formal music education.
10 =GODLIKE, because Bird, was a God.
Ya know, I gave this an "8" for the same reason. But this is one of those cases (rare on RP, thankfully) when I know a piece is excellent musically, but I just don't care for it. I make this admission regretfully. I can't rate it lower only because I just can't dis' Bird.
No, it is not. There is no truth in this analogy. We should rate songs not on how well someone plays an instrument, but how good the song is, which is subjective. MJ can be measured by objective methods. It would be a very bad thing for jazz in any case to insist on an objective criteria. The most commonly used objective measurement in art is sales, of course, and jazz sells very poorly.
10 =GODLIKE, because Bird, was a God.
Having said that, it made me smile tonight. So up to a 7 it goes.
In A Silent Way! One of my all-time faves!
Would you judge me if I just came out and said that I vastly prefer post-bop to bebop? Give me any cut from In a Silent Way or A Love Supreme over this just-a-little-too-technical stuff.
Having said that, it made me smile tonight. So up to a 7 it goes.
What you call "make-it-up-as-you-go" could more accurately be called "improvisation" within the structure of a composition. I believe this recording features Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, and Buddy Rich, but it's obviously not for everyone.
Yes its called improv bro.Geez
I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't get into it. I'm rating it a 6 because Charlie Parker does not deserve anything less.
What you call "make-it-up-as-you-go" could more accurately be called "improvisation" within the structure of a composition. I believe this recording features Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, and Buddy Rich, but it's obviously not for everyone.
I'm with you. . . except it's a generous 3 from me. I particularly dislike the very average drum solo at the end.
or maybe it's the Sloan sessions, like I just saw someone mention. Still, I liked the 'regular guy'... :)
I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't get into it. I'm rating it a 6 because Charlie Parker does not deserve anything less.
Such a shame they didn't use them on this recording!
jbjnr wrote:
Such a shame they didn't use them on this recording!
One dumb comment follows another .
Such a shame they didn't use them on this recording!
?????
Experience. Having a musical background helps.
pattiecovert wrote:
(As if I didn't know!)
Excellent! Thanks Bill.
Yeah, always makes me think that Charlie Parker has joined the staff of Marketplace . . .
OK, now when I say "hit it" let's all play a different song.
Hahaaaa! That's damn funny! I upvoted you, btw. You made me laugh :)