Is it my imagination or is this one of your best lyrically played tunes I've heard?
Let me ask myself this question.....Okay, myself is in the bathroom at the moment. I'll wait until myself get's out.
Okay, he's out and myself seems to agree with me..........
Very good playing Wade...Very good! Rhythmically/Melodically/Lyrically.....Ya know what immediately hit me? Cab Calloway. In fact I could see Cab in his white tails as this is being played. The ironic thing is that your philosophy is to have music evolve, not stagnate, and here you are back in the 30's, early 40's, swinging. But ya see? Who cares? This is swinging music and I dig it.
It's timeless!
You confuse me at times....I don't hear evolution in your music. I never did, but that never mattered to me.
I know it bothers the hell out of you what's being presently produced by the young minds of today.
Well, your influence is counterproductive to your philosophy. But only according to your own belief system. As far as mine goes, I really enjoyed it and I could care less what period it was from. Good music is and will always be timeless.
The name is not suited well, as in dementia...... It seems you knew exactly how to take the tune.
Thanks Mike, glad you liked it.
Very interesting hearing your comments as I guess I've failed to clearly communicate to even you (although we have had heaps of correspondence). I'm happy to play in any style, any period and do this by choice. I'm not a vanguard player, I'm a gigging amateur. The only aspect of my playing that I hope is in keeping with what I espouse is that I'm trying to give a musical experience, feeling, emotion (etc.) to the listener. What I've consistently commented on is the
[FONT=&]TEACHING of mainstream technique[/FONT] as though it's the only jazz and the only way a player will become competent. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion. Mainstream simply seems to be more codify-able, and thus teachable as technique by pedagogues. It however has several fatal flaws: 1. It relies on "standards".... what's a standard?....a tune that nobody under 70 in the general public knows. 2. The goal/object of the player is to impress others with their technique. 3. The "music" one hears as a listener is a brief tune, then each player taking turns trying to impress you, but playing completely differently (lack of continuity). 4. The players are encouraged to play and sound like someone from half a century ago. 5. How many poor copy tribute bands does it take to represent that era? Is there any wonder why nobody wants to listen?
It's not the era, it's not even the tunes, it's the artless circle jerk mentality of any group of musicians who haven't got the basic notion that a musician is an
[FONT=&]entertainer[/FONT]. An entertainer GIVES an experience to their audience. Most of today’s mainstream players attempt to TAKE praise from their audience for their (hard earned) technical expertise that they are showing off. An audience may find this interesting for a few moments, like watching the world's fastest typist. But like the typist if there is nothing communicated in those words, who cares? Art and creativity are about communication, not technique. If mainstream teaching were proven to be good at opening up creativity then it would be another matter.
An enjoyable listen though
