Author Archives: carleolson
It is, as AllAboutJazz.com notes from the top, a “bold concept”: A big band and a jazz/fusion guitarist reinterpreting (“covering” isn’t it at all, not by a long shot) Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon”—that modest little 1973 album that sold a bazillion copies and cemented Waters, Gilmour, and Co. as rock legends. The chances of such an audacious project going sideways, upside down, or simply “splat” are fairly high. Most Floyd purists, I suspect, would dismiss it immediately, and most jazz purists would be right behind them. (I hope I’m wrong, but I think that’s a fair guess.) That would be unfortunate, because “Celebrating the Dark Side of the Moon” is a stunning album, a splendid example of what can happen when exceptional jazz musicians take on exceptional rock/prog material with an equal measure of respect and experimental energy.
The album is the brain child of ACT-director Siggi Loch (ACT is a German label focused on contemporary jazz), and Stefan Gerdes and Axel Dürr, producers for the NDR Big Band; they enlisted legendary composer and arranger Michael Gibbs and the wildly eclectic, always surprising guitarist Nguyên Lê. The sleeve notes read, in part:
Nguyên Lê enlightens the Floyd’s repertoire – pure happiness – and enchants it with the collusion of the NDR Bigband and its brilliant soloists, deploying new sound-textures created by the uplifting orchestrations of Michael Gibbs. The arrangements here – Gibbs wrote three, Nguyên Lê wrote the others – provide choice settings for inspired improvisations and also reveal other compositions which appear as natural extensions of the original opus. The guitarist’s playing sparkles with those fiery, oriental accents we’ve learned to love, sustained by guests he can trust: Jürgen Attig, Gary Husband, or Youn Sun Nah, whose chalice is brimming with magnetic grace. “Celebrating The Dark Side Of The Moon” is no simple tribute to a record which made history. It fervently expresses the re-creation – exempt from all imitation – of a score which you can hear in filigree. This is a palimpsest. The writing can still be (re)read, with warm hues forged by respect for the original matrix and the multiple expressions of its identity. Like a principle of Life.
The playing throughout, no surprise, is top of the line; but what really jumps out is the muscular, bold, and detailed quality of the arrangements, as well as the propulsive fluidity of the solos and ensemble playing. Yes, you know you are hearing Pink Floyd songs, but you hear them in a new and invigorating way. Lê is especially dynamic; he plays the vocal parts in several songs, and his tone is as rich and expressive as any vocal, bringing out melodic qualities deep in the original material. Listen, for example, to “Money,” with the solo starting at the 1:00 mark:
The other stunner is South Korean singer Youn Sun Nah, whose solo work has always demonstrated a willingness to push—and sometimes simply flatten, by virtue of her power and precision—musical boundaries, moving from sweetness and light to primal, raging darkness at a moments notice (check out her rather harrowing version of “Enter Sandman”). Here she is singing “Breathe”:
The Telegraph gave the album a begrudging decent review, stating, “The remarkable thing is that eventually, the album persuaded me to forget the original. It does this very cleverly, by confirming and subverting our expectations at the same time.” Meanwhile, AllAboutJazz.com concludes its far more positive review by saying, “Nguyên Lê’s CTDSOTM is an ambitious, uplifting and frequently exhilarating project whose textural layers and conceptual riches are gradually revealed upon repeated listening. It should appeal to Floyd freaks, progressive big-band addicts and the musically curious alike.” I hope so!
It’s not surprising that AllAboutJazz.com, one of the best jazz sites out there, will occasionally review albums that aren’t fully or even remotely jazz. But it may be a bit surprising how often the site features reviews of prog albums. But jazz and prog have a lot in common, not least the interplay of tradition and innovation, composition and improvisation, individuality and group interplay. Oh, and the curious fact that no one is really able to provide a succinct, satisfactory definition of either “jazz” or “prog”. And, of course, many prog groups and artists have feet in both worlds; names such Bill Bruford, Tony Levin, Jean-Luc Ponty, and King Crimson come to mind (there are many others). Speaking of King Crimson, the band’s newest release, “Live At The Orpheum,” rates a 5 star review from AllAboutJazz.com’s John Kelman, whose encyclopedic knowledge of the band is evident in his detailed review:
Based on the group’s two-night run at San Francisco’s legendary The Warfield, the groundswell of support was not just well-deserved; this was, it turns out, one of the best Crimson lineups ever…perhaps, even, the best, with the possible exception of the ’72-’74 lineup recently documented in the third of three consecutive box sets to be released in as many years, Starless (Panegyric, 2014). This was a Crimson that may have been taking a good look back at its long legacy but this was no retro band; King Crimson 2014 was truly, well, as 21st century as they come.
There’s even an argument to be made that despite the mid-’70s Crim’s reputation as fearless and often ear-splitting improvisers, King Crimson 2014 is an even better unit because, with the addition of Collins’ reed and woodwinds and three drummers who also bring electronics and, in the case of Rieflin, keyboards to the mix, this is a group that can play virtually anything from the group’s 45-year repertoire, and do it in ways that previous, smaller incarnations could not—all with perfect intuition and dynamics. Jakszyk is a singer and guitarist who, while as riveting and talented as Belew, is a more integrated band member than his immediate predecessor, whose presence somehow seemed to dominate every incarnation he was in over the course of nearly three decades. Not that Belew’s dominance was necessarily a bad thing, but it was, in some ways, self-limiting. And with Levin back, the group has a groove-heavy bassist capable of everything from Chapman stick and fretted and fretless basses to upright bass. Like Levin, it would seem that King Crimson 2014 has the chops to do just about anything.
A truth made all the more clear on Live at the Orpheum, the new line-up’s first official release, recorded during its two-night Los Angeles run prior to moving north to San Francisco. It’s a great reminder to those who saw the tour just how special this incarnation was, while allowing those unable to catch the shows to get some idea of what all the hubbub was about.
There will inevitably be those who will criticize co-producers Jakszyk and Fripp’s decision notto include an entire performance but, instead, make it a vinyl-length recording—the double-disc CD version also includes the stereo mix in 24/96 Hi-Res on a DVD-A—that only includes about a third of the group’s live set. But there are two approaches to compiling a live release. One, the relatively easy route, is to present a full show (or a composite taken from multiple nights) that may represent the overall best performances while still containing all the inevitable minor imperfections that are part and parcel of any live performance—barely noticed, if at all, at the time but, with a permanent document, there to be heard time and again. The other, a more time and work-intensive approach, involves listening to each show’s multitrack tapes in minute detail to identify the absolute best performances and then make any necessary minor (but not necessarily quick or easy) adjustments to remove those imperfections, creating a document capable of standing up to detailed scrutiny and of more lasting quality. A show, after all, is a fleeting thing, while a recording is intrinsicallypermanent.
Clearly Crimson opted for quality over quantity, but that meant, with just three months between the tour’s end and the release of Live at the Orpheum, the work required to sift through hundreds of hours of high resolution multi-tracks may simply have been too great to manage anything more than its 41 minutes.
Based on the end result, however, Live at the Orpheum more precisely documents how King Crimson 2014 sounded; rather than a “warts and all” live recording put together on the quick, it suits—and, perhaps most importantly, respects—the detail, complexity and unbridled energy of the group’s shows.
“Well, yes, of course,” you said, upon reading the headline. “Everyone knows that Old Blue Eyes was not just a crooner, but a prog crooner, and thus the grandfather of prog rock! Does it really need to be said again?” Yes, it probably should, despite the abundance of articles on the topic (ahem). Especially since today marks what would ahve been The Chairman of the Board’s 99th birthday if he were still among us. Sinatra was born on this day in 1915, in Hoboken, New Jersey, and would go on to be one of the best-known, best-selling musical artists of the 20th century, rivaled in sales and popularity by only a handful of artists and groups.
Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that Sinatra was a “prog rocker”. I might be a Sinatra fanboy—I have over 1,100 Sinatra songs in my iTunes library and listen to some of his music nearly every day—but I’m not insane. At least not that insane. What I am saying is that Sinatra did a number of things on the musical front that were either quite unique or very notable (and probably little known to most people), that pointed toward key elements and attitudes making up what we now call “prog”.
Here, then, are five things that make The Voice the Grandfather of Prog:
1). Sinatra was the first pop artist to record and release a “concept” album. Take it away, Will Friedwald:
A landmark in American music, The Voice, recorded and released in 1945, is generally regarded as the original pop “concept” album: this was the first time a singer and arranger (the brilliant Axel Stordahl) assembled a program of songs in a distinct mood and tempo, so that one song would flow into another in a consistent program (even though it was initially released as a collection of single-track 78RPM discs).
Prior to Sinatra, singers were usually just one part, out of many, of big bands, and they released singles, of course, due to the limitations of the time. While other artists (Bing Crosby) established themselves as solo artists before Sinatra, it was Sinatra who took his individual talents to heights previously unimagined—and did so, in part, by honing in on carefully making albums with specific thematic concepts. Friedwald, who is a fabulous writer, has penned the definitive book on Sinatra as a musician (leaving aside the matters of Sinatra the movie star, scoundrel, lover, friend of the mob, etc.), titled, Sinatra! The Song Is You: A Singer’s Art (1997; 550+ pages), which covers all of this in great and fascinating detail.
2). Sinatra made an art form out of the concept/thematic album, especially (but not only) during his Capitol years, crafting albums that are, frankly (yep), perfect in every way. Although Sinatra wrote almost no songs, he handpicked the songs and put together the sequences; it was common knowledge that while Sinatra had great respect for the musicians and arrangers who worked on his albums, he called all of the shots. And that, for the time, was progressive. Friedwald notes that Sinatra was, in many ways, more interested in the lyrics than the melodies (in fact, he often irritated songwriters with liberties taken with their melodies). And so while Sinatra never recorded lengthy songs (I think that “Soliloquy”, from “Frank Sinatra Sings Rodgers & Hammerstein” was the longest, at just over 8 minutes long), his thematic albums had a certain “prog” quality in that they were a suite of songs based around particular emotions and ideas.
His 1954 classic, “In The Wee Small Hours,” for instance, is an aching, gorgeous examination of late night solitude, fragility, and heartache, while 1955’s “Songs For Swinging Lovers” is an energetic, cocky, and effusive collection. Both focus on love (of course!), but do so with an emotional and musical palette that is remarkable, supported by the astounding arrangements of Nelson Riddle. It is probably not a coincidence that Sinatra was something of a manic-depressive (by many accounts, he hardly ever slept), and that Nelson had some of the same up-and-down in his emotional DNA.
My two favorites are both from 1957, and demonstrate Sinatra’s remarkable range. “Close To You” is one of Sinatra’s least known albums, featuring the singer with just a string quartet, singing songs of lament and loss that retain a certain lightness and warmth that is harder to find in the harrowing, gut-wrenching releases, “Frank Sinatra Sings Only For the Lonely” (1958) and “No One Cares” (1959). “Close To You” reveals Sinatra’s love for a classical sound; he loved classical music, especially Puccini and Ralph Vaughan Williams, and had a massive collection of classical music (he expressed disdain for rock music, but mellowed in that regard a bit in the late 1960s). The other favorite is “Come Fly With Me,” which is packed to the brim with big brass, lush orchestra, and exotica, taking listeners on a veritable tour of the world, from the Isle of Capri to New York to Vermont to London to Paris to Hawaii to Brazil to…well, you get the point. So, in short, many years before the Beatles and the Who, Sinatra had already mastered the concept album, something that is part and parcel of prog music.
3). Sinatra was an actor—and I’m not talking about his roles in movies, which ranged from classic (“From Here to Eternity,” “Manchurian Candidate”) to sometimes horrible. He was an actor whenever he sang, bringing an authenticity, believability, and direct engagement to songs that is remarkable considering the range of material he sang. When he sang, “I’m a Fool To Love You,” you were certain he was going to jump off a cliff at any moment; when he sang “I’ve Got You Under My Skin” you witnessed a man in the midst of profound romantic angst; and when he sang “Nice ‘n’ Easy” you knew, well, that he was not going to be alone for the evening. And while most of his songs were about love and romance, songs like “Old Man River” and “Soliloquy” revealed an ability to connect in other ways as well. And his renditions of religious songs such as “Ave Maria” and “The Lord’s Prayer” demonstrate a tasteful balance between emotion and reservation. The theatrical abilities of Sinatra are worthy of admiration by prog enthusiasts, because great prog employs a sense of theater, oftentimes in full-blown, dramatic fashion.
4). Sinatra used the studio as an instrument, quite a while before any rock artists did so. This is covered in fascinating fashion in Sessions With Sinatra: Frank Sinatra and the Art of Recording (2004), by Charles L. Granata. “Frank Sinatra was a master of the art of recording,” writes Granata, “His work in the studio set him apart from other gifted vocalists; and performers old and new, vocal and instrumental, emulate his accomplishments to this day.” We often talk of this or that musician as an artist, but Sinatra—whatever his failings and flaws—was An Artist. And he was also keen to use technology to the hilt; in this, he benefited from being with Capitol when numerous innovations and advancements were being made, including the advent of stereo sound, which Capitol took up in 1957. His detailed preparation for recording was legendary, and his ability, in studio, to adjust, make changes, and address challenges (wrong notes, etc.) was exceptional.
5). Sinatra drew upon a wide range of musical styles and made them his own: classical, jazz, Tin Pan Alley, folk, blues, and even, later on, some rock (with mixed results, admittedly). He sang and recorded in small groups and with entire symphonies, with big bands headed by Count Basie and with chamber quartets, with blues and jazz players, and with bossa nova master Antonio Carlos Jobim. Even up to the end, he experimented with different styles and took risks, the sort of attitude and approach one would expect to find in a proto-prog musician. Sinatra insisted that he just was a pop singer, but he was widely regarded as a top-notch jazz singer, as Michael Nelson explains:
Sinatra was not a jazz singer in the classic improvisational mode and never had claimed to be. Yet clearly he individualized every song he sang, a hallmark of jazz, and he cited jazz singers as his most powerful musical influences—Louis Armstrong, Sarah Vaughn, Ella Fitzgerald, and especially Billie Holiday and the early Bing Crosby. Jazz musicians, for their part, had always been Sinatra’s strongest admirers. In a poll of 120 musicians by New York Times jazz critic Leonard Feather, Sinatra received 56 votes as the “greatest ever” male vocalist, 43 more than anyone else. Among those who chose Sinatra were Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Stan Getz, Gerry Mulligan, Oscar Peterson, Billy Taylor, and Carmen McRae.
In sum, Sinatra was a populist who was a true artist, an experimenter who drew deeply on traditional forms while constantly pushing at the edges, a dramatist who channeled deep emotions into focused works of high popular art, and a visionary who used concept albums and technological advances to expand and develop his musical vision and vocabulary. Happy birthday, Old Blue Eyes!
Earlier this year I posted about the (then) upcoming, new Asia album, “Gravitas,” and wrote the following about the first single, “Valkyrie”:
The positives: Wetton sounds great; his vocals are impressively strong and clear at the age of 64. The song itself is quite decent, with the distinctive Asia “sound”: soaring keyboards, big chorus, and lyrics tinged with semi-mythical elements. The negatives: the video is rather (very!) low budget, the song sounds quite a bit like most Asia songs of the past couple of decades, and young Coulson seems underused. What strikes me odd, as I’ve read about this new album, is that while the band members talk about Coulson bringing a harder, even more metal-ish, sound with him, it doesn’t show up in the first single or in the clips of the other eight tunes. And, of course, none of them really sound prog-gy at all. Come to think of it, when did Asia last really incorporate anything obviously proggy in its albums?
Having now listened to the entire album a dozen times or more, I confess to being a bit conflicted. The positives are pretty much as described above. Wetton, who is 65, sounds exceptional; his vocals are strong, clear, and with plenty of nuance and bite, as evidenced on the title track. If anything, my appreciation for Wetton as a vocalist expanded in listening to this new release, especially for the various colorings and emotional nuances he brings to the table. The production, handled by Wetton and keyboardist guru Geoff Downes, is mostly excellent (see below for the negative), featuring lush soundscapes and impeccably crafted waves of vocal harmonies, a classic Asia staple.
In short, the top end—lead vocals, vocal harmonies, and keyboards—sound great.
Unfortunately, the rhythm section and guitar ranges from occasionally agreeable to rather boring. There are times, frankly, when I wondered, “Carl Palmer still plays drums, right? Where, oh where, is the bass?!” Yes, there are a few moments that rise above average (“Nyctophobia”, for example), but overall the drums are so far back in the mix and so generic sounding, it may as well have been Session Drummer Bob Smith behind the kit. The same could be said for much of the bass guitar, with a couple of exceptions, such as a nifty solo-ish section in “Russian Dolls”. Simply put, the bass and drums are often quite pedestrian, especially for players of this caliber; they might as well have been mailed in via Pony Express and then told, “Sit down way back there and play quietly!”
As for the harder guitar sound, I’ve heard heard more rockin’, “in your face” guitar on Michael Jackson albums. Sam Coulson might be the next Joe Satriani, but he rarely gets a chance to show what he brings to the table, and his solos are short, safe, and sadly generic. There is more guitar in, say, “Sole Survivor” or “The Heat Goes On,” than on the entire “Gravitas” album.
Having listened to “Gravitas” several times, I went back and listened to “Asia” and “Alpha”, which established, for me, the benchmark for subsequent Asia albums. Two things stand out: first, the early Asia songs were far more interesting, especially musically, with a remarkable amount of “proggy” elements for such commercially successful albums (of course, the early ’80s were far kinder in that regard, as also evidenced by Yes’s “90125”); secondly, the early Asia sounded like a band that wrote songs as a band and wanted to be a band. The input and influence of Steve Howe and Palmer are readily evident, even if Wetton and Downes were the primary songwriters. And so the songs were far more diverse, ranging from “Heat of the Moment”, with its upfront guitar lick, to the dramatic push-and-pull of “True Colors”, to the deeply longing, semi-epic “Open Your Eyes” (a personal favorite). To sum it up, the songs on “Gravitas” lack variety, suffering from sameness and, in places, some overly long and repetitious choruses and outros.
“Gravitas” is, as an Asia album, rather mediocre; it has some good moments, but is lacking. Those good moments are due mostly to Wetton’s singing and Downe’s keyboards. Lyrically, there is a singer/songwriter quality here that also suggest this is more of a Wetton vehicle than a real band effort. There’s nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I miss the interplay and band-oriented sound of earlier Asia.
AllAboutJazz.com has a fascinating interview, conducted by Nenad Georgievski (writing from Macedonia, of all places), with legendary producer and musician Daniel Lanois. Here is an excerpt:
AAJ: When it comes to production, what are the things you look for in people’s music which will decide whether you produce them?
DL: I look for points of strength. It’s nice if there is a singer in the band and for the singer to have a big personality, something unique about their voice. I also look for commitment and a lot of heart and soul, because in the beginning what we do, which is representing the artist, plays a big part in the equation. Yes, you can apply a lot of muscle and you can pay your advertising after, but essentially it needs to have a lot of soul and it needs to be in existence for the right reasons. So, authenticity is the beginning, and then advertising comes later (laughs).
AAJ: Where is the meeting point between the artist’s ideas and the producer’s ideas about the outcome? Is your primary aim as a producer to help realize an artist’s vision, or to expand it?
DL: I think the producer’s job is to produce something magical within the offering of the artist. And I find that a vision comes together quite quickly when a magic moment appears. When that magic moment appears, a new vision comes into play and I don’t think people should assume that people are coming into studio with a small vision and that it’s all we operate by. I think people are hoping that they are going to bump into something fresh. When that happens then we get to be naive all over again in terms of freshness, and then a brand new vision comes into play for both parties.
AAJ: With some artists you’ve worked with over a series of albums (like U2, Gabriel, Dylan), does your function alter as you get more familiar with each other?
DL: There is no doubt that there is a relationship that develops and people’s roles change. When I first started working with U2 I was to be the engineer of the project, and then everybody in the camp realized that I was very musical. And I was able to make contributions with harmonies, understanding of rhythm and the arrangements -I was able to enter the world of music with them and not just sitting in the technician’s chair. Everybody in that camp is very smart, so they realized that my talent was such that I was able to be as much a musical producer for the record making process as Brian Eno is. So that became the strength of that relationship. Everyone knows how to work with equipment to a certain degree, but what is most important to that relationship is the evolution of our musical minds. That’s it; you are able to work with the strengths of the people in the room.
AAJ: What is it that keeps people like U2, Dylan, Gabriel, Neil Young, hungry to keep doing it at this point in their careers?
DL: That is a very fundamental question and that question applies to the whole world and not just the artists that I work with. What keeps us interested in innovation? We are human beings, we evolve and we like new ideas. With my current work I want to invent sounds that take us to the future. If there is anything that I have learned from all of the artists that I’ve worked with, it’s that they have a similar appetite to know what lies ahead, around the bend, what’s over the mountain. It’s just the way it is. Even after 60 years of rock and roll we still have an appetite to know what might be the new thing, what expression still needs to be expressed, and so on. So, as we grow and as we grow through life we look things differently when we reflect on our work.
Lanois’ most recent album is “Flesh and Machine” (see www.fleshandmachine.com):
Daniel Lanois: It’s a very technologically driven record and I use a lot of sampling and dubbing. But I sampled my own instruments and my own voice. Well, I sampled other people’s records as well (laughing). This allowed me to have a very unique personality and for the record to find its own direction. I have dreams to step into the future with my sonics, so I decided to go after symphonic or orchestral results but without the sound of familiar orchestral instruments. I wanted brand new ones that haven’t been heard before. So that was part of my driving force and criteria.
Here is a cut from that album:
… the title track from The Pineapple Thief’s excellent new album.
On the clip Bruce Soord comments “Here’s a stripped back acoustic version of Magnolia I performed in my studio recently. All the songs on Magnolia began their life this way, on acoustic guitar and vocal, so it was really nice to go back and play this song again, in the form as it was when it was born”
Much more about the band and the album on the KScope Music site.
I thoroughly enjoyed Brad’s righteous, even rockin’, post earlier this week in response to the “Rock is dead!” crowd. Mankind, it seems, has an innate attraction to the apocalyptic, including in the realm of rock. It brought to mind a piece I wrote in November 2008 on the Insight Scoop blog regarding a number of silly stories about how the Pope (then Benedict XVI) was somehow and in some way embracing and celebrating the music of the Beatles on the 40th anniversary of the release of the “White Album”. That led to a little rant on my part about how stupid it is to say, as did L’Osservatore Romano, the semi-official newspaper of the Vatican, that the popular music of the late 1960s was far superior to that of the early 21st century. To that end, I made five points. Here is the post, below the fold (the pic above, by the way, is “The Music Man” painted by Norman Rockwell in 1966):
Buzzfeed.com addresses the question in light of the fact that at the end of August, “Billboard reported that the United States had gone through the worst sales week for music since at least 1991, when Nielsen’s SoundScan first began tracking those figures. That week in August, during which Wiz Khalifa’s Blacc Hollywood topped the chart with a mere 90,000 copies sold, just 3.97 million albums were purchased in America, down 19% from the same period the year before. Last year, album sales also hit a historic low.”
There are the obvious factors: illegal downloading, streaming, and the growing notion that ownership of music is, like, soooo late twentieth century. But buying and owning isn’t quite dead:
And yet, music sales haven’t hit zero. Somewhere shy of five million albums are still sold in America every week, despite what your Spotify- (or YouTube, or Soundcloud) obsessed friend may tell you — and that’s not to mention genuine blockbusters like Beyoncé and the Frozen soundtrack. To shed some light on who still shells out for music in 2014 and how the profile of music consumers has changed over the years, we partnered with the music data and analytics firm MusicWatch to compare music consumption patterns today with that of 10 years ago. MusicWatch conducted online surveys of over 5,000 music buyers ages 13 and older in both 2004 and 2014. These were our findings.
The key takeaway is that the the middle aged are the ones putting down their money for music:
Sixty-one percent of people who buy CDs are 36 and older, according to MusicWatch’s estimate. Ten years ago, that figure was just 36%. Back in 2004, people over 50 made up just 19% of the CD-buying population, but today they’re more than a third.
This could help explain the relatively high number of veteran artists who have notched their first career No. 1 albums in 2014, including Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, The Black Keys, Sia, and Weird Al Yankovic.
Other finds: teens aren’t much for buying music. And, hey, when you listen to some of the music being produced with teens as a target audience, who can blame them? Also: “A majority of people who bought music digitally in 2014 were female (53%)…”
In graphic terms (via MusicWatch):