In Reply to: Re: weak? posted by gkargreen on April 28, 2006 at 13:17:49:
I mean, I suppose I can understand why someone would say that, but only if they hadn't heard very much Bill Evans, and only they don't really hear what's going on in jazz very well. Don't take that as an insult - such is the case with almost everyone. There is MORE substance in his later work because, like Miles for example, he got rid of bebop from his lines, trying to build lines out of melodic fragments. Most of his best records are after 1965, and in general they swing harder and deeper than the earlier stuff; the 'lounge' aspects seem that way only if you're not hearing the inner voices (but again, this is not easy, and often doesn't come across very vividly on recordings). A rough analogy: it would be like saying that Beethoven's string music is nice background music. As for his early stuff, the 'ethereal' quality is confined to just a few tracks. Most of the time it's just the opposite: hard, snappy and almost dry. Try his early recording of 'Oleo' for example - you would almost think it's Bud Powell. Ok rant over ... subject close to my heart.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Sorry, but ... - Dr. Philosophy 02:08:37 04/29/06 (7)
- Re: Sorry, but ... - gkargreen 08:46:29 04/29/06 (6)
- Re: Sorry, but ... - Dr. Philosophy 10:54:27 04/29/06 (0)
- Re: Sorry, but ... - bw116 09:27:34 04/29/06 (4)
- Re: Sorry, but ... - gkargreen 08:53:14 05/01/06 (3)