Peggy Lee - voice
George Shearing - piano
Ray Alexander – vibraphone
Toots Thielemans – guitar
Jimmy Bond – double bass
Roy Haynes – drums
Armando Peraza – conga
It's always tempting to post the always fine and virtually inevitable Ella Fitzgerald interpretation of the standard, standards but in this case I think Peggy Lee's lighter, more humorous, less empassioned treatment of it is better.
So far as I can find out, the incredible Roy Haynes is still with us, if he is in early March, I wonder if he'll play on his birthday as I've read he has been up till Covid stopped him. An incredible artist with an incredible career.
Update before posting: I just got a call that I've got to go out so I'm posting this prematurely.
Wow -- there's some cutting edge new music. :-)
ReplyDeleteI limit myself to posting standards to once a week, you don't do much else, only what you post aren't standards, they're moldy chestnuts. You whined like a baby when I posted Orrin Evans last fall, you shit your pants like one when I post anything from after 1940 that you don't have on an overrated recording from RCA.
DeleteI'm getting tired of regularly whipping your ass, Simps. Once a week for that too, till I get tired of even that.
Schmucko Logic:
ReplyDeleteIf you post something old from five decades ago, it's jazz and therefore new cutting edge because you like it.
When I post something new and rock oriented from this year, it's moldy fig because you don't like the genre.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said yesterday, you have the self-awareness of a paramecium. :-)
Obviously you don't know what the idea of a jazz standard is, it's not "cutting edge." I didn't use that phrase to describe Peggy Lee and George Shearing's performance. I never have used that phrase to describe any jazz here except in one piece that I posted which the composer gave that title to, not me.
DeleteYou are so stupid you figure I'm going to mistake something you said for what I said. No, Stupy, that's you, not me.
You are on record (heh) for having said, on countless occasions, that the music I like is invalid because it wasn't new. And that the music you like is valid because it's not new either, but reasons anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou're a liar and world class fool.
Thinking of every construction of a declaration that this or that music is valid or invalid that I can think of and checking keywords in it in searching this blog and Crush Seth Macfarlane's nuts for those, I come up with nothing. Where are these"countless occasions" that you seem to have imagined into existence?
DeleteI don't recall ever, never mind frequently, declared this or that music to be 'valid" or "invalid" because that's a stupid game played by people who are in the vampiristic profession of scribbling or, in your case, typeling "criticism." It's like your eternal and grammatically incompetent "critic" habit of declaring this or that recorded performance of something "a definitive" performance of it, something which we've gone through before.
I am at a loss to understand who would have the authority or what criteria would rationally justify declaring this or that music "valid" or "invalid." What could that possibly mean? I do notice that the times that those terms show up in my writing it is generally used to talk about alleged or real science and mathematical topics in which there is a possibility of making valid or invalid claims and judgements of those because there as an actual standard to hold them up against, nothing like that exists for music.
I think what you're doing, Stupy, is what the logician Bertrand Russell warns stupid men do with the ideas of men smarter than them, you're misunderstanding me in therms stupid enough for you to deal with them. Though I think it might be more an indication of lazy habits formed by paying too much attention to stupid stuff in the even stupider milieu of pop kulcha scribbling and babbling as "criticism". If you like I will say that I think the idea of music criticism like that of drama or other criticism is at best pretty dodgy and possibly invalidly called "jounrnalism" though journalism doesn't seem to have any ethical or moral or ever professional standards that mean anything under the permission to lie and slander and libel so it would be pointless to level the charge that it is invalid or the praise that it is valid. Whatever virtue "music criticism" has, it's more in terms of accuracy and truth, not "validity". As it is, pop-music criticism is not much worth paying attention to except for its pretensions and gaping chasms of virtue. It's possible to write in a journalistic mode about music that might be worth the time to read it, but that would be reporting, not "criticism."