to the dance of life
To celebrate jazz month and this past weekend’s Denton Jazz Festival, I give you Stanley Clarke, one of contemporary jazz music’s most amazing bass players.
I love how he talks about the limitations of his instrument. He embraces them and spends the time to figure out what does sound good.
Psst–If you find this post interesting and think others might as well, would you mind taking a minute to stumble it? It would mean a lot to me.
Bear with me one moment. Patronize me, if you will. I must slip into faux-pas with capitalization and punctuation.
BECAUSE I’M GOING TO SEE U2 IN CONCERT!!
As long as I’ve been a fan, this is a first. I told Chris I had to see them before I (or they) died. (Of course, when I told him I could now die on October 13th, he offered to help.)
I’ll have to use a telescope (yes, telescope, not binoculars) to see them, I’m sure, from row 314, and my husband doesn’t get it ("Why," he asked, "when the 3D version is so much better?"–and I’m sure we’ll see the next 3D version they do of this concert as well, honey), but I get to be part of that energy.
(You must also excuse the long sentences. One doesn’t have time for breathing in times like these.)
For years, I’ve been crying, "Let me in the sound!" and this year, this momentous year, I’ll be in the sound. (Unless Christ returns, which is okay, because than I’d be in the even greater sound.)
Now, in my two U2 dreams, Chris and I sat with the group and discussed ministry and business opportunities with them (this was after Madonna abdicated her street corner so that U2 could sing there). I don’t suppose we’ll have the same opportunity at this concert.
If this clip doesn’t make you smile, there’s something wrong with your endorphins.
I suspect I’m not the iTunes generation. Call me old-fashioned, but I can’t get on the pay-per-song bandwagon.
Don’t get me wrong. I love downloading music. I have a special relationship with my iPod, Theresa.
But I’m also one of those who pays special attention to the seventh song of an album.
How often have I bought an album because of one song only to fall in love with the entire album or discover another song better than the one for which I’d bought the album? Albums aren’t a collection of random songs; the songs relate via theme(s) and style(s). The songs on a particular album together form a shape. To strip one away and disregard the rest is to appreciate only a corner of a painting.
Besides this, it often means that each song on its own is judged by its ability to immediately appeal commercially. Some songs take time before understanding and love dawn.
All of this is lost with pay-per-song. You can see which songs listeners download the most (usually the songs chosen by radio DJs), and bypass the hard decision of choosing for yourself your favorite song of an album.
But then again, I think digital’s got nothing on the sound of a vinyl.
"Troubadours are more important and influential than theologians and bishops."
Brennan Manning, in Ragamuffin Gospel
There is the theology of art and theology in art.
"Labels were invented to sell the music. You had to know what
to call it to sell it. So they called the blues the blues, and the jazz the
jazz, and the bluegrass, gospel. But some music encompasses it all. So what do
you call that? And that’s pretty much what I like to play."
Willie Nelson
I recently downloaded an album by Katie Herzig from Noise Trade, and I’m in love with her voice. I admit, I listened to it all day. One album. Over and over and over again.
So I searched for her on YouTube so I could give you guys a treat. This song isn’t on the album I bought, but it’s just fun.
By the way, I highly recommend Noise Trade for your music shopping experience. You have the option of downloading an album for free by telling 5 friends about it or paying what you want.
On The Writer’s View 2 (a yahoo group for writers where we discuss craft, market, and career), Cecil Murphey asked:
"’I want to be an excellent writer,’ he said.
‘What qualities make a writer excellent? How do I develop as a writer?’
Before you respond, the resident curmudgeon believes that writers fit into one
of three categories. [He doesn't mind if you disagree with him.]
1. The Mechanical Writers. They know and practice the rules but their writing is
dull and lifeless. They’re like the pianists who hit the right notes, but it’s
not good music.
2. The Okay Writers. They write; they sell. But there’s something lacking. It’s
not bad writing. I like to say it this way: Their writing is as good as 50 other
writers, but it’s not better than the 50.
3. The Gifted Writers. They combine the spiritual gift with hard work and
produce quality. They may not be top sellers; they may publish little. But their
goal is quality, not quantity.
WHAT MAKES AN EXCELLENT WRITER?
Can average/mediocre writers become excellent writers?
How much of being a writer is a gift or talent and how much is the result of
hard work?"
I expanded in my answer to what makes a good artist, or what makes good art and what makes bad art (what are we striving toward and from what are we moving away). Here’s what I said:
"Because beauty is found in who God is as Trinity and what He does as
Creator, Redeemer, and Re-Creator, I believe there are objective
aspects to beauty. As I strive to develop, there are dangers that
threaten good art:
1. Art that is sentimental–it refuses to delve
into the depths of pain and ugliness or it refuses to emotionally move
beyond that (nihilism) (balance of the cross and resurrection)
2.
Art that is super-saturated in culture and doesn’t move beyond that
(following trends rather than working from the vision of the earth’s
resurrection)
3. Art that is manipulative
4. Art that is self-centered (merely wanted to express myself)
5. Art that refuses to explore (stubbornly clings to tradition)
6. Art that is escapist or a form of distraction (escape into feelings,
entertainment–now I have that song stuck in my head, "Feelings, nothing more than feelings…")
7. Art that is subjected to the utilitarian
8. Art that is mellodramatic
9. Art that is elitist–’Intelligence does not eliminate. It invites’ (Haven Kimmel).
Good
writing or storytelling, then, evokes people to think about things in a
fresh way, balances simplicity and feasting, is energetic, exposes the
depths, transforms, improvises, is based on the beauty of God and God’s
work and moves toward the vision given us of the future resurrection."
How would you answer the question?
I’m up today at the Tapestry blog talking about why I’m a Jazz Chrstian.
From the post:
"I call myself a Jazz Christian because jazz music has structure, and
this structure gives freedom and improvisation. It constantly invents.
No two performances can ever be alike. It is infinitely interesting."
It’s fitting that I write on this today. It’s Charlie Parker’s birthday.
I tell tales--tall ones, short ones, fat ones, skinny ones. Some call it compulsive lying. I call it writing.
