Help: I have no Patricia Barber; is that good or bad?

miklorsmith · « **Reply #20 on:** 17 Apr 2008, 11:34 pm »

Nice post, Chad. One of the reasons I didn't list "Modern Cool" as one to start with is it's more homogenous than some others and maybe not as good a sampling of all the stuff she has going on. I like that CD and the style represented there, but your point is valid.

mjosef · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 04:58 am »

My first encounter with her music was on the Live in France album...which became a constant play and replay for me for quite a while. It sounded fantastic, and her musical performance is brilliant if not somewhat "odd".
Later on I found out its an "audiophile" disc.

I have only one other album of hers...forgot the name, but suffice to say that she certainly makes good music.
Forget those so called jazz "experts"... they have been proven wrong many times all through history.
THey might be right about KennyG though.

AliG · « **Reply #22 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 05:53 am »

I have all her albums...I don't like all her songs.. but some of the songs I keep playing them over and over again and never got tired..

TONEPUB · « **Reply #23 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 05:57 am »

I hate Patricia Barber because it gets played to death at every hifi show.

When I sold hifi in the late 70's- early 80s, I hated Pink Floyd's DSOM, Supertramp
Crime of the Century and Steely Dans AJA for the same reason.

If you like your Patricia Barber records, don't ever go to a hifi show....

Rocket · « **Reply #24 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 10:36 am »

Hi,

I think we should start a thread relating to great audiophile recordings.

I've tried a couple of the 'what latest music have you purchased' and they were not audiophile standard at all.

I like most of the Patricia Barber albums. They are really well recorded.

Regards

Rod

PhilNYC · « **Reply #25 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 01:14 pm »

I have a few of her CDs, but the only one I listen to is Companion (the live one...XRCD version)...

BobM · « **Reply #26 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 01:44 pm »

Yeah, I've got a bunch of her CD's too. Now, I'm into progressive rock, progressive jazz and such, so her wierd brand of interpretation appeals to me. I find it very interesting music, to say the least. And yes, the sound is uniformely awesome, which doesn't hurt. But I still listen to her on the Walkman on my commute also.

Enjoy,
Bob

PhilNYC · « **Reply #27 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 01:49 pm »

I actually find Cafe Blue to be borderline bright-sounding...

srayle · « **Reply #28 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 02:04 pm »

Patricia Barber=Good. An Artist.
Diana Krall=Can't listen to her. Too smooth, polished, over-produced.

Patricia Barber also has some songs that push me into new territory.

Any D. Krall defenders out there?

ecramer · « **Reply #29 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 02:34 pm »

Patricia Barber - WOW - She hit me like a ton of bricks. I think i bought everything she had out in about 3 weeks about a year and a half ago. I still spin something by her once or twice a week. Right now my Favorite is Originals from the box set The Premoniton years

ED

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #30 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 03:46 pm »

Quote from: srayle on 18 Apr 2008, 02:04 pm

Any D. Krall defenders out there?

I like her, but wouldn't "defend" her. Everybody has their own opinion. Not really a reason to defend anybody that hasn't done anything wrong.
But, I'm a sucker for the female voice. I find myself gravitating more to the female vocals in my collection more so than the males. So I'm definitely more forgiving to the gals.

Bob

Regalma · « **Reply #31 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 07:33 pm »

Like I have already written, I like Patricia Barber a lot, though it is not a uniform enthusiasm. But I also like Diana Krall. I can understand the "too smooth" criticism. That is pretty much always leveled at someone who has really polished their work and doesn't try anything too wild. It doesn't help her with the "serious" jazz people that she is popular, and blonde. But she is very good. Maybe the best of the current jazz singers

(duck and cover).

Patricia Barber tried one standard jazz album. I read that she wanted to do an album of songs her mom appreciated. It fell flat, in my opinion. She doesn't have the voice for the more demanding songs. As long as she stays in her range she excels. I can't think of any other singer who so totally integrates her singing with the music. It's like she is one of the instruments. What other singer loads their albums with instrumentals?

JoshK · « **Reply #32 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 08:04 pm »

I can't honestly say I remember ever hearing any of her music. I really don't enjoy Jazz, so I probably wouldn't like it.

satfrat · « **Reply #33 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 08:30 pm »

Quote from: JoshK on 18 Apr 2008, 08:04 pm

I can't honestly say I remember ever hearing any of her music. I really don't enjoy Jazz, so I probably wouldn't like it.

I can friggen guarantee it that you'd hate it Josh.

I've known from hearing you at RAVE about your dislike for jazz. I have a hard time with name and faces but that 1 comment cemented my recognition skills with you.

So what gendre does float your boat Josh?

Me,,, Jazz rules as much today in my life as much as hard rock ruled when I was in my 20-30's. Patricia Barber exemplifies expressive jazz in it's most abstract form while still being palatable. Experimental jazz is a stretch for me but Miss Barber is just right for my palete.

Cheers,
Robin

PhilNYC · « **Reply #34 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 08:42 pm »

I kind of have a hard time classifying Patricia Barber as "jazz". To me, she's an experimental singer/songwriter with more in common with body-performance artists and new-wave poets than most jazz musicians..

satfrat · « **Reply #35 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 08:49 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 18 Apr 2008, 08:42 pm

I kind of have a hard time classifying Patricia Barber as "jazz". To me, she's an experimental singer/songwriter with more in common with body-performance artists and new-wave poets than most jazz musicians..

Yea,,,,, I can see that.

But I don't necessarily agree. I look at how jazz has expanded it's horizons much like rock has since Elvis. But the gendres tend to mingle with each other soo much nowadays that an album can be full of songs that wander from 1 gendre to another or just be a combination of many. I'd still clump Patricia with jazz more than I would new wave,,,,, but I do see your point.

Cheers,
Robin

miklorsmith · « **Reply #36 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 08:59 pm »

I doubt most would have called Miles' 60's period jazz at the time except for his obviously progressive and legendary redefinition of the art in the 50's.

Have you heard some of the stuff Impulse! was doing in the 60's? Crazy man, crazy. It's hard for me to call some of it jazz even with the benefit of hindsight. Jazz is a wide-open art form that in many cases defies definition.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #37 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 09:16 pm »

Ok, you guys sold me. I couldn't resist.

I'm bidding on some Partricia Barber on ebay. Please don't outbid me.

Bob

PhilNYC · « **Reply #38 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 09:24 pm »

Quote from: satfrat on 18 Apr 2008, 08:49 pm

Quote from: PhilNYC on 18 Apr 2008, 08:42 pm
I kind of have a hard time classifying Patricia Barber as "jazz". To me, she's an experimental singer/songwriter with more in common with body-performance artists and new-wave poets than most jazz musicians..

Yea,,,,, I can see that. But I don't necessarily agree. I look at how jazz has expanded it's horizons much like rock has since Elvis. But the gendres tend to mingle with each other soo much nowadays that an album can be full of songs that wander from 1 gendre to another or just be a combination of many. I'd still clump Patricia with jazz more than I would new wave,,,,, but I do see your point.

Cheers,
Robin

Yeah, but I think her stuff has more in common with rock than it does jazz...

satfrat · « **Reply #39 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 09:34 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 18 Apr 2008, 09:24 pm

Quote from: satfrat on 18 Apr 2008, 08:49 pm
Quote from: PhilNYC on 18 Apr 2008, 08:42 pm
I kind of have a hard time classifying Patricia Barber as "jazz". To me, she's an experimental singer/songwriter with more in common with body-performance artists and new-wave poets than most jazz musicians..

Yea,,,,, I can see that. But I don't necessarily agree. I look at how jazz has expanded it's horizons much like rock has since Elvis. But the gendres tend to mingle with each other soo much nowadays that an album can be full of songs that wander from 1 gendre to another or just be a combination of many. I'd still clump Patricia with jazz more than I would new wave,,,,, but I do see your point.

Cheers,
Robin

Yeah, but I think her stuff has more in common with rock than it does jazz...

Mmmm, I don't see that at all in her music.

I'm more in agreement with Miklorsmith's assessment myself. If anything I would call Patricia's style more of a jazz fusion but in no way do I see rock in her music.

Color me puzzled,,,, I look good in that color. aa

Cheers,
Robin