Dave Brubeck

I had a similar experience recently. Only it wasn't archiving ... it was listening to another Brubeck's "Greatest Hits" album on Columbia. It's just one LP, done in their "360 Sound" production approach - which seems to yield great sound quality. Taking the time to Spin Clean and then steam this title - along with a few others - resulted in a great listening session. I've got the "Time Out" CD too, and really there is no comparison. Hate to sound like a broken record!

Orpheus10, thanks for sharing yet another tidbit from the jazz realm.

Funny you should mention Brubeck and Take Five. I attended college on a Band scholarship. The first time I heard it was my first night at college. My first night away from home. The guys in the dorm room next to mine played that LP all night. I was very homesick and feeling alone and I grew to develope a real hatred for "Blue Rondo A La Turk" They were hot shot trumpet players from the big city and really into jazz. Later we all became real close friends. I have on occasion been accused of being a trumpet player myself. Now take five is my wife's favorite music of all. It's on the local PBS radio station's play list, and everytime it comes on she yells, 'TURN IT UP'!! BTW, the drum solo on Take Five is one of the best in all of Jazz. It actually seems to be a integral part of the tune. A lot of jazz drum and bass solos, seem to be just a chance for the drummers / Bassists, to get their chance to play, and are a disruption to the flow of the music.

Many have tried, but no one can hit that drum solo like Joe Morello.

We were both just beginning our adult lives at the same time, I was in the USAF when it came out.

I have on original vinyl the following Brubeck: Time Out (as well as the Classic Records remaster), Time Changes, Jazz Impressions of New York, Adventures In Time,Countdown: Time In Outer Space. Brubeck is one of those names that says JAZZ to me in neon capital letters. As an aside, I played in rock bands in the late 60's and 70's along the NJ shore and our drummer had taken lessons given by Joe Morello in NYC, and our drummer was very good.

In the jazz world, where the most talented and famous musicians were users and abusers of drugs, Dave Brubeck was always a dignified gentleman. When I saw him, he had on a dark suit and tie. While he looked the personification of a "dignified gentleman", my intimate knowledge of Mr. Brubeck as a "jazz giant", caused me to look upon him with the same reverence and awe, Catholics reserve for the Pope.

I would not call him a Jazz Giant. He was / is not in the top tier of Jazz players. And no one looked more dignified than MJQ. As I recall there was some discussion back in the day as to whether Brubeck's music was Jazz. And those that said it was, contributed that solely to paul desmond. Something about no blues in it, or too 'cerebral', whatever that means. I think he was well suited to a certain segment during a certain time in our history. The cool college / playboy magazine crowd. Just can't see him in an after hours jam session with the greats. Concert hall, not club player.
Cheers

Rok2id,
I have heard both Brubeck and Desmond in concert. Brubeck's Time Out was revolutionary. I remember well when it came out. It took the jazz world by storm. The jazz world had never heard anything like it before. Brubeck's compositions are totally original, unique and unequaled. Listen to Paul Morello's solos -- the man was blind. Just listen to the genius of Morello playing the genius of Brubeck.

As a piano great you cannot compare Brubeck to other piano greats such as Art Tatum or Oscar Peterson, for example. Brubeck is technically brilliant but his style is his own. Art Tatum was mainly a soloist, though not exclusively. Oscar Peterson had a powerful command of the keyboard -- I saw him play him in the 1980s -- but he was not known for his original compositions. Brubeck was certainly a great -- a great pianist and a great composer.

With all due respect, since when has venue ever been the measure of an artist's genius? Why in the world would playing in a concert hall ever make an artist a lesser giant than playing in a club? Were any of the classical piano virtuosos club players? Venue is a totally irrelevant measure to use in this respect. IMO.

Rok2id, your astute knowledge of jazz has left me very little wiggle room to defend Dave Brubeck as a "giant of jazz". First, I based my statement primarily on Mr. Brubeck's longevity.

In regard to his music as compared to what most "jazz aficionado's" would consider the "hippest", there are other jazz artists who would rank higher than Dave Brubeck, but so many of them flashed across the sky like shooting stars, that only aficionado's like yourself even remember their names. If not too long ago, I had seen any one of the artists you might have in mind, I would regard them with the same awe and admiration, as I did Mr. Brubeck.

"With all due respect, since when has venue ever been the measure of an artist's genius? Why in the world would playing in a concert hall ever make an artist a lesser giant than playing in a club? Were any of the classical piano virtuosos club players? Venue is a totally irrelevant measure to use in this respect. IMO."

You missed my point. Playing concerts does not make you a lesser player, BUT, all the greats did play clubs, esp in the early stages of their career. It's how they developed as players. The interaction with many other players and the imprompto jam sessions. The atmosphere!! MJQ is a possible exception, but they were trying to take Jazz in a direction Jazz was not ready to go. As an example, there are a lot of 'so-called' BLUES players that have never seen the inside of a Mississippi Delta Juke Joint!!!
Can't get the essence of the blues playing in london.

So, brubeck was ok. He didn't grate on my nerves/ears, BUT, he didn't move me either. Good background music that is very good to demonstrate high-end stereo systems. Just as an aside, I purchased most of my LPs / CDs after reading reviews by professional reviewers. Esp in my early days before I developed my own prefernces. Out of 700+ Jazz CDS, I own one Brubeck CD. TIME OUT. Tells me the pros didn't like him that much either.
Wanna hear real Jazz?? Listening to Louis Armstrong's 'Ambassador Satch' as I type. BTW, he used to play houses of ill repute! :) Essence of Jazz!!!! :)

Arguing about exactly what is jazz is a dead end. If it was made after 1918 and didn't come from New Orleans, can it really be called jazz?

To deny Dave Brubeck's importance in jazz history is silly.

Just as my taste for what to have for lunch changes from one day to the next, so does my taste for what to hear change from one day to the next. Yesterday it was Dave Brubeck, today it's "Bobby Timmons". Since there are so few "jazz aficionado's" on the Gon, I see no reason to start a "Bobby Timmons" thread.

He was a great composer as well as an accomplished pianist. Recently I've been comparing different versions of great tunes he composed, such as "Moanin" which was made famous by Blakey and The Jazz Messengers, and "Dat Dere", which is a tune that's been done by artists from Ricki Lee Jones to Oscar Brown Jr.

I find it fascinating how the same tune done by different artists can evoke so many different emotions, and that's why jazz is endless. When there were more "jazz aficionado's" on the Gon, "newbie's" would discover artists they had never heard of before. Some of them e-mailed me in thanks for their new discoveries. Maybe you could chime in on Bobby Timmons, or post an interesting thread on the subject of jazz.

"Arguing about exactly what is jazz is a dead end. If it was made after 1918 and didn't come from New Orleans, can it really be called jazz?

To deny Dave Brubeck's importance in jazz history is silly.

The silly thing is to say nothing after 1918 is Jazz. And no one is denying Brubeck's importance, just trying to decide just how important. I say not very, in the greater scheme.

Orpheus10:
'your astute knowledge of jazz'

hahahah far from it. I have very limited knoiwledge. I just find the music and the players, esp the players, to be very interesting. And in this day, the music has to be defended against the crowd who feels that anyone, can make any sort of noise, and call it Jazz, and get away with it. I can't stop it, but I can call them on it when I see it.

Today's play list was: (1) MJQ Complete Prestige & Pablo Recordings 4CD box set.
(2) Cannonball with Milt Jackson -- Things are getting better. This is the lineup; Adderley, Jackson, Wynton Kelly, Percy Heath and Art Blakey. All are stars in their own right, All listed in the fine print on the back of the CD. Only in Jazz!! I don't have anything with Timmons as leader. I am sure he is on someone's record in my collection.
Cheers!

Rok2id, I didn't make a statement, but instead asked a question. You were the one who brought up the issue of "real jazz".

Onhwy61,
You stated, "To deny Dave Brubeck's importance in jazz history is silly." As we used to say in the 1960s, "Right On".

Rok2id,
With all due respect, I did not miss your point at all. Your point is that you do not care for Dave Brubeck. And you try to buttress your preference by saying that he did not play clubs, so he cannot qualify as a real jazz great, and the reviewers were not crazy about him so that reinforces the opinion you have about him. Personally, I like listening to jazz. My preferences are not influenced by what others say is worth listening to. In any case, regarding the criteria you have put forth for joining the playing field, you are not quite accurate.

For your edification, from this site:

http://www.davebrubeck.com/html/about.php

"The group played in jazz clubs in every major city and toured in package shows with such artists as Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzerald, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie and Stan Getz. The Dave Brubeck Quartet repeatedly won top honors in trade magazines and critic’s and reader’s polls. In 1954 Dave Brubeck’s portrait appeared on the cover of Time Magazine with a story about the jazz renaissance and Brubeck’s phenomenal ascendancy."

And from this site, from an interview with Dave Brubeck:

http://www.pbs.org/brubeck/talking/daveOnCritics.htm

"SMITH: Uh, huh. You did better with the public in a lot of ways than you did with some of the critics."

"DAVE: Maybe, but we had a lot of critics on our side. I mean all you have to do is go back and read the old Downbeats, Metronomes and reviews and you'll see how many people were behind us."

Well, it's all about image. Brubeck was not born in Mississippi and he did not move to Chicago. And he did not "swing" in the accepted manner. He was brought up on a farm. And he did his own thing. Which does not make him any less great. Just different.

Rok2id,
The following quote is from the same interview with Dave Brubeck that I cited in my earlier post.

Dave Brubeck said, "Look at it this way - the people I respected, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman uh, Woody Herman, Willie 'the Lion' Smith, Art Tatem, Bud Powell - they all liked what I was doing. Charlie Mingus, Miles Davis, almost all of the guys that really had made it and were experimental people, experimenting, liked what I was doing. So what do I care if some critic doesn't like it? I'd care if Duke Ellington didn't like it."

Rok2id, a jazz collection of the artists you have, would be incomplete without Bobby Timmons. He did a lot of work with Blakey, and I'm sure you have tunes composed by him that were done by other artists.

Onhwy61, if you think it's jazz, then it's jazz. While the music I brought into this discussion is "definitively" jazz, recently, music from other parts of the world that incorporates our jazz, and possibly our musicians, is more interesting than the music currently originating here, according to my taste.

In the past, all the way up to 1970 maybe, jazz was quite definitive. After that it began to evolve, until today when it's up to the evaluator of the music to determine whether or not it's "really jazz"; otherwise one could argue the point until time ends.

Rok2id and Orpheus10, nice discussion.
Rok, I understand your point regardind Dave Brubeck, he was a VERY good player. His longevity matched by perhaps only Hank Jones(what a legacy he left).I don`t consider Brubeck a "great" pianist. Great pianist(style,composition, and certainly influence and impact on generation of players afterwards).In this realm are Bud Powell, Thelonius Monk,Duke Ellington, Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson(except composing, but influence, oh yes!).

The next level for example would be Bill Evans(impact and approach) and Herbie Hancock(first rate player and legacy of composing many enduring songs and often cited by many younger players as an influence).
Regards,

Two excellent jazz CDs in terms of music and sound quality.
1) "Fingerpainting" all compositions by Herbie Hancock, trio is Christian McBride(bass) Mark Whitfield(guitar) and Nicholas Payton(trumpet).

2)"Parker`s Mood" Charlie Parker music played by Roy Hargrove(trumpet) Stephen Scott(piano) and Christian McBride(bass). Both are Verve recordings and are very natural sounding.
Regards,

sabai,
It`s clear you have much admiration for Dave Brubeck and that of course is fine. Rok does`nt hold him in the same high regard as you(but he does like him) what`s wrong with that? we all are just engaged in a discussion and expressing our personal thoughts.I don`t rank Brubeck as high as you and you may not rank Dexter Gordon,Sonny Stitt or say Lee Morgan as I do, so what. This is an artform and will be purely subjective. What emotionally moves one person may not move another, that`s to be expected.I have been profoundly influenced by Miles Davis and Charlie Parker, for other jazz fans they may not even like them at all. Another excellent jazz CD, Carmen McRae "Bittersweet" from 1964, just wonderful music.
Regards,

Charles1dad,
I like Sonny Stitt and Lee Morgan very much. I have a lot of their music. And a lot of Brubeck's too. My point is this. It is one thing to say you prefer this or that pianist or group. No problem. But once you get into the realm of who is great and who is not then that's a whole other ballgame. You start to push your preferences into a larger realm. For instance, I imagine a lot of us have our favorite musicians who are not generally considered great and who may not even be that well known. But we may rank them up there with "the very best" because of our personal preferences. As you say, a lot of this is subjective. When it comes to greatness there are two facets here. One facet is those who are generally recognized as great. The other facet is those we feel are great regardless of what others recognize.

Sabai,
Your last sentence says it all.This is no different then when debating the relative greatness of boxers, baseball players or quarterbacks etc. You examine their body of work and from that point on it`s just various opinions without a concrete standard.

Orpheus10:
"Onhwy61, if you think it's jazz, then it's jazz. While the music I brought into this discussion is "definitively" jazz, recently, music from other parts of the world that incorporates our jazz, and possibly our musicians, is more interesting than the music currently originating here, according to my taste."

No, it's not. Unless you are into Relativism. If you are, then all discussion about anything is pointless. As far as world music goes, check out the liner and booklet notes on Duke Ellington's 'Far East Suite'. He described "world" music perfectly. The word he used was a certain 'sameness' to it all. I felt vindicated :). This was after his far east tour in 1963. We would call it the middle east today.

O-10
"Rok2id, a jazz collection of the artists you have, would be incomplete without Bobby Timmons. He did a lot of work with Blakey, and I'm sure you have tunes composed by him that were done by other artists."

I have his stuff that you mentioned, being played by Cannonball, Oscar Brown Jr and Art Blakey. I listen to some of his stuff today on amazon. I will have to correct this oversight. Speaking of doing other folk's stuff, do you know of anyone, who is someone, during brubeck's music??

Sabai:
"they all liked what I was doing. Charlie Mingus, Miles Davis, almost all of the guys that really had made it and were experimental people, experimenting, liked what I was doing. So what do I care if some critic doesn't like it? I'd care if Duke Ellington didn't like it."

Experimenting is great. It moves the music forward. Parker and Dizzy and others tried and created Be Bop, and when they looked around the entire genre was following them. Who followed brubeck and his experiments with time. That's the difference, between being a good player and being a Jazz Giant!

Sabai:
"The group played in jazz clubs in every major city and toured in package shows with such artists as Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzerald, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie and Stan Getz. The Dave Brubeck Quartet repeatedly won top honors in trade magazines and critic’s and reader’s polls. In 1954 Dave Brubeck’s portrait appeared on the cover of Time Magazine with a story about the jazz renaissance and Brubeck’s phenomenal ascendancy."

Back in the late 30's or 40's when all the greats were alive and well and in their prime, Benny Goodman was declared the KING OF JAZZ!! Nuff said!

Charles1dad:

I agree with everything you said, and it was well said. Thanks for your input. Love your system, and your pictures, I have Ella singing in a club, with Benny Goodman and Duke Ellington on the front table looking mesmerized! 1949 NYC.

Rok2id,
Thanks you for your kind comments.When people are in my listening room they all notice and comment on the Miles Davis picture.Thay feel he`s starring at them.
Regards,

Rok2id,
"Sameness" is a matter of perspective. When you live overseas what sounded all the same starts to get differentiated after a while.

It seems that you are determined to win the argument about "greatness" -- whatever it takes. But this is an argument you can never win -- no matter how many rabbits you pull out of the hat -- because what are really saying is "I am not crazy about his music so he cannot have been great", which is silly, of course. We all have our preferences but most of us will leave it at that.

As I pointed out earlier, which you have not replied to, is that while it is true that greatness is in the eye of the public, it is also true that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. It is like beauty. Saying that a work of art is not beautiful backs you into a corner because there are inevitably those who will disagree with you. Ergo, you cannot win the argument.

Now -- after two failed attempts -- you have a third argument to bolster your feelings that Brubeck was not great -- since your assertion that he did not play in clubs -- but he did -- and since your assertion that the critics did not like him -- but many did -- have fallen a bit flat. I note that you have not responded after I clearly showed that your first two assertions were false.

Your third and most recent assertion is that no one followed Brubeck so he cannot have been great. Your argument is specious. There have been many great artists and many geniuses in all walks of life throughout history who were never followed. In the world of music, my question to you is "Who followed Art Tatum?" No one that I know of. Certainly not Oscar Peterson who quit playing piano for a number of months after he first heard Art Tatum play, so overwhelmed was he by what he had heard.

Art Tatum and Dave Brubeck were originals. They both broke the mold. No one could follow them without being derivative. In that sense, if one wished to be negative about this, all followers could be branded as unoriginal, imitators and mere copyists -- which would be an equally specious assertion.

Greatness as a composer or as a player? Two different things.

I rank him extremely high and a unique innovator as a composer, and one of many fine pianists as a player. He also had a knack for letting people around him shine.

Franky, there are so many good pianists I find it hard to single out the groundbreaking geniuses. I'm much into Masabumi Kikuchi at the moment.

Koto Song is to this date one of my all time favorite tunes ever written.

Just some random thoughts ...

Sabai,
This has been an interesting thread with many good comments. It`s pretty clear that we`re all passionate about jazz musib.
What I don`t understand Sabai is your response to Rok2id, you seem very determined to make him hold Brubeck to your level of esteem. Rok doeos`nt and that should be enough. Certainly you can disagree with him but why are you so intent on him accepting your view of Brubeck`s greatness?

What more can Rok say? He won`t change your opinion and you are`nt going to change his. Simply put Brubeck is great to some and less than great for others. Why is that hard to accept and understand?
Regards,

Sabai:

First, this is not an argument. It's a discussion. I made a promise not to argue anymore and I have kept it. I don't even think you and I have a disagreement. Let's start over.

The OP started a thread about Brubeck. I weighed in with a short story, as did a few others. So far so good. Then the OP refered to Brubeck as a JAZZ GIANT. I am not sure what that means to him or you, but to me, it means the guys / gals who sit around the table on the Mount Olympus of the Jazz Universe. Just a handful. And in my opinion, Brubeck will not be there. He will be with the other 99% of the Jazz world, good player, well respected. Made some CDs that were very popular. Brought pleasure to millions. Had fame and fortune. Had a very nice career.
GREAT is not the word at issue here. JAZZ GIANT is at issue. My Ford Fusion Sport, I think it's GREAT, but as GREAT cars go, it does not hold a candle to the Ford Model T. The model T was a GIANT.
So what you and I think is fun to talk about. The guys on MT Olympus are put there by forces way beyond us.

The 'sameness' thingy was something O-10 and I talked about some time ago. He is into 'world' music. I just wanted to pull his chain and used Ellington as support for my position.

Everything else I said as pertains to Jazz clubs and atmosphere being important to Jazz development, I stand by it. Sadly, a lot of those nurturing enviroments have disappeared. As with all things, social conditions play / played a major role in music, and those conditions have changed. That is reflected in the music today.
Cheers.

Charles1dad,
You stated, "What I don`t understand Sabai is your response to Rok2id, you seem very determined to make him hold Brubeck to your level of esteem."

Not at all. He does not like Brubeck. No problem. But to lay down criteria for "greatness" or for being a "jazz giant" -- all the while moving the goal posts -- is another matter. He is determined to relegate Brubeck to a lesser level. I happen to disagree.

Rok2id,
In my books Brubeck was a jazz great and a jazz giant. It all comes down to preferences and taste -- like food and women. What is delicious for one may not be for another.

Rok2id,
I was using the word argument in the sense of a point that is being made -- not in the sense of being argumentative. No offense intended.

"Nice calm smooth jazz. Very good for background music during dinner conversation. It does not have annoying loud parts that disrupt conversation."

Review of an Oscar Peterson CD on Amazon. He gave it 5 stars. Shows how we can all say the same words, but our ideas and concepts are eons apart. He was complimenting Oscar!! I am sure he thinks of himself as a 'Jazz aficionado'.