I admire Miles Davis, i admire Stravinsky; but i loved Chet Baker and Scriabin...You?

Yeah, as Miles himself would often say: the silence says more than the notes.

As Mahgister points out, “for sure it is different for all of us”. Important to give enough relevance to the simple fact that the distinctions made often say much more about ourselves as music lovers (and possibly in other ways as well) and less about the artists in any absolute sense. Moreover, when making this type of comparison, for me it works best to keep matters in at least some historical context. Music is always a reflection of the time of its creation. So, for me, a better context for making these distinctions is to look at artists/composers from the same (or close) periods in time; particularly as concerns composers, but also performers and whether they, to some degree, honor that consideration.

I wish I could say that I admire Chet Baker. I like some of his work very much; especially early Chet. “...And Strings” is a minor gem, but the orchestrators, especially the great Johnny Mandel deserve a good bit of the credit. However, I have heard little in his trumpet playing that “I love”. There is a very appealing accessibility in his playing that makes it easy to take in, but I need to be challenged a bit more in order to “love” a musician or composer. While I save the word “hate” for bigger things, for me, his singing comes dangerously close. The over riding feeling that I am left with is one of indulgence in melancholy. For me, that feeling of indulgence has always been there in his singing, but also crept into his trumpet playing later in his career when he lost his teeth and was having severe “chops” problems. He then leaned more heavily on the melancholy. Not really that important, and subject to one’s personal definition of “virtuosity”, but a trumpet virtuoso he was not.

On the other hand, I LOVE Miles Davis and I admire him to no end. On emotional grounds, he touches all the right buttons for me. His ballad playing was superb. I cannot think of a more evocative sound than that of a single note from his horn with Harmon mute. The construction of his improvisations, no matter the tempo, was likewise superb; in great part for his inspired use of space, the silences between the actual notes played. There is a saying among Jazz players that says that “you can’t play (improvise) outside the harmony before you know how to play inside the harmony”; otherwise it’s just bs. This is the bane of many of the so called “free Jazz” players. Miles was a master of both approaches. The same idea can be applied to the criteria for a claim to “virtuosity”. Miles was such a virtuoso that when he sounded rough and undisciplined, sloppy even, it was by design and for emotional effect, not because of lack of technical control and finesse; he had those in spades. I also admire him to no end for his unrelenting need to grow and evolve as an artist; the reason he was one of the great innovators in the music.

Just a few more that come to mind before my morning coffee:

I like and admire Giovanni Palestrina, but I absolutely love Carlo Gesualdo and his unbelievably ahead of his time use of harmony and chromaticism. Difficult to “admire” someone with a personal story as twisted as his music (in historical context).

I like and admire Tchaikovsky, but I love Dvorak; and moving slightly forward in time Prokofiev reigns in my book.

I reluctantly admire Wagner (I know, I know), but I adore the other Richard, Strauss; and to a slightly lesser degree, Leos Janacek.

I admire Brad Mehldau, but I adore Herbie Hancock.

I admire Stravinsky, but I love Bartok; and, if in the right mood, Alban Berg.

I admire Aaron Copland, but I love Bernstein.

I admire Jascha Heifetz, but I love Nathan Milstein.

I admire Oscar Peterson, but I love Kenny Barron.

I admire and like Count Basie, but I adore Ellington.

I admire Frank Sinatra, but I love Tony Bennett. There is great joy of singing in Bennett. Sinatra often sounds to me as if he is doing the listener a favor by singing.

I admire Karajan, but I love Kleiber.

I admire Maurizio Pollini, but there is simply something about Murray Perahia that pushes my buttons. Love his playing.

I admire Nina Simone, but I love Dinah Washington.


I could go on, but I need my morning coffee. Interesting thread. Thanks!

In fairness to Von Otter, I would venture to say that part of your reaction is to the “context”.  A performance by a soloist does not occur in a vacuum and is greatly influenced by the “supporting cast”.  Imo, in the Von Otter, the conductor’s tempo is entirely too fast and feels rushed; and the “setup” by the solo violin (and the ensemble in general) is not played with the sensitivity and reverence that this glorious music deserves.  In the Anderson, Robert Shaw’s tempo is more appropriately relaxed and the gorgeous and beautifully restrained solo violin is by the great Joseph Fuchs.  Even those who “sing so well” need good context.

Sometimes it is possible to have both:

https://youtu.be/x2XUaCWezRY

On the other hand, perhaps I am mistaken about which you love? 🤔

**** I particularly see beauty in the symphony, individual parts working together. ****

Beauty indeed. Not unlike the beauty when a soloist and accompanying ensemble work together as described above. When more than one artist is involved, seldom does beauty happen if all are not working together.

**** Their music come ONLY from their brains, almost never from heart or soul... ****

Since as you yourself stated we are “friends”, I will take this liberty:
Be careful with that assumption. That assumption presumes that we are privy to that composer’s soul. Possible, I suppose; but, unlikely. It may not resonate with OUR heart and soul, but it may very well be an open window into THEIR heart and soul; especially when we are talking about undeniable greatness of a kind.

 McGill is indeed one of the best; and also one of the most fearless musicians I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing and working with.  This is not always the case, even as concerns the best.  Some of the things that orchestral players are sometimes required to do can instill fear in any (wo)man.  Anthony is always absolutely unperturbed.....or so it always seems.  True story:

While eulogizing a departed well known musician, a colleague related a story that the dear departed colleague told him.  Asked how he remained so composed in the face of such incredibly difficult passages in a new work being premiered, he remarked:  “Only my launderer knows the truth”.  

Happy New Year!

Poetry:

https://youtu.be/9d9zUkzpiUo

https://youtu.be/DP9f2Dzv3Co

https://youtu.be/S9lKUgzX41s

https://youtu.be/3fm5vwvg1vo

**** I bet people now begins to understand why a list pondered by the polarities of the heart and brain is very instructive and said to us something which pertain to the character of the person who has chosen the list more clearly than just a linear list....****

At the risk of showing arrogance, from my first post here:

**** Important to give enough relevance to the simple fact that the distinctions made often say much more about ourselves as music lovers (and possibly in other ways as well) and less about the artists in any absolute sense. ****

Four notes; just four notes of absolute perfection following the dreamy and mysterious introduction. Not the kind of perfection that appeals to the brain only, but perfection of clarity in musical intent and attitude conveying surprise, purpose and, of course, swing. He makes the heart swing. How can one not love Miles?  Just me.

https://youtu.be/tguu4m38U78

Excellent comments, both. Last night I began to write a post which I did not finish nor post (for no good reason) which read something like this:

**** I both admire and love your attitude, mahgister.. Conviction and/in evenhandedness.

Stuartk, the idea that Miles was not a particularly accomplished player, technically, is a myth. This notion sadly points to the lack of musical acumen on the part of some so called “critics”. There is a very important difference between a musician such as Miles sometimes sounding technically rough or unpolished because of actual technical limitations as an instrumentalist and playing in a way that could be interpreted as such for emotional effect. This is a deliberate stylistic choice....controlled technical abandon, if you will. The proof of this can be found in the many recorded examples of his beautifully controlled and virtuosic playing. ****

Segueing to more recent comments, I must include Stuartk in my admiration for the attitudes expressed. Attitudes and comments that support something that I have often felt is sorely lacking in discussions about music and musicians.

IMO, in order to make a more complete and honest assessment of the true value of a musician’s musical vision the listener needs to have, at least, a modicum of humility. I think that “humility” encapsulates much of what I think your recent comments express. Before passing ultimate judgment it would be most productive to acknowledge that our feelings and reaction to an artist’s musical vision is inevitably colored by our own individual experiences; not only as as listeners, but life in general. It is well and good, as is often suggested, to “listen to what you like” and leave it at that without any effort whatsoever to get past, or even acknowledge our built-in biases. Obviously, this is a personal call as some feel that art should not require any effort whatsoever on the part of the “consumer” (listener); that there should be immediate gratification. I disagree. This attitude is very limiting and shuts the door to growth as a listener. Not only will this limit the exploration of artists that are not immediately enjoyed, but it limits the depth of appreciation of those that we do enjoy. It also makes it far easier to recognize the imposters.

Re the “fine line between effort and allowing”:

Music, like all art, evolves over time; all creative artists build on what came before to one degree or another.  Additionally, art is a reflection of the time of its creation.  These are but two of the reasons that one of the best ways to traverse this fine line between effort and allowing is to approach this process from a historical (chronological) viewpoint.  From a musicological standpoint there is tremendous and inescapable logic to the stylistic evolution of Jazz and “Classical” and there exist many parallels between the two.  For example, the listener that has at least some familiarity with the music of Charlie Parker will find the music of John Coltrane to be much more palatable on first listen than the listener whose exposure to Jazz ended with Lester Young (Swing era).  

In all serious music, the move from very comfortable harmonic and rhythmic ideas to the more liberal use of dissonance and obtuse rhythms is a direct reflection of societal changes that evoke similar changes.  Understanding this will put things in better context.  This may not necessarily cause one to actually love the music, but can do much to move one in that direction.