Jazz for aficionados

Because that's not what I said. That was your premise, not mine. I thought my previous comment was pretty clear.

Rok, I use the Aego sattelite/subw three piece system by Acoustic Energy and it sounds fantastic for what it is. The seats are tiny. I don't know if it is still available, but I would recommend them used if not. Good luck.

****who decides what is good and what is bad?****

We each do. Some listeners just want simple pleasure from the listening experience without room for being challenged or taken outside a certain comfort zone and that is absolutely fine. For others, music is a bottomless font of possibilities and potential new discoveries. They listen with an open mind and a certain amount of respect for the opinion of others especially those who have more experience. The process is no different than determining what is a "bullshit" solo. When a musician of the stature of Jackie McLean says "that is a bullshit solo", even if it is not apparent to me right away I try to understand what he is hearing that I am not. Being a good and astute listener (and musician) demands an open mind and commitment to the idea that there is always more to learn.

Bullshit and non-bullshit clips later :-)

A "bullshit" solo in musician parlance is a solo that doesn't stay within the music's context. It is usually characterized by overplaying and being self-indulgent with too many notes, too fast, inappropriate effects, or trying too hard to be "hip" while not "saying" anything. Often, this is done to hide the fact that the player doesn't have a good command of the tune's harmonic changes and simply plays a lot of shit that doesn't fit the harmony; or, at best, fits the harmony but is not fully developed as a spontaneous composition. A great solo always keeps a connection to the melody of the tune and simply builds on it. I know he has many fans, but for me a great example of a chronic bullshitter is David Murray:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KrXIQ0_ogK0

Great clip of Jackie McLean, a classic non-bullshitter. First of all, fabulous contemporary alto sound. Re the subject of BS: pay attention to the shape of first six notes of the melody. A very simplistic analysis is that the third note of the melody is a wider interval (higher) than the first two, then the fifth goes back down and the sixth slightly higher; that's the shape of the tune. Importantly, and what gives the following solo musical integrity is that practically everything he plays relates somehow to that shape or to the length of that little phrase, and he goes on to expand on that and spontaneously compose a solo that has musical relevance and is not "bullshit".

Agreed, further explanation would be good. What is BS about the thread, especially as things stand now? As the OP, perhaps you should "grab the bull(shit) by the horns". No?

Christian McBride on "bullshitting":

http://fightland.vice.com/blog/jazz-great-christian-mcbride-on-the-place-where-fighting-and-music-meet---part-2

I agree; perfectly expressed and no different than anything I said. I am simply adding that it can't be stopped; it's the way it always has been and always will be. Only solution is for the public to educate itself and be able to make its own decisions. Bitching and moaning about a particular sad state of affairs seldom accomplishes anything. The "danger" that I am referring to I have seen in this thread several times. A worthy player is dismissed as a noisemaker and lumped in with the bullshitters simply because the style is not appreciated or understood. Seems to me that anyone who is serious about this music should promote its growth and appreciate the fact that it will evolve; not stifle it. The space created by the clueless critic then becomes far less relevant. Some of the bullshitters may not entirely disappear from the scene, but the good guys will rise to the top.

####******The narrower minded person has it easy to say everything, not to his liking, is BS. ********

Makes life a lot simpler. And in the final analysis, isn't this what everyone does eventually? **** ####

Nope.

I roomed with a jazz guitar student in college and Howard Roberts was his idol. Very nice West Coast player. Thanks for taking me back 40 (!) years.

Schubert, it really is amazing how the bar had been raised by students in conservatory today. I have not heard that particular saxophone qt., but I am not surprised given what I know about the music program at IU. I will try and find a recording by them and report back. Your post is particularly relevant because I was going to comment on a post that you made in another thread about Bach being the most non-bs composer ever. I totally agree, and the proof for me is that I have never heard Bach played (well) on ANY instrument that it did not work; not something that can be said about most composers even great ones. Bach lends itself particularly well to the saxophone qt. as that ensemble has a sonority not unlike an organ.

****The problem is, as I have said 3,025 times, Right next to 'Paterson' on the CD rack, is Peterson, Powell, Previn and even Don Pullen :) etc......... Why buy Paterson?****

Huh? I must have been on a different thread all those 3,025 posts, but seems to me that what you have been saying all this time is that there is no (or little) good jazz by new young players. Jazz is alive and well, and young players need our support and encouragement to raise the bar and push the envelope while letting the music evolve. I see no point in the constant negativity about the state of jazz. Using your criteria then, what is the point of buying Salvant or Marsalis? What has either done as musicians that has not been done better by many previous masters? And in the case of Salvant, not nearly as close to the standard which IMO Paterson approaches.

Yet another example of why Jazz is here to stay; and, anyone who thinks there is no great jazz being played by new young players is simply not listening. This young kid can swing his ass off like there's no tomorrow; great player! (Oh, and don't worry too much about the bullshitters) No bullshit here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MIgAWwi4IVQ

Schubert, I listened to the Kenari Qt. on PR. Very impressive quartet by any standard; and especially for a student group. As has been mentioned it is really amazing the level achieved by young players today. They are truly an ensemble in that they listen to each other very well and do something that eludes many young players: the seamless continuation of a musical line, particularly in the fast tempi. Their intonation is excellent. Nitpicks: typical for a young group, they really shine with the fast tempi with nice forward momentum; somewhat less so in the slower tempi when they move a bit too quickly through some of the phrases and especially the ends of the phrases. The musically strongest players are the soprano and baritone and this is also reflected in a bit of imbalance with the soprano being a little too prominent at times; one wishes for the two inner voices to fill out the harmonies a bit more. This may be in part a result of the way the group was recorded. All in all a very impressive group. Thanks!

Acman3, thanks for the Zenon clips. Great new player who has been making a lot of noise (sorry, couldn't resist :-) in the NYC scene for the last few years. Very interesting player in how his style is such an obvious mix of modern harmonic concepts, traditional tone approach (he studied classical for many years) and his ethnic roots. Love his playing! ANOTHER example! :-)

Still waiting:

****The problem is, as I have said 3,025 times, Right next to 'Paterson' on the CD rack, is Peterson, Powell, Previn and even Don Pullen :) etc......... Why buy Paterson?****

####Using your criteria then, what is the point of buying Salvant or Marsalis? What has either done as musicians that has not been done better by many previous masters?####

Exactly right!

Nothing new under the sun here. The bullshit cliche about jazz and the classroom is just that, bullshit and a cliche. Sure there are some players who sound that way; so what? There are plenty of players who learned jazz in the street who sound like shit. Why do you insist on lumping those in with the good ones with your blanket statements? Rock, it's pretty obvious by now how you will react when backed into a corner. Your generalizations simply don't hold water. Look, no one is saying that you need to "know" anything to enjoy jazz. But, if you think that Paterson sounds like he learned jazz in a classroom (whatever that means) while continuing to extol the virtues of an emotionally dry player like Marsalis, all I can say is that something is wrong. Cheers.

Agreed, and as we know, it was even more common in the past for classical musicians to improvise.

Learsfool is exactly right, Faddis is best known as a lead teumpet player with great "high-chops". Personally, I have not been a fan of his jazz playing. It is true that he is a disciple of Dizzy,, but his jazz playing has often struck me as a lot of quantity without a lot of substance. I have never liked screech players who, when playing jazz, rely a lot on playing in the screech range to create the excitement without enough of the more subtle stuff to balance things out. Just my reaction to it.

Schubert, the GREAT Gil Shaham indeed! I too like the Korngold; in fact, I have grown to like much of his work. I recently had the opportunity to perform his "Much To Do Anout Nothing" Suite, a very interesting work with a lot of charm; and which, like many of his works, straddles a fine line between accessibility (and even frivolity) with musical substance and a lot compositional craft. Thanks for the heads up re Minnesota. I believe we will be seeing a lot more of that kind of thing; really good news!

From "THE GREAT BULLSHIT DEBATE" :-)

****Does all / most of FREE, and AVANT-GARDE Jazz, fall under the category of BULLSHIT?**** - Rok

Frankly, and no disrespect meant, I think the answer is obvious: OF COURSE NOT. But, as usual, we each have to arrive at our own conclusions. And, as someone famous once said, if you have to ask.....

A milestone in the avant-gard jazz movement and, imo, one of the greatest jazz records ever (Tony Williams was 18 yrs old!!!):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cklbhkm1HrE

In case they weren't obvious, a couple of typos; sorry:

teumpet: trumpet
"......Anout: About"

BTW, Rok, if you are interested in the WSS/Bernstein recording that Learsfool mentions, for a fascinating peek into the process of its making check this out; priceless stuff:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rjxWKL6jhC4

Not full of b.s. at all, and you make some excellent observations. No time now, but more to follow.

Schubert, I love Sonny Stitt; and you're right, he was one of the greatest improvisers with a wonderful ease in how the ideas flowed out of him. When he played there was never a sense that he would run out of ideas and seemed like an endless font. A great tenor player as well as alto; he was, nonetheless, an alto player at heart and it could be heard in his sound and concept when playing tenor. He started playing tenor as a way to combat the idea that he was trying to sound like Parker on alto. This is a piece of one of my favorite stories in all of jazz lore. When Stitt and Parker first met they realized that even though they had never heard each other play, they sounded a lot alike. I think the says some interesting things about the natural and inevitable evolution of an art form.

Re Ron Carter: well, can one say about Miles" own choice for one of the greatest (perhaps greatest) rhythm sections ever. Carter, Herbie Hancock and Tony Williams. Fantastic player!

****the great Classical musician brings certain things to the table that the great Jazz player doesn't have. *****

°°°°Such as???°°°°

A short list:

- ultimate control of their instrument dynamically and tone-wise. Most jazz wind players don't know how to play a true "piano" (very soft); never had to. The type of tone required for jazz would be totally inappropriate for classical.

- ultimate technical command of their instrument necessary for playing much of the solo literature written for the instrument. Even Bird or Trane would not have able to get through, for instance, the Glazunov concerto; never mind in a credible manner.

- rhythmic accuracy. Yes, you read that right. Most jazz players, when playing written music, play on the back side of the beat (behind the beat). Perfectly acceptable and preferred in jazz, but not in Classical.

- Perfect intonation. Many jazz players, even the great ones, had terrible intonation by classical music standards.

- fully developed tone with the kind of tonal nuance and finesse required to play classical is rare in jazz players for whom tonal individuality is paramount.

I could go on, but the point is simply that they each have their strengths.

The Johnny Appleseed of Music! Damn! I've been called a lot of things, but never that. Thanks for the kind words.

Acman3, it's not that playing around the beat is "allowed"; in fact, it most certainly would not be allowed in a classical orchestra setting. Rather, it is that classical training helps the jazz players better learn the rudiments that I spelled out in my previous response to Rok. It is more a case of it being tolerated for the sake of the student's growth as a more well-rounded musician.

O-10, this is certainly not a topic worth going round in circles over, but there is no "straw man" and why would there be a need for one? The truth is that we previously had long discussions (and one of your recent posts seems to suggest again) in which it was asserted or, certainly suggested, that jazz players didn't practice and study. A revisiting of those posts would certainly show this. I am glad to see that you no longer feel this way.

I don't know what you mean by my "wishes and desires" about old vs new music. I have no wishes about this, other than the hope that jazz lovers who are clearly steeped in the jazz of certain eras, learn to appreciate the simple reality that there is much worthy music being performed currently; including live music.

As "second in command" I needed to set the record straight :-)

Mapman, I think you have a great attitude about your choices for music. "Only two kinds, good and bad"

Acman3, I will offer some thoughts about old/new styles as you suggested when I have some time. Nice clip of Lockjaw and Griff, BTW. I first heard the two of them side by side as the two tenors in the Frany Boland/Kenny Clarke big band. Awesome players both.

Great post, Learsfool; and thanks for being more diplomatic than I was. Rok, I was frankly taken aback by your comment. (of course,THAT has never happened before :-) I didn't expect a proclamation about the superiority of jazz from you who have extolled the genius of great classical composers (the ones you like, anyway). I will try it one more time (time to plant some seeds :-) :

You are an avid music lover and should be commended for that, but you are denying yourself a deeper appreciation and enjoyment of music (both genres) by the tendency to be absolutist about some of this stuff. Just a suggestion.

Food for thought:

I've known absolutely amazing players (instrumentalists) who are also terrible musicians.

Rok, you have dug your heels in as you often do and are not hearing the message. That's fine. For anyone else who cares about the truth : No, jazz musicians are not "better". BTW, I read nothing in Pimentel's article that contradicts anything I said.

**** All the so-called highly proficient player has to do, is play what's on the paper. ****

This is so simplistic that it borders on the embarrassing; you really should aim for something higher than that.

Cheers.

****Always Suspected They Were Superfluous.****

Not sure whether you are serious or not; it is, of course, not true. If you would like to know why it's not true, I would be glad to tell you; just don't want to waste time in pointless arguing.

BTW, the Miles clip is fabulous. My favorite band in all of recorded jazz. They played with an obvious connection to the past as well as an open window to what the future of jazz would bring.

Newbie, thanks.

Newbee, sorry. That darn spellchecker again.

****Now, WE MIGHT THINK, that playing a violin is difficult, but it's not that difficult to the principal players.****

Aargh! Oh well, I tried. What can one say?


BTW, I never said, implied, nor think that you or anyone else is a "mindless moron". However, a few more posts like your last one and I may change my mind.

Cheers.

THAT was an intelligent and helpful response. Actually, principal trombonist Joe Alessi is a damn good jazz player.

Acman3, that clip is an absolute gem; thanks for posting it. A TV show about Jazz that even teaches the viewer about some of its fundamentals!! Amazing! And what a great reminder about our changing times. George Russell's comments at 14:15 are especially good. Biggest surprise: A young Doc Severinsen (before he was Doc) improvising on the first tune. Who knew?!

****She absorbed jazz cerebrally, that's the only way it can be understood.****

Huh? O-10, please explain; that comment seems to go counter to others by you. An honest inquiry; thanks.

O-10, thanks for the clarification. Issue of semantics and personal definition at work here. For me, "cerebral" and "cerebrally" would seem to mean the precise opposite of your definition. While I do agree with your description of the process of listening, it is (again, for me) applicable only some of the time. Being that music being listened to is someone else's expression of their experiences and memories, there are times that what the music precisely demands of me is a concentrated effort to hear it.

Acman3, THAT is a great post.

O-10, understood; our listening room should be the place where music provides whatever it is we want from listening. I would only point out that it is not only musicians who don't shy away from having to make an effort to hear it. I have met many non-musician avid music lovers who appreciate being challenged by the music; it's a personal matter.

Mapman, that is an absolutely gorgeous and moving performance; have to listen to that record, it's been a while. Nothing I can add to Rok's commentary; it summed it up well. Thanks for posting that.

Acman3, you're on a roll; your link doesn't work, kindly check.

Thanks for the clips Alexatpos. Bobby Timmons was a great player with a great time feel and a kind of unassuming way with his style that always feels right and often surprises. O-10 is probably correct; but, if Bobby Timmons was the most underrated player in jazz, then Johnny Lytle was the most overrated. I just don't get it, and I would love to know the story behind his appearance on many of these records; there's always a story. He was featured in this thread a while ago and my reaction is still the same: a player comfortable in the simplest of jazz forms, the twelve bar blues, with a very undeveloped improvisation ability. He plays the same blues scale over the entire twelve bar progression, and seems to ramble without a clear sense of shape in his solos; some of his solos border on being b.s. in their lack of coherence and purpose. Even his time feel is unsophisticated with the notes on the upbeats being too close to the downbeats the way a young player plays when he tries to "swing". To my ears there's always a sense of relief when Timmons follows one of his vibes solos; "aah, that's what it's supposed to feel like". One man's opinion.

****Why was there so much turnover in the groups? Did Blakey see that as his 'mission'? Was it by design?****

"Yes sir, I'm gonna to stay with the youngsters. When these get too old, I'm gonna get some younger ones. Keeps the mind active." — Art Blakey, A Night in Birdland

Thanks. I guess you did run with a hipper croud, I would have thought that by the time the 50's ended and the 60's rolled around rock and roll and crooners was the menu in jukeboxes.

Acman3, thanks for those clips of the bootleg recs. I was not familiar with those. Amazing! That band was on fire. Schubert, being a fan of Ron Carter, check out the clips "No Blues".

Strange. I was about to do the same and post "one more" favorite from the 60s when your post came through. Here's mine:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=f-ABO74MEXQ

Suspense is killing me, what is in your link; link still doesn't work for me.

O-10, I confess to not being aware of the fact that some jukeboxes played jazz records during the 50s and 60s. Some quick research showed that Blue Note released many titles as 45 rpm singles. Who knew? I didnt. Well before my time. You guys must be really old :-) Thanks for enlightenjng me about this.

Actually, my thanks was intended for O-10, but thanks to you too.

****My. work is never done. So much to impart, so little time****

How true, you certainly.....wait!... oh, I see...IMPART. I thought you had written IMPAIR.

Don't work so hard :-)