Jazz for aficionados

Acman3, you are still on a roll; some great stuff posted; thanks. The Gary Burton clip is as much of a contrast with the Elvin Jones clip as is possible. One very intellectual and, as you said, more out there; the other (Jones) earthy and visceral. BTW, as I am sure you know, that was the same band as on the "Live At The Lighthouse" clip I posted a couple of days ago. Keep em coming.

Acman3, you're killing me. That pre-BB clip is fantastic and a fascinating look at an important transitional period indeed. Same front line, different rhythm section as the earlier bootleg clips; very different vibe, and possible to hear that BB was around the corner. Miles sounds amazing in his ideas and as a trumpet player; his chops are in peak form. Great stuff! Thanks for turning me on to these clips.

On-10, thanks for the Gato and Grover clips. As you said, they won't be everyone's cup of tea. Gato is an interesting player in that I can't think of any other player that went from being part of the "free-jazz" scene to almost being an icon of the pop-jazz scene. It has been said many times that what keeps a "free" or avant-garde player from the b.s. designation is his ability to still play "inside" or in a traditional bag. But there are always exceptions to every rule, Gato could never (still can't) navigate the chord changes of "Stella Stella By Starlight" or play the blues to Rok's (or my) satisfaction, but he has a SOUND. He built a career around that gritty and very expressive SOUND. He became a kind of one trick pony but noise maker he is not; he has the ability to CONNECT with the unwashed. And who was it that said that the unwashed rule?

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=FIRI6CvtO6o

****The ones I have sound great, and get excellent reviews, but if there are better out there, I want them.****

I have no idea wether the Aegos are better than what you have or not, but I can tell you that I have heard Audioengine speakers that sound better than my Aegos. Good luck.

Isochronism, now THAT'S funny. I hope you agree; sorry. I hate this fu#@$ng spell checker! Using my wife's Kindle until my new IPad arrives and given my history of destroying non- stereo electronic devices, I have been forbidden from touching the settings :-)

From one of my very favorite fusion records of the 70s:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rbynfCYDfuI&list=PL6uybVkHc-ES46u4tFtERWZKa9E_LZbv5

Anachronism, Tia Fuller is a very nice player and yet another example of a current young player who can really play. She has a modern harmonic sensibility combined with a (dare I say it?) rather feminine tone that is round with little edge and is not splitting the horn at the seams. Nice observation about her drummer Kim Thompson who, like Tony Williams, has a very propulsive but light touch on the ride cymbal. Thanks!

https://m.youtube.com/?#watch?v=s72zz92nvcI

Two players/records that, for me, scream 70s. One, an extension of the hard-bop tradition that preceded it, but with an even more modern harmonic spin; the other, from one of the true masters and which brought a incredibly high level of sophistication to the funk groove:

https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1fwj8r83#/watch?v=tgjTnRcxOJA

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=6DqC7CC1hRI&list=PLC9DEF5E042643CD6

O-10, very strange. I do check Preview and they also play back fine on the Kindle AND my IPhone. Will repost later today. Thanks.

****Just my way of pointing out that good Jazz is still being played in this day and age. ****

I think I've said that once or twice. :-)

Repost: Two players/records that, for me, scream 70s. One, an extension of the hard-bop tradition that preceded it, but with an even more modern harmonic spin; the other, from one of the true masters and which brought a incredibly high level of sophistication to the funk groove:

https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1fwj8r83#/watch?v=tgjTnRcxOJA

https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1fwj8r83#/watch?v=hNlm-W3m1qc

Thanks for the clips, Alexatpos. That rhythm section with Motian and Lafaro was one of the all time greats. Speaking of jazz flute and the 70s, when I think of the 70s CTI records always comes to mind. Before Wynton came along and showed, again, that a player could be equally accomplished as a Classical player as well as Jazz, Julliard student (student of the great Julius Baker) Hubert Laws played with the Metropolitan Opera and NY Phil before becoming a jazz star:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=JxfB18EPeL8

O-10, appears there is some kind of incompatibility between the Kindle and whatever device you are using. I, likewise, cannot download your clips on the Kindle, but I can on my IPhone. In case you're interested, my recent posts were:

Woody Shaw "The Moontrane"
Herbie Hancock "Sly"
Hubert Laws "Moment's Notice"

Thanks for the Gato clips; that's his calling card.

Complete and utter bullshit (not to mention, misinformation). First of all, blind auditions are NOT "industry standard"; only in symphony orchestras, and even there there is, afterwards, a probation period to make sure that, as the young lady (?) in the clip decries, all parties concerned are comfortable with the choice. The truth is that, while there are some very good female jazz players (vide Tia Fuller), some get record contracts BECAUSE they are women. A band leader like Wynton picks the very best he can find, based on artistic considerations and wether he feels comfortable for everything from wether the player is an asshole or has terrible body odor. And why not? If there was a woman player stylistically superior and even more versatile (arranger?) as what he has, she would be in the band instead. God help us if the loud cries of bullshit sexism apply too much pressure to the powers that be ($$$) and cause Wynton to dumb down any standards. I don't believe there is any active sexism in jazz. Favorite quote from the clip:

"In the 26 years, Wynton hasn't had a woman"

Unlikely.

Is that it? For the 70s? We haven't even scratched the surface. Personally, I think that is a problem with this thread. We move way too quickly through an era and a style and don't dig nearly deep enough. I think that is why some of the stereotypes about genres and styles hang us up. One man's opinion.

Never cared much for Herbie Mann, and whatever one wants to call Herbie's "Headhunters", that record is killer, incredibly influential, and that band was on fire. If Herbie's playing on "Sly" doesn't show what a genius he is, I don't know what would.

Oh yeah, and he did need a haircut.

The 70s saw the growth of a tenor saxophone style that was a direct extension of Coltrane's. Dave Liebman, Miles and Elvin alum, in many ways took over where Trane left off. This tenor style would also become a large part of the fusion-jazz tenor style that players like Michael Brecker would make practically ubiquitous. Not exactly Coleman Hawkins, but this is great tenor playing and beautiful ballad playing:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=BrIfp7F6wR8

Exactly!

O-10, I am not quite sure why there seems to be an element of bickering or defensiveness in your recent posts. I realize that it's always tricky when putting thoughts in writing in a way that conveys the intended message, and I am willing to leave it at that; and apologies if I am misconstruing. I believe in clarity and while I am sure that I fall woefully short of that goal, it is my goal nonetheless. Words matter. I'd like to address a couple of your comments:

Re "the 70s": this was your opening sentence:

****Well aficionados, as much as we liked those decades, it's time to move on to the 70's, and examine that decade in detail****

Further, at no point in your post did you even mention "fusion". So, how does one examine the decade "in detail" without examining the music that, either didn't meet the popular definition of "fusion", or is music that is simply showing the seed of the general movement of that decade toward fusion. As Rok shows in his most recent post the term hasn't even been clearly defined yet. So, my intention was (and is) to look at the music of that decade "in detail".

Now, as far as what music, exactly, "exemplifies that decade":

Part of my intention was to point out "in detail" that there was a lot of music that, not only continued the hard-bop (and other) jazz tradition, but was fusion that informed or influenced the music that many listeners would go on to think of as "fusion". A lot of this music became popular, but was by no means the music that kept a closer connection to what defines good jazz: a high level of harmonic and rhythmic sophistication, inventiveness, and a high level of improvisational sophistication. Gato and Sanborn (to name two), as fun and listenable as their music is, don't meet those standards. Much of that music was, or would morph into what many would go on to call "smooth-jazz". The point is that there is a lot of "fusion" that never became "popular" precisely because it is challenging for many listeners, but that is the fusion that most deserves to be looked at. If "popularity" defines what music exemplifies a decade I must say that I have a problem with that notion and find a contradiction in the premise.

Much has been said on this thread about the idea that "popularity" defines what is good. I still disagree with that notion and I have never gotten a good explanation for this dichotomy (I realize that I am using broad brush strokes here): I think it's fair to say that Rok dislikes most "fusion"; certainly as defined by players such as Gato, Sanborn and Metheny. Yet, they are (were) hugely popular. However, he likes Headhunters; they were not "popular". Yet, Headhunters played music that was on an infinitely higher level as defined by the standards mentioned previously. Discerning listener that he is, I am sure that is the reason why.

Re my role as "leader":

Not quite sure what that means. I am a firm believer in democracy so I think everyone's contributions will shape the direction of the discussion. However, if my comments above don't suggest wanting to take things in a certain "in detail" direction, I will try to be more clear.

Re "Are we going to get into the music, or what?"

I thought that was precisely what I have been doing through my comments and posts; unless, of course, personal attire somehow says more about the music :-)

BTW, much of Joe Henderson's music in the 70's and beyond was most certainly "fusion". So, perhaps the intention is not to look at the music "in detail". If that is the case, I am not quite sure I can be of much help; and certainly not "lead". I would suggest again to look at the list by the author of the article Rok posted a few posts ago. It's quite good and, to my mind (and obviously the author's also) it "exemplifies" the 70's.

Regards.

Yes! Bob Berg, another NYC tenor hero. Thanks! Sterile my ass. Fantastic clips Acman3.

Yeah, very weird. New IPad arrives in a day or so; don't like the Kindle at all, it does strange things. I did find (think) that if one copy/paste the URL link into a new search it usually works.

"Have you gone digital?" Horrors!!! No. Well, only when I have no choice for a recording I really want or need. I am using either a Shelter 901 or Acutex 420 STR, or Empire 4000D III, or Vandenhul, or.....what are you using?

****I never said the public knows best, I said, they decide.****

Global warming today; climate change tomorrow.

Rok, you have a lot to learn about post- Blue Note era music. I am tempted to think that you just don't want to. If you do, you will simply have to check your arrogance at the door. I am willing to help "lead", but not with the constant destructive barbs and shallow commentary which is part of the truth in what Acman3 posted a little while back. To paraphrase:

It is the one claiming to protect the music that will end up destroying it.

A brief detour from the 70s (sorry):

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lWIt4PtJwM0

Who are you talking to Rok? Me or Acman3? And what question are you talking about? You may not like it but we are talking about more than fusion. If thats too much to handle , you know where you can go. Both Liebman and Brecker have been posted; more to come. Nothing unique about Woody Shaw' s style? Or 70s Henderson? And much of what Acman3 has posted? Get out of your shell.

Time to grab the bull by the horns here. Acman3 did a heroic job of posting music of a wide range of styles. Personally, I think that's the best direction. My idea is to outline the music's evolution from flirtation with fusion to full-fledged fusion as well as other styles of the decade combined with explanations and descriptions (by all contributors). I would defer to O-10 as to what direction, exactly, should be followed. Until we hear from him that is the direction I plan on taking. Rok, why don't you enlighten us with specifics ("in detail") as to what it is about the music of this era that is so lacking. Not just "it's better or worse" "body of work", "noise" etc; but specifics. You are the only contributor so far that has shot down practically everything posted, so what is it "in detail" that is superior about other eras, and so lacking in some of what has been posted so far . Also, what is fusion TO YOU? Enlighten us, please.

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cw8wu3lmxq8

More to follow.

Alexatpos, I don't mind at all, and I appreciate your comments; I always appreciate honest and well thought out discourse. However, in my opinion there is a world of difference between saying what you said about liking and not liking some art (which I mostly agree with) and the reasons why, and calling it noise and by noise makers. As far as Rok' s style goes, well we all have a style, no?

Very interested in what you think of the Buster Williams clip, Rok. Thanks.

O-10, as you said, nice groove on the Jutta Hipp clip. However, I think there's a reason why she takes only takes a couple of choruses to Zoot's four. She has been posted before and my feelings haven't changed; a decent, but unimpressive player with great sidemen.

O-10, I always appreciate your attempts to bring calm to the proceedings here. You are correct, we do know that Rok's gotta be Rok; same as everyone. I would say that Rok insists on being Rok with little interest in filtering his comments; comments which are, at worst, sarcastic, provocative and disrespectful of those he addresses or their message; and sometimes completely out of touch with the reality of the subject we try to discuss. Case in point, and I use a personal example only because it's recent:

To suggest that Michael Brecker, a player that just about every current significant musician and critic considers to have been if not the, then certainly one of the most influential jazz saxophonists since John Coltrane, has contributed no more to jazz than a classical trumpet player is so ridiculous that it transcends being an expression of personal taste and should be considered nothing more than provocative rabble rousing. We all post on the thread because we feel passionate about this music . There is clearly room for different opinions and viewpoints, but I don't think that anyone should have to endure the kind of sniping that he routinely does without reacting. The net effect of Rok "being Rok" is the derailment of the discussion into "the mud" and the inevitable return to the Blue Note, Wynton, or Proms clips. As one of our contributors pointed out a while back it ends up feeling like a kind of bullying and return to "the Rok show". It's really a shame because of Rok's obvious and undeniable passion for ONE slice of the total pie. The pattern is as obvious as it is in the audio side of things: why participate in an audio forum if one is going to be so anti-audiophile and derisive towards the interests of others? The same can be said here.

Although I certainly would prefer not to, I can deal with occasional rolling in the mud with Rok; it doesn't change the facts. But obviously not everyone can or is willing to deal with the mud and its a shame that the thread loses interesting participants as a result. As I have done many times before, I would encourage Rok to reconsider his stance and his attitude. I know you're out there, Rok.

Good story O-10, and I particularly like your last sentence. As I have said before, for me to participate in a discussion there has to be clarity. I believe it was I that used the term "the reality", so I will respond to your comment about that. I believe that there is something that is closer to an objective reality than your comments suggest. Of course, this is highly influenced by our subjective reality, as your comments point out. This is the point at which intellect comes in and has to deal and exist with emotion as Schubert correctly pointed out. Case in point: sure, each blind man describes the elephant differently, but even the blind man should never lose sight of the reality that a sighted man may know what the elephant looks like and not be so quick to dismiss that viewpoint. But that is not really the issue here. You are correct, there has to be room for others' reality and that's where respect comes in. The real problem is when either the blind or sighted man describes the elephant with the tenor and attitude of: "you stupid fool, THIS is what it looks like and any other idea is bs. Moreover, I will go away until you silly people understand the TRUTH". To have to deal with that is not reasonable, IMO.

Huh? Why not? Please explain. My post was meant to highlight the band not just Brecker, and Steps Ahead was most certainly a fusion band. While I don't consider Wiki to be be definitive, look at their description of the band. More importantly, their music most definitely has strong rock, as well as jazz, elements. What, then, do you consider their music to be? Brecker, as well as being a fantastic straight ahead jazz player is considered the greatest of the fusion tenor players. Most importantly, I am very interested in why you don't consider Brecker a fusion player; after all Rok said he was and nothing more :-)

O-10, it's really much simpler than that and it doesn't have to be personalized at all. It's not about WHO'S reality wins; it's not a contest. There may be some disagreement in some quarters, but when the vast majority of astute (or, at least, experienced) listeners agree on something, then I would say that constitues a "reality". At that point, the dissenting voice has two choices: 1. Disregard the consensus, or 2. Consider the possibility that there might be something to learn; that one is not seeing (hearing) all that there is to see. Personally, I think that 2. is an infinitely better option. Anyway, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this.

Great clips. I have always liked Metheny's music. He is a wonderful musician.

1980:
(if this doesn't "fit the definition", then I don't know what does)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRQ6LtbBZk

1983:
(why "fusion" doesn't have to be a dirty word)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PN8SAAMG8_o

Acman3, great stuff! You're right, Mike Stern kills on that clip. I love his playing. One of the few fusion players who doesn't sanitize his tone too much and keeps some rock&roll rawness and attitude; combined with the improvisational sophistication of a jazz player. Had never heard Michael Urbaniak playing electronic wind instrument; didn't even know he did and knew him only as an electric violinist. Thanks.

Michael Brecker on electronic wind instrument with Mike Stern (1987):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=opOUa1KcvBw

****Until Cannonball takes the third solo on that album, it was, in my opinion, just another studio recording by guys who came to work that day to make a buck. Adderley showed them the way....****

Wow! That's the kind of bold comment that makes for an interesting thread. Welcome to the thread Oregonpapa. But, disagree with your comment; or, at least, in degree. I love Cannonball and that third solo is a great solo. But, Miles and Trane sounding like they are just there to make a buck? Yikes! First of all, Miles undoubtedly picked Trane and Cannonball because of their contrasting styles; so, from that standpoint, it's a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Moreover, I think a case can be made for Cannonball's style being somewhat ill suited for that record. To my ears, Cannonball's more traditional bebop style and overall exuberant and almost "perky" style is less suited to the very introspective and laid back vibe of that modal tune. But a great solo nonetheless. Again, welcome.

Alex, I agree with you entirely in that music reflects the time of its creation; the same can be said of any art. That is a very important point, and one to keep in mind when judging any music and it's value. We may not like a certain music, but what we are saying is often that we don't like what it is saying about the time. How well it reflects the time is what determines whether it is good or bad. What I don't agree with, if I understand your comments correctly, is the idea that music (art) does not evolve. Music evolves the same way as people and society evolves and good art reflects it. Had not been a Charlie Parker it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Coltrane. Nice post.

Learsfool, thanks for the great posts. All bias aside, you did a great job of summarizing what I have been trying to say; you shouldn't underestimate your writing skills.

Regards.

Acman3, great clip of Woods and Harrell. As I know you are aware, Tom Harrell is one of the (relatively) unsung heroes of the modern jazz trumpet scene. I am particularly fond of his flugelhorn playing. Beautifully warm sound with fantastic time feel and harmonic creativity in both horns.

For anyone who wants to get "geeky": since we have been talking about "fusion" and David Sanborn, it should be noted that John Purcell, the alto player in the Jack DeJohnette clip was Dave Sanborn's "sound consultant" for many years. If there is any interest, I can relate some pretty wild stories about that relationship.

O-10, I am glad you arrived at a definitive conclusion for yourself. Since it is "concealed" in my last post (presumably, you mean last post directed at you), are you going to give me a clue......? :-)

Alex, you express your thoughts very well; and I appreciate them. What we are talking about is a recurring theme on this thread. The appreciation of music is no different than just about any endeavor in as much as there are many many levels that a person can reach in the understanding of it. The choice to do that or not is obviously a very personal one. My feeling has always been that to learn as much as possible about it is a good thing which helps the appreciation and enjoyment of it. With all due respect, what I think you confuse, and is often confused in these "talks", is the distinction between quality of the performance and quality of the music as a style. Contrary to what you suggest, I like "simple" music as much as more complex music; the issue is wether it is played well or not. It is not that I dislike some of the clips that have been posted because they are "simple", I disliked them because they were not played well. Just this morning I was having a conversation with an orchestrator who was commenting how difficult it is to keep things (music) simple and good; sometimes complexity hides poor quality. Anyway, I think that this kind of critical thought is sorely missing on this thread, and the ability to be critical that way in no way detracts from the emotional enjoyment of it. There is much talk about favorite styles and there is much posturing about which era produced the best music; a futile exercise. IMO, the key to becoming a better listener is to learn about the musical values that separate a great performance from a mediocre one; regardless of style. This will, in turn, help the listener understand and appreciate different styles of music. That may or may not be what some listeners want. The problem as I see it is the declarations about the superiority of this player or that player, or this style or that style without substantive justification for those assertions other than it is what we prefer.

Bottom line: there is great music from all eras. To declare one superior to the other says more about the person making the declaration than about the music itself. IMO.

One of my favorite congeros, and one who gained prominence in the 80s is Poncho Sanchez. To my ears, a distinctive approach to Latin-Jazz fusion; a "fusion" which hasn't been looked at much so far:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GcYwjio8E-M

Chazro, killer band and killer record! Adventurous and intensely creative record from one of the greatest minds (and heart; just in case :-) in jazz. Love it.

Alex, that was a fantastic post and very well stated; I agree with every word of it. I won't repeat some of what I posted in response to O-10, but it addresses some of your points. I think the main obstacle here is the defensiveness that, while being a very natural human reaction (especially when it concerns something we love), can blind us to the entirety of what the other person is saying. With respect, it is the defensive person who would use labels like "ignorant" in the context of a discussion such as this. When have I said anything of the sort to O-10? As I said to O-10, there is a contradiction in the idea that one camp can be at liberty to be critical ("that is not jazz", "I didn't like this or that", "this is the best era" etc.) in a way that goes counter to another's viewpoint, but when it is pointed out that a performance is subpar and, importantly, precise reasons why are given, all hell breaks loose.

**** what if the composition is basic, playing of the key, and ability of musicians very limited, to say at least, and you still like it? Do you think that only an ignorant could like such 'music' or perhaps there is something in 'music' beyond craftmanship that can touch us in a 'mysterious ways' that cant be always just explained ?

As concerns my comments about O-10's recent post "Chan Chan", which I found fault with, please note that I said "there is obviously something that resonates with you in that performance". It seems you are suggesting that there is no room for criticism of music that someone likes; a silly idea imo. Most importantly, what then is the point of a discussion and, as O-10 himself proposed in his original post, "review" of the music? If someone likes a performance that is off-key and shows a low level of craft, that's fine with me; but, am I not at liberty to state why I don't like it? I think we all need to be comfortable in our own skins and be willing to accept different viewpoints.

Sorry to hear about Mr Parlocha. Unfortunately, I did not know his work. On a related vein, I would highly recommend WBGO 88.3 FM or on line out of Newark, NJ. Fantastic station with some very personable and highly knowledgable hosts.

1986:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PcIN6CTVRmg

Chazro, thanks for the nice post. The links don't seem to work on my IPad, but I know that 1979 American debut album well. I posted that post-defection clip to stay with the 80s theme. I became aware of Irakere even before that 1979 Columbia release, when the year before a relative in Cuba sent me copies of "Grupo Irakere" and "Brouwer/Irakere" on the Cuban label "Areito". I was knocked out when I heard that band. To me one of the great poetic ironies about the history of that band is that the musical project created by the Cuban government, the "Orquesta Cubana De Musica Moderna", in order to show the world that jazz was not forbidden in Cuba (anymore) and which spawned "Irakere", would eventually lead to the defection of two of its highest profile players.

O-10, as I said recently, I sense that this thread is at a milestone of sorts; perhaps, and more accurately, a crossroad (for me, at least). I preface my comments out of respect for you and the interesting and positive contribution you have made as OP, and so that my opposing view does not come across as gratuitous or disingenuous; it is not and is sincere. As always, comments in a thread such as this are obviously subject to and invite opposing as well as supporting views. Having said all that, it is I who would be disingenuous if I didn't respond to this:

****Before, when I tried to stay current, it turned out to be a big waste; current musicians seem to capable of only onte very good cut per album; this meant the rest of the album was a waste.****

Please clarify: Are you saying that "before" (previous search?), you didn't find any current recordings that had more than one good cut, but now you do? Or, are you saying that you just don't find (now or before) any current recordings with more than one good cut? If the latter, it is precisely comments like that, that I hoped that this thread could move beyond. Clearly, we are all entitled to our opinions and to express them; but, for me, the seemingly endless cycle of talk about jazz from the past as the end-all, to proposals to explore more modern jazz (sometimes by the decade) without real follow-through, to the inevitable return to negativity about current jazz gets really old. My view, if it isn't clear already, is that if important comments like that are made they should be accompanied by something more substantive than a simple statement of opinion or gut feeling as an explanation for it so as to keep a kind of focus to the proceedings here; perhaps specific examples, and better yet, with specific commentary.

Here's one, just off the top of my head; not a bad cut on the record:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-rv_AU_URkk&list=PL55B2954EFC5BB029¶ms=OAFIAVgC&mode=NORMAL

Just one man's opinion, and a humble attempt to keep the thread at a level befitting the seriousness of the music. As always, I welcome yor thoughts.

Regards.