Jazz for aficionados
That is a very good question; she deserves much more recognition. That clip is beautiful! Here she is singing one of my favorite Kurt Weill songs: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oqJXBL8KDwg And a favorite vocal rendition: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nsecJqW-wdg |
****I find it quite difficult to believe there can be any relationship between jazz and classical; other than they're both genres of music**** O-10, kindly explain where, then, the concepts of harmony used in jazz came from if not the European Classical music tradition. African music has practically no tradition of complex harmony to speak of; it's contribution to jazz is in the realm of rhythm. ****A person cannot make a 'contribution' to Jazz, with something that you cannot define as Jazz.**** We are talking about what led to the birth of what would be one known as jazz; and, as such, the contribution of the European classical tradition to jazz is huge. ****But I did not 'hear' the boogie woogie. **** Jeremy Denk heard it. I heard it; loud and clear. Once again, how does the fact that a person can't hear it invalidate the fact that many others can? What is the most likely scenario: that the many that can are delusional; or, that the one that can't, simply....well....can't? |
Please consider this an addendum to my "last" post. My comments about not continuing to post about the music stand, but I feel that some other recent comments should be addressed in order to help clarify my position. Moreover, my vacillation between "leave well enough alone" and "go ahead and try and clarify" was decided by Acman3's most recent post, which points to what, for me, is one of the main issues. I have suggested on several occasions that we should "dig deeper" in our views about the music and not base so much purely on "subjective" reaction, but try to have more of a balance between the subjective and the objective. This, as a way to help keep a more open mind about jazz, any music, and art in general; and, as a way to understand something that is key and is one of the things at the core of what the practitioners of any art form value: a more inclusive, open-minded view of art and the principle that art doesn't stand still and that, like it or not, there is good art at any point in history. While it may strike some as grandiose or even self-serving to keep trying to drive that point home, the irony of the chasm (as concerns this point) between the mindset of many listeners and practically all practitioners is too great to ignore. As Alexatpos points out, sometimes the realization comes slowly. As has also been pointed out there are times when it's best to leave well enough alone, because to continue to drive certain points home can serve to only sink matters deeper into resistance to the idea. What I meant by alluding to Acman3's post is this; and I hope that, if anything, this is the "take-away" of this most recent exchange of comments which will hopefully serve to help participants have better and more focused "conversations" without so much diversion into arguments: One of the main obstacles in these discussions has been a lack of focus clarity in the way that ideas are presented. I realize that this format is limiting and everyone has different writing styles; but, I just don't feel that enough effort is put into being clear and succinct with commentary and not enough "follow-through" with ideas proposed. I think this causes a certain confusion. Examples: O-10, if there has been any "misinterpretation" of your comments by me (I don't believe there has been), where has the clarification been? I have asked specific questions, wether it be about the supposed "filler" on current recordings or about your comments about the supposed lack of relationship between European Classical and Jazz and there has been no response. Additionally, in your most recent post you make a comment that suggests that you based your comment about "filler" on one (!!) recent record purchase. If that is the case (I suspect not), is that really reason enough to make a general comment about new artists' recordings? Rok would call my need for clarification as creating a "strawman"; I don't think so. I think that there is a tendency to let the less than open-minded attitude to creep into the style of the discussions as well as our views of the music. Comments are made that buttress one's point of view and are then held as a type of gospel without being willing to "follow-through" and explain, or really discuss. As I said, Acman3's post was what prompted me to make this "addendum" because it is a great example of what I mean and I had the same reaction as he did: Concensus? Really?? Seems to me that on this thread there is anything but a concensus about the relevance of "old vs new" music; certainly not, if one does the math re the number of participants who hold each point of view. I would say it's pretty much split down the middle. I will admit that now, in my absence, Acman3, Chazro, Mapman, and others may be at a "disadvantage" as concerns the numbers :-) I make light of it, but it should not be about advantage or disadvantage. Rok often points to the "intent" expressed in the OP. Fair enough, but it should be remembered that the OP also intends to "review" and, as such, comments purporting to be authoritative should be accompanied by substantiation; or, in its absence, a willingness to be open to, and truly consider, the comments of those offering subtantiation. I truly do hope the thread thrives and I hope my comments, which will inevitably be construed as self-serving or arrogant by some, are meant to encourage a better platform for the sharing and discussion of the greatness of the music. In my view, this thread, as interesting as it has been so far, has only scratched the surface of that greatness and all that there is to know and love about it. Best to all and good listening. |
65-68, probably my favorite band of all time. Going back to Coltrane (one can never have too much Trane), I listened to this today. When the “RECORD” light goes on, sometimes the stars align more than others. Inspired playing: https://youtu.be/tr72UkaBdtk I think it was Rok that asked recently “why McCoy?”. McCoy is a genius and probably the only piano player who could play with the power to match Coltrane’s at that point. He wrote the tune in the above clip. Check out his playing on this; amazing: https://youtu.be/By88wMU1pIQ Btw, a propos a recent discussion about RVG, I think these two clips make a good argument for the sonic merits of recordings other than RVG’s. Not as “beautiful” a sound as some of the RVG’s, but I find this type of sound truer to the sound of instruments in a studio environment. There is a certain honesty about it. |
Hope you don’t mind another suggestion. I wouldn’t approach the test that way at all. Don’t go back and forth between cables after only one song each. You know the sound of your system. Listen with the old cables for AT LEAST one entire record. Then, the same entire record record with the new cable (ideally, live with the new cables for a couple of days). THEN go back to the old cable. The differences will be much more apparent this way. Just one man’s opinion. Yes, good luck and have fun. |
Awesome bass line! Thanks, pjw. Speaking of money and great bass lines: https://youtu.be/rwPM01cbQBc A great song from one of the most talented Latin artists around today, or ever, that does the best job I’ve ever heard of conveying the sentiment that I think mary_jo is expressing. Unfortunately, it is in Spanish. Had I the time right now, I would translate. However, I think that any of you non-Spanish speakers might be able to get the gist of the message after a couple of listens. Don’t be turned off by the cheesy Disco intro; it’s part of the message. Great bass line; if Disco is your thing. https://youtu.be/KPWvD5vbJ8I With lyrics: https://youtu.be/PVBv2quZzhQ |
Actually, he did worse (better?) than that. He referred to bebop as “Chinese music”. Talk about politically incorrect. I know exactly what he meant. Good catch on the tempo relaxing toward the end. 2:00 AM, last take of the night, rough night the day before, way too much sugar in way too much coffee (or who knows what), Chan was pissed off that day; even those guys got tired sometimes 😊 Actually it was the drummer’s fault. Again. It’s always the drummer (not!). Those damn drummers. ” Two musicians and a drummer walk into a bar......” |
Agree about Newborn. Wonderful player. Actually, that was the fifth time the Bird/Desmond clip has been posted here. I posted it early in the life of this thread during one of the great “bruhaha’s” and got the same reaction....none. Some don’t (didn’t?) seem to want to hear facts that go counter to their preconceived notions about certain things. Great clip and great interview. “Different voices” in more ways than one; and both great. Great clips, thanks. |
Thanks for the Pat Martino clip, Alex. Fabulous player with one of the most poignant stories in Jazz: https://www.mtpr.org/post/pat-martinos-jazz-legend-who-had-master-guitar-twice https://www.patmartino.com |
I just pulled into a parking lot in Margaretville, NY. Margaretville is one of the few places where a satellite connection is available for many miles. I made a quick check on you guys while listening to SiriusXM- Real Jazz. I read Schubert’s mention of Sonny Stitt while listening to Sonny Stitt’s fabulous tenor solo on this cut and thought “I wonder how Schubert’s doing?” https://youtu.be/4Dhc-GAU1Po |
Awsome Blues clips, Rok. Blues royalty. Thanks for that. Re recent talk on the bass clarinet, flute, Herbie Mann and pryso’s request for commentary: A little known fact is that Adolph Sax, the creator of the saxophone was, if not solely responsible for the design of the bass clarinet, the main contributor to it’s design as it is known today. This, BEFORE the creation of the saxophone which Sax invented as his answer to the demand from composers for an instrument that could be a sonic “bridge” between the woodwinds and the brass in an orchestra. The design of all instruments has evolved (and continues to evolve) over time and the first examples were often very crude and even impractical for actual performance. The first known significant use of the bass clarinet by a composer was in about 1830 or so. The saxophone, the most recent major instrument invention has probably seen the least number of major design revisions. The design was patented in 1846. It is true that in Jazz and other popular music saxophone players have often “doubled” on other members of the woodwind family. This has been (and is) either by choice as when a player is looking for a new instrumental “voice” as a soloist; or, by necessity as in the case of a player who is a member of an ensemble in which the composer of the music wants the wider tonal color palette that the various woodwinds offer. Clarinet has always been the most common “double” for saxophone players. In some respects the two instruments are the most similar, but in other respects the most different. The flute as a “doubling” instrument would come later. While the flute has a fingering system that is almost identical to the saxophone’s the fact that, unlike the clarinet, it is not a reed instrument means that it requires an entirely different method of tone production making it a significant challenge for saxophone players who want to double on it. It should be noted that some saxophone players, especially those who go on to become significant Jazz soloists, choose to not double on other instruments; or, when success as soloists allows them the luxury to focus on only one instrument. It’s a personal artistic choice and some players find their musical identity in the variety of “voices” that doubling offers. While all woodwind instruments pose their own unique difficulties, bass clarinet is uniquely difficult for most saxophone players. First, like the soprano (regular) clarinet, the fingering system is very different from the saxophone’s. There is a certain logic to the fingering system of the saxophone which has helped a great deal in promoting certain stylistic “saxophonisms” that a listener would, generally speaking, recognize as something rather unique to the style of most Jazz saxophone players. This logic makes it a very facile instrument which allows the lighting speed musical runs and patterns that one hears from players like Bird and Trane. The clarinets not only lack this kind of logic in the fingering system, but also lack the much more “free” quality that the player experiences when blowing into a saxophone. The bass clarinet offers a lot more resistance to the player blowing air into it, especially in the middle and high registers. It is also a bit@h to keep the instrument in good working order due to a key mechanism that is more complicated than the saxophone’s. It was Eric Dolphy who blew it (pun) open for those wanting to play Jazz on the bass clarinet. He was the first to demonstrate that it was an instrument that could be played with the same level of expression as the saxophone. Up until then (and for the most part still today) most players wanting to play Jazz on the bass clarinet, IMO, relied to some extent on the novelty aspect of the instrument while not really saying anything truly new or unique on the instrument. To a much lesser degree, some of the same can be said of the flute. Few Jazz players have achieved the level of mastery on the flute that they themselves or other players achieved on the saxophone. That Eric Dolphy was able to achieve that level of mastery on flute as well as bass clarinet and saxophone is remarkable. I have to admit that I have never been a huge Herbie Mann fan. This is personal opinion only and admittedly colored by the fact that I play the instruments discussed. The music itself can be a favorite of some listeners and a subjective call. I like a lot of it, but I love very little of it. The bass clarinet record, while interesting in that it is bass clarinet, leaves me feeling like the playing is kind of insipid. For me, it’s kind of my reaction to a lot of scat singing. If the scatting doesn’t at least approach what can be done by a great instrumentalist, then what’s the point? His flute is a different story and I like a lot of his playing even if I am not always crazy about the material. A couple of favorite Jazz flute players: The great Joe Farrell: https://youtu.be/lnd45moc7EQ https://youtu.be/sEhQTjgoTdU Hubert Laws: https://youtu.be/KisK2wqQ-7I (On piccolo and alto flute) https://youtu.be/2NaXlmDSDcw And, of course, Dolphy. If Coltrane’s “Giant Steps” would become a litmus test for tenor players and what was possible on the instrument (up till then), Dolphy’s “God Bless The Child” would become the prime example of what is possible on the bass clarinet in Jazz: https://youtu.be/yOf-sRYI_XM |
Ghost, do you have the original release or the CD reissue? The CD reissue contains four tracks recorded during the same sessions, but not released on the original. My LP includes only the “Three Quartets”. I bought the CD for the extra cuts. Great stuff! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_mp49RsKE5LKk65-YV8RPDW6LBkosPN1PE |
**** You can’t say this on a saxophone: "Got up this morning, got me a jug, and laid back down."*** Definitely up for debate 🤔 Not a chicken, but maybe close enough: https://youtu.be/H3sDygsxvSg https://youtu.be/eAa2FAyyF8w |
Great to see Frank Wess getting some love. One of my favorite tenor sounds and one of the pioneers of Jazz flute. Got early recognition as member of the Count Basie orchestra. Can’t imagine being able to swing harder than this; and without playing loud. What a band! https://youtu.be/yhK8TV27sBo https://youtu.be/WkiB-6hvBtQ Great record with tenor player and Basie section mate Frank Foster: https://youtu.be/_lB3Xu_rAHM I posted this fairly recently. Recorded live shortly before he passed. Remarkable to be able to play like this at age 87. In the tradition of the great tenor battles with Frank Foster during the Basie years, here with a young(er) player that he mentored and is one worth checking out, Scott Robinson. I’d be happy to be able to pick my nose at 87: https://youtu.be/YtY4WeNEQy8 |
Inna is quite right. Argentinian tango has no relation to Flamenco. Flamenco Tangos (always in the plural, although it does not refer to more than one) is one of five or six different styles of Flamenco, each characterized by different rhythms, tempo, where the accents in the music are placed and structure. Confusing, but there it is 😊. |
Rok, you know, while I tend to, for personal reasons, resist feeling pessimistic about the future of Cuban music and Cuba in general, I think you are correct. Now, I have no doubt that Cuba will continue to produce fantastic artists including some who will break new and important musical ground and some who will staunchly defend the Cuban music tradition; but the influence of the "air-heads" will be deep and is inevitable. The "buying of the place with beads" has already been going on for several years by (again) the Europeans and once American commercialism is in full force the change will be huge. It will take time; probably more time than we might imagine, but it will happen. And you know how I know you are correct; aside from common sense and a little bit of knowledge about history? The cigar. I don't mean to be trite or cute about it. Andy Garcia should be commended for promoting the music of his native country, but he is a product of Hollywood and is so immersed in the Hollywood culture that he doesn't even realize how lame it is to have to use a cigar as a prominent prop during his cameos in the (otherwise good) clip which includes an interview with Cachao, an icon in the music. In typical Hollywood fashion he needs the stereotypical prop as a way to proclaim his Cubanness; please! And sitting in with the band to play congas when it's obvious he can't play......what can one say. Nice clips O-10, and timely. Thanks. |
Mapman, more than likely, much of the music that you heard during your visit to the Dominican Republic was "merengue" where the genre originated. Chazro, Dafnis Prieto is a rhythm genius; brilliant drummer. Thanks. May seem simple, but amazing and incredibly difficult: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YXpxsXC4Tdw Acman3, great clip. And with Tom Harrell; undoubtedly the most underrated trumpet player in recent times! Love his flugelhorn playing in particular. |
This is an interesting subject, but easy to lose focus and not start discussing apples and oranges; at least as I interpret the comments, so please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretations. I thought that the original comments about Cuba's future had to do with the future of its music and the impact of Americanization on the music. I think there is little doubt that once there is real freedom in Cuba, not the kind of government controlled "freedom" that Communist countries like China flirt with, that we will see a real economic explosion in Cuba. What exists now, and what we will probably continue to see in the foreseeable future, is the kind of government control over every experiment in capitalism (freedom) that allows very little actual trickle down benefit to the masses while the corrupt government elite continue to take the lion's share of the influx of American $'s. Factoid: cost to an expat of renewing a Cuban passport $475 (!!!) (with additional "fees" every couple of years). Says it all in my opinion. But, I digress; back to the music. I think the point being made re the future of the music was that once there is true free exchange between Cuba and the U.S. (a mere 90 miles away) most of what we will see as Cuban culture and music will be indistinguishable from what exists in Miami now. |
The great (and underrated) Tom Harrell from one of my favorite jazz records: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PEzEgoReQgY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CkYKIUskzdI Most gorgeous flugelhorn sound ever: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AIE7smg8JHw |
O-10, I hope that you are correct about the future of Cuban music and that I am wrong. I would like to see nothing more than the preservation of the beautiful music or honest and interesting evolution. What I can say with certainty is that you are not correct about is the politics of it all. The Cuban government has been and continues to be one of the most corrupt and ruthless dictatorships. Perhaps it is the proximity to the U.S. and the beauty of the country, it's people and its music that has made it easy to romanticize, as has often been done, the reality of life in Cuba. Life in Cuba is replete with unjust laws and oppression and it is easy to assume that the people would prevail in a revolt against it until one is looking down the barrel of a gun or the prospect of jail (or worse) as countless have done. I am not sure this is the forum for more in-depth discussion of this topic, but if you would like to learn more about it based on personal experience feel free to pm me. Saludos. |
Mdemaio, I first became aware of Dusko Gojkovic from his work in the trumpet section of Maynard Ferguson's big band. A Serbian national he is a very nice player with a lovely melodic sense and an affinity for Brazilian rhythms. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jl5m_3HIBa0 Enjoy the Tom Harrell set at the Vanguard. I am planning on being there over the weekend. My favorite place to hear jazz and one every jazz lover should make a point of visiting at some point; great vibe. |
The baritone saxophone: Sounds (only) one octave lower than the alto saxophone. Contrary to what the Amazon "reviewers" may have written, it is not "harder" to play than the other, higher pitched saxophones. Yes, it is clearly more cumbersome to handle due to its size; but, in some respects it is actually easier to play. The size of the instrument demands a larger volume of air, but that very larger size makes it less resistant when one actually blows into it; especially the lowest range on the instrument which, by comparison, are much more resistant (require more effort from the player) on the higher pitched instruments. By extension, one would think the soprano saxophone is easier to play than the alto and tenor; but, this is definitely not the case, with the soprano putting huge demands on the player as far as playing certain notes in tune. This idea is a popular myth, and at the end of the day, no instrument (even across different families of instruments) is "harder" to play than another; they each bring very different challenges to the table. How and why a player chooses to play a particular saxophone as opposed to another has a lot to do with finding one's "voice". Often, a player, consciously or unconsciously, simply gravitates toward a certain frequency range (low, mid, high) as the one that best defines his "voice" as a player. Additionally, the sheer physical size of the player has a role in the process; a player very short in stature is unlikely to feel comfortable handling the larger instrument. Alex, thanks for the clips; I especially liked the Chaloff clips. He was a terrific player coming out of the "cool" school. I take exception, however, with the quoted reviewer's (another example of problems with "reviewers") characterization of Chaloff's sound as being like Harry Carney's. I don't think it is anything like Carney's. Carney had the quintessential baritone sound. His sound was huge and incredibly rich and one that would actually define, more than anything, the sound of the entire reed section in Ellington's band; an amazing thing when one thinks about it. He played with a fast constant vibrato which was fairly typical for pre-bebop style sensibility. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0OHdxOhUAaA Carney was great stylist and unique voice. Chaloff's style was a product of the new direction that jazz was going in; towards a more advanced and sophisticated harmonic sense in improvisation. He was definitely influenced by Bird's bebop style, but with a leaning toward the "cool" of the West Coast sound as best exemplified by Gerry Mulligan. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7DCQVyD3whM I know there will be disagreement on this point, but I think the idea of the "forgotten player" or the player that "didn't get his due" is mainly overstated and often a myth. If we look at players' careers in the context of an evolving art form and changing times it's not difficult to understand why soem players become famous and some do not; or, more accurately, don't stand the test of time. Example: Leo Parker. Nice player, playing the baritone at a time when the music had evolved into hard-bop with its much more sophisticated harmonic language which placed many more demands on a player. Parker sounded good playing the relatively simple style of the easy and relaxed twelve bar blues. Compared to stalwarts like Pepper Adams, and on complex bebop harmonic changes, not so good. So, who then will stand the test of time and become (or deserve to be) "famous"? Not that players like Parker were not good players, but they had limitations as players and could not rise to the top in a climate where, not only was the music placing more and more artistic and virtuosic demands on players, but the BUSINESS of music was making it much more difficult for anyone (and their recordings) other than the very best to stay in the limelight. Pepper Adams was a giant who served as a model for the new crop of baritone saxophonists: Gary Smulyan: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IS2bezPSBh8 Nick Brignola: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EfLE-0YDj34 Ronnie Cuber: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1O7Q0iHms_o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2TVnF-QkE2E |
This should have been in the Nick Brignola slot, not the George Benson clip; sorry: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P8CC8V8CVSs |
Accounting for the universal truth that there are exceptions to every rule, what would have happened to Ornette is that he probably would not have become what he did as an artist. Why? Because greatness doesn't happen in a vacuum. A musician needs to be where he is going to get his ass kicked and being a big fish in a small pond is seldom the way. No one is saying that there aren't really good players in smaller towns. We love our local heroes and many are really good players who could probably reach even higher levels of ability if they were in an environment where they weren't the best player in town and where the scene is so vibrant that creativity is inspired. Imo, we tend to romanticize their place in the grand scheme of things. Good players, yes, some of whom could be one of the pool of really good players in scenes like NY, LA, Chicago etc.; but, players like Pepper Adams or Ornette are at the very top of the heap (in very different ways; duh). Players of that caliber usually feel that that HAVE to be in a place where they can grow; it's not an option for them. Imo, that hunger also says something about their potential. IMO. Thanks for the nice personal story. |
Alex, thanks for the clips and for sharing your thoughts. Some more of mine: Context, context, context. Very important when trying to find answers to your interesting questions. Btw, I think it's wonderful for music lovers to look at these issues; puts the work of favorite artists in a better perspective and gives more insight into the music. Something that isn't always given enough scrutiny when looking for answers to these questions is the role of the producer. Every recording lists a producer. He is often the guy that says: "Hey, I know this good, or promising young guitar player. I want to record him. I think I will hire so and so to back him up on the record"; or, even, "Hey, Milt Jackson is really hot right now. Pablo records has him on contract. My label Slick Records doesn't have a vibes player on the roster. Who can I get to fill that slot and capitalize on the current listener interest in the vibraphone?". Given the relatively short supply of jazz vibraphonists, he may end up recording a second tier vibes player. The point is that simply because a player has a record contract or records with top tier players does not automatically mean that he, himself, is a top tier player. I know it takes a bit of the romance out of it, but most of even the top players are "guns for hire". Of course, the great ones will not play for a lame "leader"; but, that leader may sometimes not be on the same level as his sidemen. I cannot think of one single example of a player who was "the one" and then simply disappeared from the jazz scene. Sure, new players and new styles come along and supplant, in general level of popularity, the older player. But, any player who is "the one" will have, by definition, a substantial body of recorded work and that will live on; in the context of general declining interest in the art form. Example: Joe Lovano is probably "the one" right now in the tenor saxophone world. Does that mean that Sonny Rollins (who is still alive and playing) has been forgotten? I don't think so! Re your clips: When you refer to these players as "equally as good" as the high profile players, what higher profile players are you referring to? Thornell Schwartz. My first thought was, here we go again, nice and easy twelve bar blues. Says little about the player's range. Even in that context, and compared to someone like Kenny Burrell, a mediocre player. And that tenor player!? Ouch!! Sorry. https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dIZQYzQoruc Ray Crawford. Nice player. Still, compared to, say, George Benson or Wes Montgomery? Not quite. https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?list=PL8DB57484F40BBCC3&v=SLG2ssX2oto https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=AbXHRF8D7ag Dempsey Wright. Best of the three by a long shot; albeit in a very different style. Very nice player. Still, compared to Joe Pass or Herb Ellis and, well..... https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=_RPkohp10EQ Speaking of the twelve bar blues: https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=3muZKOxqtGU Debate is a good thing. I'll stick to my contention that, by and large, there is usually a real reason that most players who are forgotten are forgotten and some remain in the limelight (or in record collections). |
Alex, I mean no disrespect but, as I see it, you are contradicting yourself. First you make the statement that the mentioned "forgotten" players are "equally as good" as the not forgotten, and now you state that they shouldn't be compared to the Rembrandts of musicians. Well, if Rembrandt was the best artist (your suggestion) and if certain other artists are "equally as good", then shouldn't those other artists be compared to Rembrandt? Re "the one" Now I am not quite sure what you mean by " the one". You asked if there has been a player that was considered and be "the one" at some point and then disappeared. Let's see: Lester Young, Bird, Coltrane, Miles, Cannonball, Bill Evans, Lee Morgan, Freddy Hubbard, to name a few, were all considered to be "the one" at some point. None of them have been forgotten. I am sorry, but to my ears none of the players in your first post are in that league, the "Rembrandt league"; and none, to the best of my knowledge, were ever considered to be "the one". As I see it, the fact that they have not remained as famous as the one's I mentioned corroborates my point. BTW, I acknowledged that Randy Crawford is a good player in my comments; only that I dont think he is as good as players like Wes or Burrell; both of whom (certainly Wes) were considered to be "the one". I don't understand why you feel I didnt "give him some credit". Also, with the exception of Dave Burns I consider the players in your last post to be better players than those in your previous post. And I don't consider Herbie Nichols, Marmarosa, Phineas Newborn nor McGhee to be "forgotten" players at all. I don't consider Dave Burns to be in the same league as Miles, Hubbard, Morgan, Navarro, Clifford and many others. You seem to have a broader, more inclusive, range for what you consider "the best" and my range is narrower. Works for you, and mine works for me; there is no problem. BTW, I have no idea why Jimmy Smith hired Randy Crawford other than the fact that Crawford is a pretty good player and probably couldn't afford Wes Montgomery as his sideman :-) https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=VA1FbojzULk BTW, the lead alto in the saxophone section is the great Phil Woods; RIP. |
