Jazz for aficionados

O-10, thanks for your response. I don’t find your stance unique at all. However, I do find it to be rather narrow and, with all due respect, somewhat arrogant; sorry. I really mean no disrespect. I think I will invoke the title of that tune re this recurring debate: "So Tired". What I mean by my comments is simply that I don’t see the value in comparing two players or recordings of universally recognized greatness and very different styles, and trying to establish one as "better than another, by a mile". A pointless exercise, subjectivity and all. Horace Silver "better" than Bill Evans? Really? C"mon! It’s like saying a great orange is better than a great pear. I think the difference between our perspectives is that I feel no need to call one or the other "better". I like them both and appreciate their differences. I also listen to them both. Sometimes I am in the mood to listen to "Nica’s Dream" and sometimes I am in the mood to listen to "Nefertiti". Moreover, when I say arrogant, what I mean is that when brilliant musicians like those in your documentary tout the greatness of a recording such as KOB to refer to those comments as simply another example of the "absurd" things they say is simply,,,,, well, I’ll leave it to others to fill in the blank. From my vantage point, the more productive and positive attitude would be to respect those comments and to recognize that there is always much more to understand. Lastly, and most frustrating to me, is that no explanation or details are offered as to why your "better" players are better than the others. Now THAT would make for interesting discussion. I’m game; speaking of games. Fundamental difference in taste of jazz? I suppose. I don’t think I like "Nica’s Dream" any less than you do. But, I like "Nefertiti" and you don"t. Is it a matter of difference or a matter of scope? Noah was asked to build an arc and to bring two of everything. I think your arc is a little smaller than mine; that's all 😊 Regards.

O-10, we've been down this road way too often and I don't know how or why you got on the subject of practicing; it has little to do with the subject of objectivity and would be applicable to musicians in any genre, not just jazz.  With all due respect you are simply mistaken in making connections that don't exist, and it demonstrates why some of these discussions become so strained.   I won't beat a dead horse and can only suggest that you not be so quick to pull those hairs out.  But, since you brought up the subject of practicing:

"If I don’t practice for a day, I know it. If I don’t practice for two days, the critics know it. And if I don’t practice for three days, the public knows it." - Louis Armstrong

O-10, I continue to feel that judgment by using only the subjective standard is a flawed concept and a ruse.  Using that approach I would feel justified in simply saying "O-10, you are simply wrong, THIS other music is better".  I see that as pointless and unproductive and choose to focus on that fact that you simply like a certain style of music more than others.

Honest judgment can only occur with a combination of the subjective and the objective and contrary to your assertion that "there is nothing objective about music", there is much about music that can be judged objectively.  You, yourself, in posting the KOB doc, admitted that there was much commentary about music in it that went over your head.  THOSE are the things that are primarily in the objective realm.  You choose to not concern yourself with those things; but, that doesn't mean that they are not there.  Simple example:  a jazz pianist's job (besides soloing) is to provide the harmonic underpinnings of the music.  If that piano player is prone to playing wrong notes in the chords that he plays and a given listener is able to recognize the fact that those are wrong notes then he is judging objectively.  A wrong note is a wrong note; a drummer losing time is losing time.  

I have previously commented that the truly smart music lover needs to never lose a certain amount of humility; humility about the inevitable fact that there is always much to learn about art, and I won't repeat my previous comments about the arrogance of describing some of the commentary about KOB as absurd.  I will say, however, that in my universe of musicians of all genres ((including jazz) and many very avid and passionate listeners, anyone who can rightfully be considered a "hardcore fan" does not dismiss "swing" (and earlier), "big band", "post bop" (Nefertiti) and other styles.  Jazz is not only "after Bird"; it's all valid and part of the big picture.  Some is good and some not so good regardless of style.  I have no issue with anyone wanting the label of "hardcore fan", but if it is used to somehow buttress one's point of view when there is disagreement, and suggest that the disagreeing person is not a "hardcore fan", then there's a problem.  Anyway, spirited discussion is a good thing; Rok, seems to think so.  

Jafant said it very succinctly ****All jazz is good jazz**** and then he goes on to state which styles he likes best.  Can't argue with that.

Rok, Emmy not Grammy; different criteria.

Rok, thanks for your valiant effort as peacekeeper.  Those are good definitions.  But the issue is not the validity of subjectivity.  Inherent in its definition is the idea that personal feelings are part of it.  It makes my point.  I have no issue with O-10 feeling that this or that is better FOR HIM.  My point is simply that there ARE aspects of music that can be judged objectively.  But first one must be willing to learn and understand the language of objectivity that relates to music; those pesky nuts and bolts.

O-10, I am not harping on anything.  I believe it is you who is harping on the subject of objectivity.  I don't know who your friend was nor know anything about his success (or not) in music.  I don't mean to be so blunt, but concerning this issue I am afraid that you don't know what you're talking about.  Of course, every musician can go through periods of little or no practicing; but, I assure you that eventually it catches up with him and it starts to show in his playing.  And, no, Louis was not talking about his formative years.  Bird practiced incessantly, so did Trane and on and on.  In fact, as a humorous footnote; it is the bane of every hotel when a touring jazz band would/does come to town with the endless complaints from guests about the practicing in the rooms.  Yes, the creative process happens in a player's head, but the chops need to be exercised and ideas developed and translated from the abstract to the physical and executed.  C'mon O-10, you seem to have created this bubble with your own personal reality of what it's all about.  I respectfully encourage you consider that your reality needs a little tweaking if it's going to be presented as anything but just your own.  Regards.

Just one of the reasons people go gaga over Miles.  Check out "My Funny Valentine".  He lets you know what tune he's going to play in his first two statements, and from there he just hints at the original melody without ever straying so far that you lose track of it.  It all works and is brilliant.  And talk about setting a mood with that muted trumpet sound; the guy was a genius.  Before anyone gets worked into a tizzy, one of many geniuses in this music; but he was one of them without a doubt.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OcIiu1kQMx0

Alex, Amen!.  That is precisely what I have been suggesting for quite some time.  If I am understanding you correctly, and if you read my posts, what you suggest is behind many of them.  Count me in!

O-10,  great playing by all and classic Miles.  Different vibe from the "Cookin'" session.  It should be noted that it (they, actually; its a compilation) was recorded 2 1/2 years before "Cookin'".  In the scheme of the many phases of Miles and rapidly evolving style, 2 1/2 years is an eternity as shown by how this recording harkens back to an earlier period in jazz.  Listen to Lucky Thomson's playing; shades of the swing players that came before in his sound and vibrato.  Yes, less laid back that "Cookin'", but not quite sure why being laid back should be a disqualifier.  Great stuff. Thanks!

Rok, I agree word for word and made the same comment first time around; except perhaps for your last comment.  I don't have an opinion on that.

Alex, you hit a home run in your quest for unrecognized talent.  I knew the name Eddie Costa, but I am almost embarrassed to say that I had not heard his playing.  Wow!  What an interesting player! That rendition of My Funny Valentine is possibly the most interesting one that I have ever heard.  But it was "Diane" that really knocked me out; those "stop time" breaks are fantastic.  I love the way that he uses the left hand and bottom of the keyboard for more than just accompaniment and extends the right hand melodies into the low registers.  Now, check this out: when I first listened to your clips one of my first thoughts was "this guy's chord voicings sound like Bill Evans; in fact, he sounds a lot like Bill Evans, but looser, less introspective and with a bit of humor".  Then I looked at the listed personnel and noticed that the drummer was Paul Motian who also played with Evans.  Then,  I looked at the other related clips that come up on the side of the screen and what do I see?  Bill Evans/Eddie Costa Quartet.  The guy was also a vibraphonist and had a quartet with Evans.  Interesting indeed.  Wonderful player on both intruments.  And I love the way he ends the tunes; very unexpected.  I must say that of all the "forgotten talent" posted this is one whose records I am buying.  Thank you!

Wind solos in order:

flute, clarinet, bassoon, E flat (sopranino) clarinet, oboe d'amore, trumpet (with flute), tenor saxophone, soprano saxophone, trombone. 

O-10, I believe my words were "there's USUALLY a reason they are not well known"; iow, there are exceptions to every rule.  Having clarified that, just because any one of us is not familiar with a player doesn't mean that he's not better known to others.  I have known about Dave Pike for years from his work with Nick Brignola (one of my favorite baritone players) and the Francy Boland/Kenny Clark big band, the great European big band.  That band, by the way, featured Johnny Griffin on tenor and Benny Bailey the trumpet player in the often discussed Les McCann "Swiss Movement".   Pike recorded over twenty (!) records as a leader so he is clearly well known to some.  Lastly, I don't think jazz vibes is all that popular.  I know some listeners who unfortunately downright dislike the vibraphone, so I think there's probably a smaller "market" for vibes players than most other, and more popular, instruments; so, room for fewer players to be in the limelight.  Imo.

O-10, to be frank, what I am sick of is the arrogance in attempts by a very accomplished professional musician (Learsfool) to offer some insights into somehting that you admit to knowing little about being dismissed as "wack".

****but I might as well been looking and listening to Martians, musician talk is Greek to me.****

At best, it shows bad form, and to my way of thinking, any doubt about the validity of what Learsfool might be saying should have stopped at that realization.  However, I can understand  (I think) how someone who lives by the supremacy of "subjectivism" above all else, when faced with a seemingly contradictory experience might feel as you do.  First, however, I need to quote a great comment by Learsfool that is key and if understood could eliminate a lot of the bullshit that this thread gets stuck in sometimes:

****The only difference is the idiom, not the process****

The astute and open-minded will notice shades of another important truism.

"There are only two kinds of music; good and bad (the other kind"- Duke Ellington

O-10, you have been presented with several quotes by jazz greats which show that jazz musicians PRACTICE!!!.  Yet you dismiss the testimony of Bird, Louis and Coltrane just as you dismiss the testimony of Herbie Hancock and many others about the importance of KOB.  Hmmm, I'm starting to see a pattern 😉 .  Moreover, you place a tremendous amount of stock on your experience living with a jazz musician who didn't practice for a summer and assume that this is indicative of how all jazz musicians view "the process".  

The process:

Your friend didn't practice for a summer.  So what?  Every musician goes through periods when, for whatever reason, they don't practice much.  They may be busy performing, or dealing with life issues, or depressed, or simply lazy.  I assure you, however, that while they may all have a different threshold beyond which they may feel unacceptably rusty, rusty at their craft they will get.  As Louis said, he knew it after one day.  

As you correctly said, every improvising musician (notice I didn't say jazz musician, per Learsfool's great comment) attempts to translate the abstract ideas in his head to the physical via actual musical expression.  To accomplish that the physical apparatus needs to be exercised in a disciplined way: PRACTICE!!!.  New musical ideas can only be expressed if the player has visited the technical landscape that those musical ideas are a part of.  Example: do you think that the great Freddie Hubbard could have executed those wide intervals that became part of his signature style if he had not spent countless hours PRACTICING wide intervals in every key, so as to have that as part of his "arsenal" and draw from it?  You will surely cry, "Oh, but that was in his formative years".  Wrong.  If you don't practice those tho gas you can't reliably execute them; hand and lip muscles are muscles like any others.  Just listen to late Art Pepper or Dexter Gordon for examples of rusty playing.  Even more importantly, new ideas are developed by "being in the woodshed" and exploring and teying new things musically; things which are not always possible to do in performance.  Do yourself a favor and Google *Coltrane practice* You will read more accounts, anecdotes and even interviews than you'll be able to absorb about his incessant practice routine as part of the creative process.  After a solo, he would walk off the bandstand and go to the bathroom to continue working out ideas.  He slept with a flute by his bed (yes he played flute) so he could practice laying in bed.

i am posting this in incomplete form because I am about to land back in NY and will be losing connectivity any moment.

O-10, first sorry for all the typos. Back on the ground now. Care to join me 😉?

Unfortunately, you responded as I expected you would; although I keep hoping. I don’t know what it is you don’t understand about what we are saying; but you just don’t, you don’t get it. Perhaps the concept is too abstract for you. You are wedded to this romantic notion of what the process is and you are simply wrong. You have much to learn about these topics and prefer to live in your self -created reality even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. You have a real soft spot for the time you spent with your friend and I think that’s a beautiful thing. However, I would respectfully suggest that you are doing him (as a musician), his craft and his memory (?) a disservice by holding on to these mistaken notions. As concerns your friend: since you have provided so little information about him, based on what you have provided I can only conclude that either it really was only that summer that he didn’t practice (which if you think about it would not be surprising given that he was living in someone else’s apt), or that he never reached his full potential because any artist that doesn’t practice his craft simply can’t. As to how all this relates to this thread, I think this thread and the seriousness of its topic deserve better.  Did you google Coltrane/practice? 

Interesting reading for anyone who would like to learn more about the subject.  Of course, anyone can choose to shut down and deem it simply "Martian talk" and go back to their own world of artificial (but subjective) reality.  From one of the best jazz pianists on the scene today:

http://www.tedrosenthal.com/practice.htm

I find nothing arrogant in Learsfool's comments, and his very appropriate comment about "anti-intellectualism" could be considered (speaking for myself) as a gentler comment about simple lack of intellect.  To those who may be offended by that comment and who consider them arrogant I can only say that there are limits to everything.  Acknowledging the limitations inherent in getting to know someone only through a forum such as this and because of the importance on simple respect, I can honestly say that I hope I am mistaken in that last determination.

O-10, you are wrong and it is obvious that either I am correct in that last determination or you are simply paying lip service when you refer to the Ted Rosenthal link as a "good link"; had you really read it and understood, at least part of it, you would not continue to be so stubborn about these views.  

My challenge to you continues to be for you to please address the issues of what all the quoted musicians have had to say on this matter; not with simple "they say absurd things", "they're wrong", "my friend didn't practice", etc..retorts, but with substantive explanations and examples.  Hiding behind the subjectivity bullshit doesn't hold water.  If you don't feel you know how to speak the language of music well enough to do so, I assure you that it quite possible to do so via musical examples.  

It's very common in human nature for individuals to become so invested in a personal reality that adds validity and credibility to their sense of self that they shut down to the idea that they may have been mistaken about something for a very long time.  Not being exactly a spring chicken myself and having lost an elderly parent very recently I understand how that concept becomes more and more of a challenge as we age.  One of the things that may be more subtle to grasp and which is inherent in all of this, and something that every musician who strives for musical improvement holds on to, is the life-long idea that there is always more to learn and understand about an art form.  

I suspect that, at least on some level, O-10, you and perhaps others as well wish that Learsfool and I would just go away.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's point of view) there is too much at stake when some are promulgating ideas about music that simply aren't true.  Sure, it's very tiresome and frustrating, but sorry guys I'll be lurking around to at least try to set the record straight; and, I assure that I only try and pick my battles when it comes to this stuff.

Rok, that argument is so tired that it almost doesn't deserve commentary and is just plain bs.  No one is suggesting that that is what jazz is.  But, please, explain:  First you agree that all artists practice their craft, now you seem to contradict yourself.  Btw, have you googled "Coltrane practice"?  I know reality is hard to take sometimes.  

****You need to read Nica's book. Quite a few of the Jazz musicians in her book, and we are speaking of some of the best, said being able to play what was in their head was their most wished for ability.****

Now, Rok, get ready, here it comes, fasten your seatbelt now, are you ready?, are you sure you're ready?, here it comes, I promise.........



!!!!THAT'S WHY THEY PRACTICE!!!!

Newbee, your comments directed at me are valid. While I am not sure that I would characterize my motivation as condescending (certainly not in intent and as unbiased as I could hope to be), I can certainly understand why they could be viewed that way. I have struggled with this issue practically from the beginning of my participation in this thread and you are also quite correct that I may have underestimated just how transparent the motivation of some may be to others. Here’s the struggle:

Musicians are teachers by nature and that makes it almost impossible to stand by silent in the face of misinformation. That may seem grandiose to some, but it’s simply the way it is. Others’ motivation may be transparen to others, but motivation is not nearly as potentially misleading as bad and incorrect information. However, you are correct that the bullshit and rancor can only detract from what the thread may have to offer; limitations and all. So, my options are to simply ignore the incorrect information presented as fact or stop participating. The first option won’t work; can’t do that. So, while I am not prepared to say that I won’t visit this thread ever again, I think it’s time for a break from it.  Thanks for the candid commentary.

Alex, I previously said that I needed a break from this thread. Your post is, in many respects, the best vacation of all. That was a fantastic post and I agree point for point; an extremely insightful post which is much of what I had hoped this thread would be in part; and, yes, per the OP. Thank you! However, I do need a break so as not to succumb to the temptation of pointlessly responding to some other, not nearly as thoughtful, comments. I will address your great post in (hopefully) short order.   Perhaps you, yourself, or others can get the ball rolling exploring your comments.

Ohnwy61, you are probably correct. Alex’s post portends well, however, and there are always better and smarter ways to take the high road. Time will tell.

Mel Lewis (d), Jim McNeely (p), John Lockwood (b)

saxes, left to right:
Joe Lovano, Kenny Garrett, Dick Oats, Gary Prebeck, Gary Smulyan

bones:
Earl McYntire, Doug Purviance, John Mosca, ? (don't recognize), 
french horn:
Barbara

trumpets:
Tom Harrell, Earl Gardner, Joe Mosello, John Marshall (I think?)

I agree, nice solo by Kenny Garrett.  Band sounds great. Thanks.

Alex, you have made some extremely thoughtful and open-minded posts recently. You addressed many of the issues which have been the source of contention on this thread, and I find it impressive that you did it while, at the same time, acknowledging your personal preferences and the possibility of new understanding. I promised you a response to a couple of your thought provoking comments:

****and why they value the idea behind the music more than its aestetchics (correct me if I am wrong)****

The overall premise of your entire comment is entirely fair and correct. However, I will correct you on this one piece of it. It is not that we value the "idea" more than the "aesthetics". This would presume that we value the aesthetics of more modern styles of jazz less than that of the more traditional styles; speaking for myself, I do not. The best explanation can be found in a recent comment by Newbee, the idea that

****musicians don’t have a chronological anchor****

What I believe Newbee means and which is entirely correct is that, as has been often said, there are only two kinds of music, good and bad. The place of any given music in the chronological landscape (style) is not important; whether it is composed/performed with integrity and at a high level of craft is. In other words, most musicians find aesthetic value in Benny Goodman’s Sextet as they do Bird, Miles or in Brad Mehldau. To dismiss one or the other as "soulless" or "too intellectual" says much more about the listener than it says about the music.

****Also, I think, by learning and later perhaps knowing or recognising ’their point’ can open the whole new world in appreciating the music that now stays beyond our understanding.****

EXACTLY! And the point that I’ve tried to make countless times and to which there has been much resistance. No one has ever suggested that there is anything wrong with having a preferred style; we all do. To not have a "chronological anchor" does not mean that the chronology should be ignored; quite the opposite. To appreciate and understand the chronology is the key to understanding the evolution of the music, the inevitability of the changing styles and why and how it got to where it’s today. As has also often been said: Art reflects the times; whether we like what it’s says or not is a separate matter.

All this leads to something that I feel needs to be cleared up re a comment made by Rok in response to my comment that "musicians are teachers by nature". I will speak for myself; but I think that I can speak for Learsfool also. We never set out to "teach" anyone. Like everyone else, from the start of my participation on this thread I wanted to share music and discuss topics that may come up. The problem always arises when disagreement that is backed by verifiable information becomes a major bone of contention and rancor ensues. There has been just as much vehement "disagreement" by those in the "subjective" camp as there has been by those in the "objective" camp. Yet, when the objectivist offers explanations backed by verifiable data all hell breaks loose. Seems to me that this is simply a way to shut up the dissenting voice. The only alternative then would become to not have dialogue at all; an unfortunate situation in my view. An exchange between Acman3 and Rok is a good example:

** Study the origins of Bebop, then come back. They were studying everyday what the classical composers of their time were doing.*****

This is what is called ’wishful thinking’ .

(1) Name me some classical music that you can point to and say, "this is the origin of be-bop". If anything, 20th century Classical Composers stole from Jazz.****

Well, what to do if there is to be dialogue about this? One could ignore the fact that there is truth to what Acman3 is saying and leave the matter in the realm of "opinion". Or, one can ask the question: Where does Rok think that the concepts of harmony in jazz came from if not from the European "Classical" tradition? (teach?😁) Of course, there has to be at least a minimal understanding of what harmony is if this is to make sene. If one ignores the facts then it becomes easy to fit all that one WANTS music to be into our own personal agenda for it.

Anyway, Alex, please continue posting thoughtful comments and I am glad you are participating. One of my very favorite lesser known tenor players, and one of those sessions that one gets the feeling that all the stars aligned.  Blue Mitchell is absolutely brilliant on this record:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB2C2CCC049C7989B&v=SRFhsMvWKmM

****The most interesting thing about this music is that the composer considered it Jazz. This begs the question, where did he get his concept of Jazz? Not from Pops I would wager. This says a lot about what we talk about often on this thread i.e. "what is, and what is not Jazz.

I am absolutely sure, that as far as he was concerned, the music qualified as Jazz by some definition to which he had been exposed / taught .****

You would, of course, be incorrect about this; and the reason I bother responding to this is that there is much truly interesting stuff that would be overlooked and misinformed if there were no response.  There is a gulf of difference between being influenced by, having elements of, and "considering it jazz".  Dig deeper and read about the influence of jazz on Classical composers (Shostakovich, Milhaud, Copland, Stravinsky, Ravel and others) at the beginning of 20th Century and you will see that an absolutist and protectionist attitude does not apply.  These composers had no illusion that their music was jazz, but used elements of it in their music; and did this, if anything, as an homage to the "new" art form.  This goes to the issues being discussed here recently and which are not understood: how does a music come about?, the evolution of the music, influences on styles, etc.  Very little of this happens in a vacuum.  My earlier comment in response to yours about how Classical composers "steal" from jazz  was to point out that there would be no jazz as we know it today were it not for the harmonic concepts of the European Classical music tradition.  I know some will bristle at this notion; but it is absolutely true.  Again, nothing happens in a vacuum; and, as always, one has to have a notion about what harmony is all about and its role in jazz to appreciate this idea.  To say "we are not talking about harmonic concepts, we are talking about jazz" is like saying we are not talking about food, we are talking about gumbo.  Btw, one could point to as many 20th Century jazz composers who "stole" from Classical composers as the other way around.  Which brings me to this:

I point this out, not to personalize matters, but because if explains (to me) where some of these notions (and ultimate disagreements) come from.  I always find your choice of words very telling: you refer to this interactive relationship between genres and composers as "stealing", or that the accurate observation that jazz composers studied the work of Classical composers as "wishfull thinking".  The composers themselves (any genre) did not hold these attitudes and were much more inclusive.  These composers (any genre) were/are musical giants with giant intellects and to suggest that they did not have a more fair and evenhanded grasp of all this is ridiculous. 

Some fun and interesting reading:

http://www.jerryjazzmusician.com/2004/01/great-encounters-1-when-charlie-parker-played-for-igor-stra...

http://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2013/05/26/186486269/why-jazz-musicians-love-the-rite-o...

Funny, I search "Best Classical Composers" (not that I needed to) and he comes up in just about every list; and in the top 10-15 every time. Hmmmm, indeed.

He was one of the acknowledged greats on the alto saxophone. Unfortunately, Phil Woods was hugely unrecognized as a composer and arranger. This is a gem of a record in a genre not talked about much here, the "small big band"; or, octet in this case. One of my favorite small ensemble records, the title is a play on Stravinsky’s "Rite Of Spring". It features many of the names mentioned here including Julius Watkins on French Horn playing a very nimble (😉 ) solo.  Those familiar with Stravinsky’s work will recognize his quote @ 3:55.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL55774CEA75D0E052&v=Lt61t0Hnt0w

And Benny Bailey, one of the truly unsung heroes of the trumpet:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL55774CEA75D0E052&params=EAEYATgBSAFYAmILOF9JTG44R0RWdHNoAA%25...

Rok, I realize that this stuff is very difficult for you to grasp, but there existed a European Classical music tradition long before any European set foot on African soil.  It can be said, however, that there also would be no jazz without your log beaters; but, you already told us way back that you don't believe that.  Try for some consistency; please.  As far as Phil goes, as I pointed out to O-10 (I think) recently my words were: "there is USUALLY a reason why........".  Now, let's keep things interesting and relevant: I just posted two clips of Phil's writing.  Tell us in a way that is informative, why you don't think it is at the highest level of writing and arranging. 

Newbee, I'm what you might call a "regular extra"; saxophone not being a regular instrument in an orchestra, although I have played and recorded on bass clarinet with them as well.  Sorry, moment of weakness; I think I can safely say I don't blow my own horn too often this way ☺️.  Fantastic orchestra and fantastic concept; conductor-less orchestra.

Interesting questions, Newbee.  Pretty well established that "European Jazz" owes mostly to American Jazz.  Of course, with its own European flavor throw in; much to the dismay of some purists.  

"Shadow Dances": As you say, great Grammy nominated record on DG.  As a self-serving note; I play saxophone on it.

Dude, now you’re really getting silly. First of all, there he is on your own first list at #15; although I (and many others) would place him higher. You’re cherry picking your lists and not accounting for the subjective nature of this silly exercise. He is clearly on most lists of best, greatest, most influential, etc. "Best"? We’ve been down that road before; no? So, by your approach there would be the "best" 10-15 jazz players or composers and everyone else is bogus? C’mon! Still waiting for your informative thoughts re Phil’s arranging skills. As the Count used to say, "One more once!": just because anyone person (you) can’t understand the music does not make it less great in the scheme of things. I know, I know,the great unwashed and all that nonsense 😊

Amazing music and incredible performance:

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

O-10, how much Charles Ives have you listened to?  Until you have, any answer to your question will be meaningless.

Sigh!

****We just don’t buy into the school of thought, that the "European Classical Tradition" is the end all, be all, of human music. It was not Alpha and it sure as hell won’t be Omega.****

Kindly explain who and when, on this thread, made such a comment? Talk about strawman arguments.

****Just because you say it, don’t make it so. I know that may be hard for you to grasp****

You’re absolutely correct! Except for the "hard to grasp" part. You see, I base my comments on my perceptions and the opinion of individuals who can put me under the table and shame me with the depth of their knowledge about musical matters. They are out there and I welcome those individuals into my sphere of knowledge.

O-10, no way! I’m not touching that one again. Besides what does that have to do with what is being discussed now? I think your "cut/paste" function on your pc may be stuck. I seem to have read that exact comment a few times before; Metheny and all.

Now, c’mon you guys, is it really that hard to see how silly all this is. If it weren’t for the hipocracy of it all it would be kinda funny. Let’s try to do better and uplift this thread. The music deserves it.

Acman3, well done!  And in more ways than one; I believe you know what I mean but that.  Fantastic posts and excellent example of contrasting styles of jazz piano +2.  If your series of clips do not dispel any doubt about the influence of Classical composers on jazz players, I dont know what would.  Art Tatum's take on D'vorak's "Humoresque", Bud Powell who also recorded "Bud On Bach", John Lewis' "Abstractions",  and Mingus' "Epitaph" which owes so much to Charles Ives; all great.  For substance and timeliness, I nominate your series of posts as a contender for "best" post of this thread.  Wait!....too dangerous; "best" has never taken us anywhere positive.  Still, well done!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HVk9xFLHAWY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=viVQEYVsCC4

O-10 and Rok, perhaps it has not been obvious to you or to anyone else but me,  but I believe I have proven my willingness to, in spite of all the disagreement and nonsense, to try and be amicable and, at least, try to keep these discussions on a positive track.  I have even suggested some guidelines for what I feel is more positive and less contentious interaction.  Most of these efforts have been met with, at best, negative reaction and, at worst, ridicule.  O-10, no one thinks or has suggested that you are a moron, but you continue to interact in a way that is provocative and simply not very nice nor inclusive.  What is being discussed is obvious to me and, I think, others here.  So, if you want to take the discussions in a certain direction I suggest that you simply do so and try to keep the negative innuendo out of it.

Rok, we have been here before.  I have no need nor desire to "strut my stuff".  I would prefer to share and interact in discussions about music and discuss topics as they come up.  What you ask in your most recent post can be mostly answered by simply going back over previous discussions and doing simple internet searches and perhaps reconsidering your reaction to much of what was presented to you.  I am not about to make up for your "laziness" when previous efforts were dismissed and/or ridiculed.  Moreover, I don't believe the problem is any laziness on your part, but that of a very rigid and self-serving attitude about much of what we try to discuss.  This reaction on my part is not due to spite or anger, but simply the believe that the only way to have a chance at a real change in how we interact here is by frankness and then let the chips fall where they may.  You ask some interesting questions and, as I said, the answers are easily found in the readily available reading on the net.  Your last question is particularly interesting and I will take a stab at it when I have some time next.

****Should we separate the structure of music, from the artistic part of music, when speaking of influence?****

As I have said more times than I can remember: I hope we can do better going forward.

Signing off now; I have a 6:15 AM spinning class to make.  

Learsfool,  I can definitely see how it would work very well on the clarinet.  If you happen to have a PDF of his transcription, I would feel honored to have it.

O-10, speaking for myself, I can deal with stubborness, close-mindedness, rigidity, illogic, anti-intellectualism, sarcasm and even plain bone-headedness; however, most disappointing of all (after three years of participation and seeing and overlooking the many signs) is the realization that you are not a person of good will.  If it weren't for the silliness in behaving like a petulant child who doesn't get his way it would be even sadder than it is; and, with your sarcasm and cynicism, you simply create more rancor and exclusion.  You consider yourself an aficionado and champion of the music and you are so self-serving in the place that you hold for it in your own personal sphere (agenda) that you don't see how you let that personal agenda and the resentment of not getting your way color your perception of the very music that you claim to love so much.  You let it influence your perception of what is worthy and what is not simply based on whether your "opponent" (in your mind) thinks that it is, or your "friend" thinks that it's not; just as you refuse to even consider information presented to you in good faith that could help you appreciate your musician friend even more than you do because it would help you understand more the depth of what is required to do what he did.  Sad indeed.  

Just yesterday I was explaining to a musicians contractor why I don't car pool: time to and from a job is some of my best practice time.  

Excellent explanation and post by Learsfool.

Oh, I see, that makes much more sense. Thanks for clarifying, O-10.

Excellent and informative post by Learsfool.  In response to a related question, and I certainly don't want to answer for him as concerns the relative difficulty of playing the different brass instruments:  as concerns woodwinds, it is common to proclaim one instrument as being more difficult to play than another; the oboe being a common recipient of the "most difficult to play award".  Having had experience with all the woodwinds, something that I strongly suspect also applies to brass instruments, is that they all have their own unique set of diffiuculties and it is impossible and pointless to try and deem one more difficult than the other.  It is true that at the beginning stages of the learning process some instruments are probably somewhat easier to make a decent sound on, but to achieve mastery of an instrument their own unique and equally difficult technical idiosyncrasies have to be conquered.

Pirius, two of my very favorite players, Dexter and Herbie.  But, you don't mention Herbie's "Taking Off" which features Dexter himself and the always brilliant Freddie Hubbard:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcYrx4d3Jg

Re "Take Five":

Good catch by Rok re the absence of Morello’s solo on the video and interesting comments about his timing which go to the heart of the tune and to Tito Puente’s version (yes, they are all connected 😉) . Morello was undoubtedly a brilliant drummer, but the reason that he "strikes in unexpected places" in his solo on the original version of the tune is because the tune is in 5 (hence the title). Being in 5 (five beats to the measure) the accents at the beginning of a measure or phrase feel "unexpected" in comparison to a tune that is in the much more common 4/4 time. Which leads me to Tito’s version: the heart of the tune is missing. Tito’s version is done in 4/4 and consequently sounds and feels very awkward. A melody composed in 5/4 is "forced" to fit ino a Latin 4/4 rhythm.

Btw, notice how much faster the tempo is on Brubeck’s live video version vs the album version.

Interesting interview; Paul Desmond interviews Charlie Parker and speak about practice and schooling:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsqYo9r_dE

Carter/Hall: beautiful stuff; works indeed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2olBE4C5_Gk

Q: How do you make a trombone sound like a French Horn?
A: Take your hand out of the bell and lose all sense of taste.

Q: What's the difference between a tenor saxophone and a lawnmower?
A: You can tune a lawnmower.

😊

Perhaps something Freudian involved (not!), but I got the protagonists of my trombone joke backwards.  Should be:

Q: How do you make a French Horn sound like a trombone.
A: Take your hand out of the bell and lose all sense of taste.
☺️
Another fave:

Definition of "perfect pitch":

You throw the trombone in the lake and hit the viola.

Newbee, thanks for the recommendation.  I had not heard this record eventhough I've been a fan of Haden and Rubalcaba for a long time.  As you say, Haden was (!) a wonderful and extremely creative musician.  Rubalcaba is an amazing virtuoso and one the very best younger Cuban musicians on the scene.  "Esta Tarde Vi Llover" (trans: I saw it rain this afternoon) is a bolero written by Mexican composer Manzanero, but appropriated by Cuban singers and musicians and has become a standard in Cuban music; beautiful song.  Joe Lovano sounds wonderful on this record:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ouUwKNw3g48

****but if it does could not the frequent whine of the demise of jazz actually have more to do with it than the actual, and continuing natural evolution of a music form?****

I think you're exactly right and precisely the point that I've tried to make many times here; I refer to it as the inevitability of the evolution of the music.  As far as the listener goes, through an open mind and exposure what may sound like noise at first (Berg) can be appreciated for the beauty in its unique and strange musical language.

O-10, re Mary Lou Williams:

Not much room for a "professional critique" in those two cuts, really; especially "Mary Lou’s Blues". What I mean is that I am reminded of the movie "Ratatouille" in which the restaurant critic "critiques" a plate of ratatouille; one of the most basic of comfort foods. Twelve bar blues is as basic and comfortable as you can get and Williams plays with a great sense and feel of the blues. As with a plate of great ratatouille the way she plays the blues feels just right; and with her own unique sense of rhythm, just like grandma’s ratatouille would be just right but still identifiable as grandma’s. I like the way she "floats" around the rhythm while still having a good sense of forward motion. I wouldn’t call "ML’s Blues" a "tune" at all since it is really just the piano player riffing on a blues chord progression and there is no identifiable nor repeated melody that would qualify it to be a "tune". Both "ML’s Blues" and "Blues" are twelve bar blues in the key of G with "ML Blues" being in 3/4 time (think blues waltz) and "Blues" is in the more common 4/4 time.

Stereophile and "Moanin":

While I don’t have any great love for the mag, I don’t share you disdain for it and, personally, have found quite a bit of useful info and even good music reviews in it; especially during the JGH days. I just listened to "Moanin" from that session and I think you may be misinterpreting what the reviewer means when he says that Timmons is "playing a less than stellar piano". He’s right! But, I believe he is referring to the piano itself (instrument) not Timmons’ playing. The piano sounds like a "less than stellar" upright piano and is obviously out of tune; especially the left hand portion of the keyboard. Believe it or not it happens; session is scheduled and the piano tuner doesn’t show up or is simply not a good technician, or it’s simply not a good piano. This can also have an effect on the player’s performance; although Timmons plays just fine on it.  I would, however, agree that Morgan and especially Golson sound amazing on that cut.

O-10, you could well be correct about what that reviewer meant, after all it's impossible to tell from a couple of words taken out of context, regardless of what I hear re the instrument.  I would be very interested in reading the entire review.  Kindly tell me where it can be read.  Who is the reviewer? Thanks.

I doubt it; a great instrument always helps. This is one of those situations where, in my opinion, it’s important to understand the context. I am not going to defend Stereophile; it is an audiophile magazine and we are concerned about music first. Having said that, I have read some record reviews in that magazine that consider the music to a significant degree; iow, I personally would not be too quick to bash them. If insightful opinions about music is what I am looking for there’s much better sources out there.

Still, I know Wes Phillips from the days when he was a salesman at the original "Stereo Exchange" in NYC and and started writing for TAS, and I can tell you that the guy has ears and is an avid music lover and live concert goer. I cannot think of too many audiophiles (or even music lovers) who can name members of the NY Phil and is into jazz more so than most.  That they credited the tune to the wrong composer is not good; but, again, "JazzTimes" probably wouldn't have.  In keeping with the fact that he wrote for an audiophile mag, the comments about "Moanin" all have to do with "sound" and less about performance which was the reason I surmised he was talking about the piano: "rich trumpet tone", "power of the drums", "ambience", "decay", all audio-speak.

O-10, to quote Rok himself in the Brubeck thread:

****First, this is not an argument. It’s a discussion. ****

A very good discussion in that thread, btw; of the kind that, frankly, I wish we had more of here. To quote Rok again (imagine that ☺️), "words matter". Let’s try and not be so quick to blame others for misinterpreting what we write. I think it would be far more productive if we tried to be clear about with what we write so that we don’t have to keep going back to the same tired issues like that of your musician friend who supposedly didn’t practice. Again? Yikes! 😬

re Brubeck:

I love Brubeck. Of course it’s jazz and it is obviously good jazz. I love Paul Desmond even more. But it’s a different kind of jazz that is more genteel and SEEMINGLY (!!!!) more disciplined and "controlled" than the jazz represented by...let’s, for lack of a better term, refer to it as "Blue Note" jazz. This goes to some of what is at the root of some of the disagreements here about jazz and segues nicely (I think! Coffee hasn’t kicked in yet this morning....sorry) to the Marcia Ball clips:

O-10, your description of Ball and her possible influences is spot on; in answer to your question, I think you gave an excellent description of her music. The problem for me is that she, while she is clearly having fun and is a good singer, is just too....dare I say it?.... white, for that music; not enough grease in her singing (her tenor player has some grease ’though)..

Grease:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=65nDprifGek

One of my all time favorite Jazz quotes: When asked how he got that amazing sound on the alto, Paul Desmond said: "I try and sound like a dry martini".

Polyunsaturated:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ak2aOWiYUo

Range, Rok, range! 😔 As always, "there’s only two kinds of music.....(you know the rest).

Actually, being the daughter of Johnny Copeland (Texas) means that she’s probably more from Texas than anything else; as far as her music genes go, anyway.

Story that I think you’ll appreciate:

So, I’m riding the subway last night on my way home after a job and, as often happens here in NYC, this alto saxophone player gets on the train and starts to play. I’ve seen/heard him about half a dozen times before on my train; late middle age, not quite down and out, real character. He plays the same tune EVERYTIME; Nat Cole’s "Nature Boy". The guy can sort of play; not too bad as is often the case and as one would expect on the subway. But, he plays the same wrong note everytime and it’s been driving me crazy. If you know the tune and the lyric it’s where it goes: "There was a boy, a very strange, enchanted boy. They say he wandered very far, very far..." Well, the note on the first "far" is supposed to be a half step below the note before it on (ve)"ry". It’s almost like a melodic hook and is one of the tune’s most identifiable melodic traits. Well, this guy plays it a whole step lower which sounds clearly wrong. When he finished playing one chorus of the tune he went up and down the crowded subway car with his hat in his outstretched hand. I always give him a few bucks and bite my tongue. This time, as I hand him a five, I said "it sounds really good, but you know you’re playing a wrong note". He responds in a funky gravelly voice: "yeah man, I know, its supposed to be a half step. You know, I started to play that tune before I learned to read music and get me my books and I learned it with that wrong note. The weird thing is that when I play it with the wrong note I make more money than when I play it with the right note". Cracked me (and others on the train) up.

http://youtu.be/Iq0XJCJ1Srw

Maybe the piano player WANTED to teach.  Not everyone is cut out to be a performer; a LOT of pressure.  Maybe the organ player, had he gone to school, would have learned the importance of discipline; and, that may have kept him away from the bottle.  Just maybe.

Excellent!  Will check him out. Thank you.