Jazz for aficionados

Rok, I understand totally the point you are making. But says nothing about the relevance of the art IN ITS TIME. We’ve been here a thousand times before.

Jun.....I mean, Rok, in local vernacular you have "downtown", "midtown" and "uptown".  each of those broad areas has smaller sub-areas with names such as The Village, Soho, Harlem.  "Midtown" covers roughly 34st to 66st.  The heart of midtown would be Times Square at 42st and Broadway, the area where the theater district is.  Lincoln Center is at 62-66 Sts.  "Uptown" would be the streets North of midtown all the way up to the 200's (below the Bronx).  The center of Harlem would be at 125 St. "Downtown" refers to the streets Souh of midtown all the way to the bottom of Manhattan Island.  That is, loosely, the geography.  

The three terms also have certain tacit meanings or implications as used locally and in the arts world.  Moving "Uptown" used to mean that the person has "made it".  Most of the expensive real estate is North of midtown (especially on the East side) but South of Harlem; although that's changing.  "Downtown" is where the hipster are, the avant guard, the "new" music scene, also a lot of the jazz clubs.  A person that is a very hip dresser and has a certain attitude can be said to look very downtown: or certain music can be said to have a downtown vibe.

Gee, thanks a lot Rok, now you really done did it; or is it did done it? 🙄

Wonderful player with a distinctive feel.  Great clips.

O-10, I realize that I haven't earned the classification of "aficionado" (although I seem to have graduated to "connoisseur"), but since this is an open forum I will give this a stab eventhough you ask the question of your fellow "aficionados".  Moreover, so far as I can tell, only one poster has expressed an opinion on the matter that you have not dismissed completely.  So, your use of the plural with "aficionados" must mean that you are being inclusive.  You obviously don't care about the calls from other participants here to drop this Grant Green business and at some point you are going to have to understand that you set yourself up for disagreement and worse.  

Several possible reasons have been given for why those recordings were not released. You have dismissed every single reason given as 100%, even 200%, wrong.  Not only does claiming someone is wrong suggest that you know what the correct answer is, but you have failed to give your own (presumably correct) answer.  So, what is it?  Why don't we start there.  My contention is simple, the records were released as dictated by Grant's contract.  So, anything else, right or wrong, humane or not, is moot.  You admit a bias (good!); so, it seems to me that rather than cherry picking the recordings that YOU feel "set the mood" for the time, shouldn't those recordings be picked by others?  

"Sketches Of Spain": with everything that was going on in jazz in 1961, "setting the mood"?  Seriously?  

You guys might find this interesting:

http://www.mosaicrecords.com/story.asp

I have written Michael Cuscuna re the Green record release mystery and will post his response if I receive one.  

You're welcome, O-10.  Geez! READ THE ARTICLE!!!

Ok, I am hoping for an answer from Cuscuna and I am trying to help put this issue to rest since I have a strong suspicion that if we don't have some sort of resolution it will keep coming back again and again.  So, for the sake of clarity and to keep from further fueling the confusion, can we agree that SOME of Green's recordings were issued in Japan; NOT that ****Grant Green was issued in JAPAN, BUT NOT HERE****.  

Alex, great set of clips.  Evans and Montgomery : wow!  If that clip of Montgomery is not proof of why he would become the star that he did become then I don't know what is.  What a beautiful tone and light swinging touch!  Thanks for those.  I will post some 1961 faves later today.

Piece of cake:

Cotton Tail:. Short solo by Hawkins, then Carter-Rouse-Woods and then Hawkins again.

Honysuckle:  Rouse-Woods-Hawkins-Carter
 
You can keep all except the Japan supplement; I want THAT 🙃

Alex, fantastic post and great examples! Your question is a very interesting one. The role of the film score is necessarily subservient to the film; so, from that standpoint, I think it can be said that the score makes the film look good more often than the film makes the music sound good. However, that is in the context of the overall final product. The role of the score is to follow what is referred to as the "emotional arc" of the film and while it could be said that this puts a restriction on the composer of the music, it also offers an opportunity and is a test of the conposer’s craft and ability to create something great within those restrictions. The ultimate test of a film score’s merit is usually (not always) whether it can stand on its own without the film.

Coincidence? Unlikely. A film composer is carefully chosen by a producer and/or director based on their perception of that composer’s ability to write music in a style that will be appropriate for that film’s emotional arc. The film composer usually begins the process of composing the score well after the film’s creative process has begun and will often modify the score to fit the film; as far as emotional content or simple timing within a particular scene (cues). The composer himself will often conduct the score while viewing scenes that have already been filmed and makes tempo adjustments to fit the scene. Often, the music must be performed to very strict timing requirements and is conducted and performed to a "click track"; a series of clicks that gives the composer and musicians a tempo that must be adhered to so that the music is in sync with the action. In rare exceptions the director will alter the "action" to fit the music. Needless to say, this is an indication that there is something very special in that music.

Speaking of coincidences, I am once again on a 14 hour flight, this time back from China where I took part in a concert/screening by the NY Philharmonic of the classic silent film "City Lights" by the great Charlie Chaplin. A little known fact is that Chaplin was a fantastic composer among many other talents; a true genius. This was a silent film with music scored filmed a few years after the advent of "talkies" as it was Chaplin’s preferred medium. As is more and more common these days a classic film is presented to an audience with a live orchestra performing the score. In this case, the fact that it is a silent film highlights the importance of the role of the score. Beautiful music which was orchestrated by the great Alfred Newman. So many great film scores. Some favorites (sorry for no links, can’t access YouTube):

"Ivan The Terrible", Sergei Prokofiev
"The Pawnbroker", Quincy Jones
"The Godfather", Nino Rota
"Anatomy Of A Murder", Duke Ellington
"The Red Pony", Aaron Copland
"On The Waterfront", Leonard Bernstein
"The Pawn Broker", Quincy Jones
"Ben Hur", Miklos Rozsa
"Vertigo", Bernard Hermann
"The Bridge On The River Kuai", Malcolm Arnold
"North By Northwest", Bernard Hermann

1961 was a extremely interesting year in jazz. The music was breaking new ground and going in new directions that, while not immediately accepted by all, was an expression of the inevitability of its evolution. As always, there was a kind of conflict between the artists that push the music forward in new directions and those whose comfort zone is more in the past and who feel that is where the music should stay. Still, there were some artists like Benny Carter who, while comfortable in their own skin as keepers of the swing tradition, welcomed and encouraged the younger more experimental players. Rok’s Benny Carter clips are a good example of this. Carter was a champion of the younger alto star Phil Woods and his presence on this record, along with Charles Rouse was a bow to the contemporary while the inclusion of Coleman Hawkins (as well as himself) was a tribute to the past. There is also a very subtle and unexpected hint about a dynamic that is important to jazz players to be found in the order of the solos on "Cotton Tail". I don’t believe that it is coincidental that Hawkins solos twice. It could have been anyone of the four; and, being Carter’s session it would probably have been someone besides himself. I am certain he gave that "honor" to the senior member of the saxophone section and an acknowledged giant. Jazz player are always very conscious of this sort of thing; respect.

O-10 expressed a desire to "establish the mood for that period of time"; an interesting proposition. I think that the mentioned Carter session is emblematic of the mood for that period: the push towards the modern contending with the pull of the traditional. Obviously, this is something that could be said about jazz at any point in time; I just think that this dynamic was particularly important during this time. Some of my favorite recordings from 1961:

One of my all time favorite recordings, the presence of Dolphy alone augers what is to come in jazz. Brilliant record:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f_R7pbBAjcA

This one became a hit (!) after its RE-release in 1961. Combined the West Coast "cool" sound with, incredibly, odd meter. The public accepted and loved a tune in 5 (!!!); and they didn’t even know it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nzpnWuk3RjU

A meeting made in heaven and long overdue. As good a reminder of the importance of the traditional as any:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m8HZ7Ku1f3k

Hard to believe that the previous music was performed the same year as this. Spiritual:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wr5BotYA3U8

One of my favorites from 1961 and one which featured Wayne Shorter who would soon start recording as a leader himself and be one of the most influential in taking jazz to a new place:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL15243F255ACDA1EC&v=NrP7KI6--2c

Many more examples, but I think the above do a pretty good job of establishing the mood for that period: looking forward with respect for tradition; within an environment in which the public could still accept a REAL jazz tune and make it a "hit". Then there was the soul-funk-jazz thing which ultimately led to the gross commercialization of jazz and brought unimagined success to some and derailed the careers of others......

O-10, since this was a "bruha" that you started (no problem there), don't you think that what YOUR opinion of what the answer is should be stated; at least once? I am genuinely curious and with no ulterior motive.  Btw, I don't think that everyone who knows for sure is dead.  Still hoping to hear from Cuscuna and there might be others.  After all the bruha, I would like to know for sure myself; although I'm pretty sure.  Doesn't mean we have to keep talking about it though or with rancor.  My two cents.

Btw, re the importance of contracts in the music busines, on the Coltrane "Ole" recording that I posted, Eric Dolphy appears, for contractual reasons, under a pseudonym. 

As my son likes to say: "Well, alright then"

Still trying http://youtu.be/PwNRVFGrCwM

****Jazzmusician, you got into this conversation about a year late; go back about 12 months, and read all the posts in regard to this and you'll be up to date.****

And here I was, silly me, thinking that I would prove Rok wrong re his comment that he sensed anothern ruckus coming; I was simply going to ignore O-10's rehashing (for God knows how many times) of the practicing issue.  I can ignore O-10's ignorant opinions and comments on the subject, but I can't ignore the kind of negativity and dismissiveness that our OP thinks is acceptable in response to a poster's opinion presented in a respectful and informative way.  At some point our OP will have to understand just how arrogant and simply nasty he presents himself.  So far he doesn't seem to care; but, imo, he needs to be called out for it.  

That he is dead wrong about the subject is clear.  It is true that this subject goes back quite some time; however, he brought it up again a mere few hours ago and anyone (including me, had I chosen to not ignore him) would have been free to respond to the recent comment without needing to "go back 12 months".  Or, is the OP suggesting that expressed opinions (his) are not subject to a reaction and response? 

****The ability to improvise comes from inside your head, the ability to act on what’s in your head comes from practice. Every serious musician I have ever known practices all the time.****

jzzmusician is exactly right and I could not have said it better and in a more concise way.  Anyone interested in the truth about the subject needs go no further.  Well done. 

Let’s say O-10’s story about "his friend" is true. The guy spent a summer with O-10 and he didn’t practice. OK. We know the guy was a piano player (according to O-10). Did O-10 have a piano in his apt? I doubt it. So, how was the guy going to practice had he wanted to. It is not significant that a professional musician who happens to be very busy performing, or because of circumstance, doesn’t practice for three months. So what? Musicians go through periods (usually relatively short) when they don’t practice much or at all; sometimes you just need a break. The problem with O-10’s comments is the leap to proclaiming that, not only don’t improvising musicians need to practice, that it is actually a bad thing for the creative process (!!!).

****We all know a classical musician could not improvise if his life depended on it.****

Wrong again, O-10.  Improvisation is genre-blind and not necessarily unique to jazz; although much more important in jazz, obviously.

One of the most bizarre attempts at an explanation for why extreme dedication to the craft and always striving for improvement is a bad thing. I suppose it’s only natural and not surprising from someone who proudly proclaims to not want to learn anything about music.
I also find this "don’t work so hard, have a good time" attitude to usually be an attempt on the part of some to justify their own shortcomings and mediocrity. I am always looking to learn more, O-10, so please explain on what you base your assertion that JC’s hard work hurt his playing. Please give specifics about his playing and an example or two; this would make your comments relevant. Thanks.

But, here’s the really bizarre aspect of all this: the attempt at a black/white type connection between an artistic mind (JC) on a mission to constantly break new ground and the issue of "practice"; the distinction between the two things gets lost and that is where the reply interesting stuff can be found. Many musicians are obsessive workers who practice incessantly, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are reaching for uncharted artistic territory, they may be striving for perfection (or improvement) within their current artistic comfort zone. What distinguished JC was his never ending quest for new artistic ground. There is an important distinction here that may not be obvious to some. BTW, in the Jazz world, musicians break affiliations with band leaders to pursue solo careers as leaders themselves all the time because of their own need to follow their own individual artistic muse; the same process that JC is being criticized for here. Elvin Jones left JC, not because he didn’t believe in the music, but because JC decided to add a second drummer to the band. Ego?

Lastly, PLEASE, for the umpteenth time:. Alvin was a chipmunk, JC’s great drummer was Elvin. 😊

****What would you and Learsfool do if I never posted?****

Lets see......rough, off-the-cuff guess without giving the question more than about the five seconds of thought that it deserves:. I would say that since the beginning of this thread maybe 1/4 of all my posts have had anything directly involving the OP. Of those, I would say that 1/4-1/2 have been in disagreent with or in response to some provocative or disrespectful comment by the OP. So.....what would I do?......I could increase the percentage of productive, positive posts by 10-15%. That would be very nice. However, I would also be decreasing the number of times that I have laughed while participating here. Of course, the known health benefits of laughter would clearly be offset by the stress of the contentious nature of some of the interaction. On balance....probably a wash as far as that goes. Bottom line, just as in jazz, how it all started and where it. came from matters a great deal. You, O-10, started the thread; so, for better or for worse, your participation matters.  Fitting that this should come up today; it can be said that O-10 is the Mother of this thread. Truth is, having to address some of your non-sensical proclamations lays the groundwork for discussion of some valuable and relevant facts about this great music. So, please, don’t go changing ** :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HaA3YZ6QdJU

the great Phil Woods on alto saxophone.

** just kidding, of course 😉 probably one too many mimosas with brunch, too early in the day.  Happy Mother's Day, O-10. 

****The ability to improvise comes from inside your head, the ability to act on what’s in your head comes from practice. Every serious musician I have ever known practices all the time. **** - jzzmusician

Its ALL right there in that comment.  Congratulations jzzmusician, you have "established yourself as the alpha wolf" of the thread 🙀

C'mon, O-10, this is an opportunity to dig a little deeper and discuss some really interesting things about this great music.  Your call, and as before, no hard feelings.

****that's like saying you're going to practice a "tennis match" without anyone on the other side of the net.****

No one on the other side of the net:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoQ1jmoxAUA

Once again, the OP makes comments about the process of making music, in this case improvisation and practice, that are incorrect or only partially correct. I am not "on a mission" to prove him wrong as he has said previously, I simply think that it is important to set the record straight about these issues since this is a music thread after all. The comments are made with a sense of authority and with the apparent backing of musicians. In this most recent case the problem is that the comments are tantamount to saying something like "global warming is real because Einstein determined that E=MC2". Huh? Sorry, O-10, but you don’t have it correct. I encourage you try and understand the process better and would be glad to help you with that. Several comments have been made already by other posters that are good and partial explanations. In the meantime, jzzmusician’s comment about practicing improvisation is spot on and explains very well why improvisation can be and must be practiced IN ORDER TO ALLOW the musician to be spontaneous when he is actually performing. Improvisation CAN be "akin to conversation" (Bill Evans and Scott LaFaro pioneered the "conversational" style of improvisation with their classic trios; but, that is a particular style of improvisation and improvisation is usually akin to a monologue with the support of the other musicians and certainly not "dependent" on what came before it. Again, it CAN be influenced by what came before it, but certainly not "dependent" on it.

O-10, in some respects you are on the right track re "the process" and its always a positive thing to actually think about these things. The problem here is the incompleteness and absolutism with how you view these topics. As someone very wise once said: a little information is a dangerous thing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t-vItf0G05M

THAT was Herbie’s comment. A great example of a musician (Miles) with fantastic musical instincts and ears; and SUPPORT of the spontaneous process. I suppose one could say there is something "akin to conversation" in that example, but it is, more than anything, an expression of Miles’ overall musical attitude of "go with the moment" and emblematic of his attitude for always accepting and reaching something new. Herbie played a wrong chord, had Miles not previously "practiced" playing over that type of (wrong) chord, that moment would not have been possible. That knowledge became part of his arsenal which he could draw upon in order to be spontaneous.

Sorry, not the case and not the truth.  Alas.  But, no hard feelings.

Suggestion, O-10, why don't YOU give it a rest; it was you who brought it up again (!!) knowing, based on past discussions, that there would be disagreement.  However, if you ever want to discuss it in a productive way, let me know.  No hard feelings.

Acman3, excellent Renee Rosnes clip; up there with Bill Charlap (her husband) as one of my very favorite of the new crop of piano players.

There is a truism in music, applicable to any genre, that a musician plays the way that he/she is as a person.  Rosnes is a wonderful player with a clear Bill Evans influence who plays in a way that is, dare I say it?, feminine in the approach to the keyboard and to rhythm.  Lest I upset those with a pc sensibility, I mean that only as a compliment based on my sensibilities and I am obviously generalizing; I appreciate the differences between the feminine and masculine approach to things.  There is a gentle and "sexy" approach to rhythm in her playing that I love.  She is the opposite of percussive on the keyboard and her rhythmic feel has a wonderful light touch that draws you in and doesn't hit you over the head. Beautiful player.

With her husband Bill Charlap on the Joe Henderson classic:
 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsiDkEuxM1c

Would love to know the inside scoop of the reason for the choice of this tune on their album together:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xgya62mb1NU

Also, thanks for the Lage and Frisell clips; great stuff.  Lage has such a distinctive tone; and Frisell is, of course, brilliant as always. 

O-10, I mean no disrespect and I certainly don't want to "violate" any unwritten set of rules that you may have envisioned for this thread as a thread of recommendations of recordings and nothing more.  I am well aware of the fact that you don't want to and didn't intend this thread to be about "learning music".  First of all, I don't see how it's possible to have any kind of substantive discussion of anything or any artist by simply keeping the thread's posts to "I like" or "I don't like", personal anecdotes and nothing more.  Personally, I think it would be a pretty boring thread.  But, let's assume that we agree to those "rules".  I think that the reason we seem to be going around in circles about this is that, first of all, you yourself keep bringing up technical aspects of the music and that there is a basic misunderstanding about some....basics; and the misuse of certain key terms.  The only alternative would be to let those misstatements slide and continue a discussion based on a mistaken premise; not a reasonable proposition I think.  Take this recent issue of improvisation:

Even in hard-bop there is no such thing as "improvising beginning to end" as you wrote.  Moreover, the issues around this disagreement about improvisation applies to ANY style of jazz, not just hard bop. I think that a good place to start clearing up this confusion is by recognizing the mistaken notion that because there are no sheets of music in front of them that the musicians are necessarily "improvising".  This is not the case.  There is, first of all,  the "tune" or melody in a hard bop performance which is not "improvised", and then there are various formulas which are used as the FRAMEWORK for improvisation.  I'll stop there unless you want to know more.  Regards.

Now I'm really confused.  This is something that you have said repeatedly and here I was thinking that you would appreciate my knowledgment of what you have said countless times.  I'm kinda speechless.  What can I say....

O-10, there is an important difference between setting out to "teach" and simply correcting misstatements in order to keep a discussion relevant.  I hope you are able to understand that distinction at some point.  No, I don't think you are "bad,bad, Orpheus hindering" anyone.  I don't think about these things that way and anyone participating in one of our discussions can choose to ignore my point of view, or not.  However, just as you are free to express yourself about this stuff, so is anyone else, myself included.  Whether you want to accept it or not, what I write about music is not "talking smack"; I do know what am talking about.  I hope you will at some point stop being so reactive and simply take this as an opportunity to, if not learn, have the satisfaction of knowing that you are presenting ideas that are factual.  Please try and read what write a little more carefully: I never said that there was a "standard" framework for improvisation; my comment was:

****and then there are various formulas which are used as the FRAMEWORK for improvisation. I'll stop there unless you want to know more.****

The last sentence goes to the fact that there can be different frameworks and that if you want to know more I would be glad to explain.  I look forward to your stories about Art Blakey.

**** I spent the day listening to my recently received "Water Music" by the Akademie fur Alte Musik Berlin.****

What’s the verdict?

Speaking of Mavis Staples: In spite of my general skepticism about pc (perhaps because of it?), I always hesitate posting music with such a strong social consciousness message since some things are too deeply personal for the impersonal nature of the Internet, but I love this record’s music and production (Ry Cooder) and I love this woman’s voice:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ7QPuvv91Js9joIUEy40HWLH4i2lQTOU

Rok, nice tribute to Gladys Knight. I’ve always been a fan and although I’ve never heard her live I am not surprised to learn that she is such a warm person; that smile says warmth. Made me think of this old record of mine by another R&B diva:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NaeNfB-tb7g

Stravinsky "Sacre":  One of the very greatest 20th century works.  Amazing piece of music!  Huge orchestra.  Yes, the music dictates that; that is how the composer scored it.  As you say, eight horns; and, two of them double on Wagner tubas.  Two of the trumpets double on bass (!) trumpet.  This is a brilliant piece of orchestration genius and definitely not a case of "let's throw everything in there but the kitchen sink" resulting in many fantastic colors and textures.  As an aside: this being a work written for a ballet and ballet orchestras having to be in a pit, there is a version of this work (done by Stravinsky himself) for reduced orchestra in order for the musicians to fit into the typically smaller space in a pit.

Good question re the printing of the music.  That is one of the jobs of a good editor and printer (publisher), to account for precisely what you describe.  It is the bane of every player's existence when a publisher does NOT do that and the music is printed in such a way that you have to turn the page in the middle of a passage.  They usually try and have the music at the end of a page end with a rest.  What you saw from the violinists is standard protocol; the stand partner turns while the other player keeps playing.

BTW, Van Sweden will be the NY Phil's next music director beginning 2017.

O-10, nice tribute to Gladys Knight. I’ve always been a fan and although I’ve never heard her live I am not surprised to learn that she is such a warm person; that smile says warmth. Made me think of this old record of mine by another R&B diva:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NaeNfB-tb7g

"nice clip"/Stravinsky "Sacre" : "nice tune"/Ellington "Black, Brown and Beige" 😉

BTW, this was what I originally wrote and partially deleted before posting:

++++One of the very greatest 20th century works. Amazing piece of music!  Up there with Classical works of.....well, let's go slow++++

O-10, glad you enjoyed that.  I am looking forward to seeing Mavis Staples live this July.

Vivaldi:

Nice! First of all, if I were one of those players I’d be watching her bow as well as her....ahem....what a beauty and what a player!

You made a comment recently about "heady stuff". Here’s some heady stuff: at the end of the day, as far as the CORE values of music making are concerned, there is FAR MORE commonality between this and the best jazz playing than there are differences. I’ll go hide now.

****Frogman, you really like to fit square pegs into round holes; "All I have to do is chisel off the corners, and I got a perfect fit"***

Not at all.  The first problem with that comment is that you somehow equated "commonality of CORE values" with "perfect fit".  The good stuff in understanding why the two things are completely different.

Now, this is good; really good.  I am being sincere, O-10; really good!  What am I talking about?  OK:

I welcome your comments.  You expressed your viewpoint and I can agree or disagree; and, as far as I am concerned, there then is the potential for interesting dialogue.  However, it needs to be pointed out that there were three options for me:

1. I could just ignore the comment; what some might say is taking the high road (how boring).

2. I could retort, as I did, and hope for the mature, uncontentious, hopefully interesting dialogue.  Or:

3. I could react by saying something like (and I will quote someone):

"Why are you directing that BS at me" or
"I was having a dialogue that you had no business joining" or
"You're drinking the Kool-aid" or
"You're just talking smack" or
"You're phaking the phunk" or
"Why are you always ready to pounce on me" or, or, or

In the interest of better and more mature dialogue, O-10, I hope you get my drift.  I prefer #2.  

Regards.

Rok, if memory serves, only two of his symphonies (3&9) use more than two horns. (Learsfool?) Prominent in scoring not necessarily in numbers.

Conductor/score: As is pretty common with a work this popular, the conductor is conducting from memory.  So, he conducts each movement from memory, but turns the pages to the beginning of each movement "just in case"; a security blanket if you will.  Look closely, when he turns pages at the end of the first movement, you'll notice that he hasn't turned any pages up to that point.  One of my very favorite orchestras, btw.

Glad to see that the OP has had a revelation re late Coltrane 😉

Look at the middle of the page. Is that the pic that you remember? Must have been a different issue.

http://speakeasyjazzattheclub.blogspot.com/2010/08/lee-morgan-live-at-lighthouse-1970.html

Learsfool, "Sidewinder" is a classic and probably his most famous recording; a great way for your brother to be introduced to Morgan.  I think that to get a good overview of Lee Morgan that at least one of his early (50s) recordings needs to be included.  One of my favorites (and from any period) is "Candy".  It is also a recording that preceded the "bugaloo" feel jazz thing that he got into in the 60's and which, personally, I'm a little mixed about.  He was 19 (!) when he recorded the record.  Lots of youthful energy and is the probably the first record that shows a clearer personal style:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLEED06302C1D6F617&params=OAFIAVgG&v=q8Fam5Gc50c&mode=NORMAL

I love that personal style.  He had it all; great technique, range, rich and warm tone and all that great use of half-valving and grea combination of slurs and tonguing within the same phrase.  And that swagger!  I love the way he would play a great phrase with blinding speed and then lay back right at the end of the phrase and pull the time back.  One of the truly distinctive stylists.

Of the 60s recordings, "Cornbread" is one of my favorites, if anything, for this tune alone; although I confess to a bias as it was one of the first jazz tunes I learned.  Hank Mobley's presence usually  makes a record special:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ECw3WAX41OA

Of his recordings as sideman the first that comes to mind is, of course, Coltrane's "Blue Trane"; a must-have record if ever there was one and one of my favorite Lee Morgan solos:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S1GrP6thz-k

For Lee Morgan in a larger ensemble setting this is a very interesting recording:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7712663461AF2184&v=r6-LxABMbKE

****I said it once, and I'll say it again, he should have stopped before he got this far out because he was pleasing no one but himself as far as I can see; but I know you being the "alpha musician", scratch that "the consummate musician" can enlighten us farther, and explain how this was the way to go.**** - O-10

This question re Coltrane was asked by O-10.  We can skip the "alpha" and "consummate" parts; I am neither and have no interest in more rancor.  I bring this up ONLY in the interest of interesting discussion.  I never answered the question because I felt it was laced with sarcasm; we can skip that part too, it's ok.  I bring it up to answer the question; actually, to point out that O-10, himself, has answered it:

****more abstract jazz is not for the casual listener, but those who can go into another zone with the musician. As a rule those albums don't sell well, but musicians make them for artistic sake, or their own soul satisfaction.**** - O-10

The real question is: where do we draw the line and declare that the work is too abstract?  We can't.

I completely agree with your sentiments, comments and examples, ghosthouse; and  they go precisely to what I was saying with my comment about not being able to draw the line.  You also used two key words and considerations around the issue of "abstract": structure and dissonance.  While it could be said that "Search For T N L" is "more abstract" than, say, "The Sidewinder" it is not a record that I personally would put on the "abstract" shelf in my record cabinet.  The point is simply that to draw the line as an absolute is pointless; it is different for every listener and where we each draw it is not necessarily an indication of the ultimate value of the music.  As Rok said, of course we can and do draw the line, but it serves little purpose to draw the line as an absolute other than to help us validate our individual biases and limitations as listeners.  It is much more productive to keep the door open to more growth as a listener.  Not necessarily to accept or like the music, but to not shut the door to the possibility of being able to understand it and maybe even like it one day; and to better appreciate certain aspects of the music we already like.

****but not near the level I have been accustomed from by either artist.****

How so?  Could you expound on that please.  Thanks.

****are you ready to go into fusion in depth; I mean to cover it to your hearts content, rather than just skim over it?****

Sure, and I’m glad to see that you want to cover it in depth, because all too often "skim over it" is exactly what has happened with other topics. For me, "in depth" means that, for starters, things have to be put in a chronological or historical perspective. How did it all began? Where did "fusion" come from? What are the earliest examples of it? How did it evolve?

By the mid sixties traditional Jazz was considered to be practically commercially dead by record producers, while rock and pop where increasing in popularity and young musicians who were growing up with this music started experimenting with mixing elements of jazz in rock projects and vise versa. The increasing use of electric instruments was a major force in all this. Early fusion projects sound very different from what "fusion" would become, but the lineage is clear and interesting.

Guitarist Larry Corryell’s band "The Free Spirits" is considered by many to be the first jazz "fusion" band (1966):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLa7DwXF9n16EYojdIWL-PFQc_be9iUzvp&params=OAFIAVgG&v=Zf95lF...

Formed around 1968 the band "Dreams" with the Brecker brothers on horns and Billy Cobham on drums was on the forefront of the fusion movement:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UFK_S-ILmGo

In 1969 Frank Zappa released "Hot Rats" which predated much of what fusion would become:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FFNQQpsOMF4

Acman3 already mentioned and posted Tony Williams’ "Lifetime"; classic early fusion band and VERY influential.

That same year Miles Davis would release "In A Silent Way", his first fusion record and first record from his electric period:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL407832509983DB72&v=AOy-pJ1xQe0

One year later (1970) Miles would release "Bitches Brew" and would blow things wide open for the fusion genre; it was here to stay. Hugely influential record:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1a1Ph-ioxoA

A slight (☺️) detour before getting back to fusion.  I thought some, and Rok in particular, would appreciate this.  Ted Nash of JALC, friend and one of the biggest young(er) talents on the scene today writes about Joe Temperley, longtime baritone saxophone in Wynton's band and who passed away recently.

http://tednash.com/blog/celebrating-joe-temperley

And, btw, I highly recommend signing up for Ted's mailing list for very interesting jazz news, commentary and peeks into JALC.

****Frogman's leading this parade****

I am?  I thought O-10 was, since he brought up the topic.  Lead?  Too scary, given recent history here 😬.  But, hey, somebody has to do it.  

I already expressed my opinion that a chronological perspective is key; that will be the focus of my "lead".  Why?  Again, because if we are going to get "in depth", I believe it's necessary in order to get a handle on what exactly "fusion" is and to avoid blurring the lines between it and what is doen mistakenly referred to as fusion, but is actually the sub-genre "smooth-jazz" which in my humble opinion is mostly a bunch of insipid dreck.  If we are just going to post a bunch of examples of fusion that we each like with no "method", then I will have to surrender the mantle of leader to Rok 😉.

"Fusion", in the loosest sense, is the combining of any two or more genres.  However, we should stick to fusion that has its roots in jazz, otherwise this discussion will be all over the place.  Example: Chick Corea's "Return To Forever" is a great example of fusion; Santana's "Abraxas" is not, it is a rock recording with Latin flavor as part of the recipe.  The hallmarks of good jazz, very high level of craft, emphasis on improvisation, and strong compositional values are not there; these are the things that define good fusion.  It is no coincidence that many of the trailblazers of the fusion movement were Miles Davis alumni; yet another example of why Miles is considered one of the greatest artists that ever lived.  Acman3 already posted a clip of Tony Williams' "Lifetime".  Tony Williams is a monster drummer and his playing on Miles' classic 60s quintet recordings which didn't have any obvious "fusion" leanings give hints of where his head was at and where he would eventually go as a player.  His album recording of the music that Aman3 posted was recorded just a few months before Miles' "Bitches Brew":

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxeiY5kXz8Y

In 1971, guitarist John McLaughlin who played on "Bitches a Brew" and in Tony Williams' "Lifetime" would record this along with drummer Billy Cobham on drums who would go on to record his own classic Fusion recors as a leader:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLGwOiqHPWpWbhNB5g-OEcyrXy3voSP8ya&v=boOu0L45M44

That same year the great Wayne Shorter and Joe Zawinal would co-lead and release Weather Report's debut album and turn the Jazz world on its head.  Probably the most important band in the genre:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLiXS2f7h4Agp1atJsGwIoPIZ4Sf0LYfbd&v=lve3au9opGM

I just read some of the most recent posts.  I had not read them before posting my most recent.  A couple of thoughts:

While I certainly have no issue with discussing any and all genres while any one genre is being discussed "in depth" (not!), I must say that my concerns are being borne out.  Iow, are we going to discuss fusion "in depth" or not?  There's an awful lot to listen to and discuss.  Are we moving on (back) to Coltrane and are we going to just "skim over" fusion.

O-10, you never cease to amaze me; or, should I say?....confuse me.  After all the recent comments that I have made about my distaste for political correctness you state that I am "always politically correct"? I could be "politically correct" and be patient with that comment or I could ask what I would normally ask which is "what planet do you live on?".  I will give your questions re "musical bounds" an honest answer when I have some time.  In the meantime, how about 1972 in Fusion?

****and I'll give it top priority.****

Excellent!

I have no clue what you are saying O-10, please clarify.  But, before you go about making any rash decisions (😱) please take a closer look at the most recent exchange and see who it was that first made a comment that turned things personal.  I will help you with better understanding all this, but if you are looking for an argument please look elsewhere.  1972 was a very very good year 😃.

That's actually very funny!

Heard this on WBGO today and thought I would post it in case you might be too distressed with the recent topic. Good segue to your funny:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL15243F255ACDA1EC&v=DZjcLUK5px4

Btw, hang in there, you might be surprised.  Lots of M Brecker around the corner.

Not sure why I should be weeping from reading the Wiki; but, I agree with your statement about language and culture (you can add borders to the mix).  The problem is, and we've been having this argument for quite some time, that as concerns art (music), you've got it backwards.  Art reflects the culture.  Think about it: is it any surprise that a culture that moves more and more towards the elimination of borders and away from individuality and self-reliance should see more and more "fusion" in art?  Whether the fusion is good art or not is dependent on other things.