Jazz for aficionados

Hi Acman - I just saw your post about your guess on O-10's friend, don't know why I missed it last night.  An organist is a fascinating guess, as it would immediately provide a very good reason why O-10 would have never heard him practice in his apartment - he couldn't have if he was an organist!  But my impression has been that O-10 is implying that his friend could have practiced in his apartment if he had wanted to.  In fact, I even thought that O-10 once mentioned that his friend was a saxophonist, though apparently I am not remembering that right, and even the instrument is a mystery.  I notice he hasn't had any comment on your guess. 

O-10, is the reason you do not want to name your friend because he was a substance abuser, and this shortened his life/career?  If so, why? I don't think any serious listener's opinion of his playing is going to change because of that knowledge (certainly no serious musician's would!).  If you have talked about this before, I'm sorry I do not recall it.  If this is the only reason you are holding back, I would say that you do not need to worry about that.  

Wow, Rok, you have asked quite a deep question there.  I would say the impetus comes from the human spirit - mankind's constant need to explore/experiment.  Obviously this is somewhat related to the advance of technology, too, though that is only part of it.  Composers today are still trying to come up with new sounds, and many of the innovations of the past came from composers.  Most of them would have come from the players of the instruments, though - they certainly do today.  

Hi O-10 - your post today about subjectivity and objectivity was interesting.  Most of it is fine as far as it goes.  However, as Frogman has pointed out several times, there is much more about music that is indeed objective than you think.  It requires knowledge of music to be able to determine which is which.  And since you state that you have no knowledge of music and do not want any, doesn't this mean that your point of view is neither objective or subjective, but simply un-informed?  Even subjectivity assumes knowledge of the subject.  You seem to imply that your un-informed point of view has equal value to an informed one.  While this may be true for you, I don't see how it could possibly be true for anyone else, and that is the problem.  You also imply that this situation is unchangeable, which it is clearly not.  Again, that is up to you.  Please do not take this personally - I am genuinely interested in trying to bridge the disconnect here.  I am not at all implying that you are not capable of understanding - I know you are if you wanted to.  But if you really don't want to, then it seems to me that you really shouldn't complain about your "detractors" who insist on correcting false statements/perceptions.   

Hi O-10 - thanks for the response, which again is quite good, as far as it goes.  The problem is, as Alex tried to point out, it doesn't really go far enough.  As he says, you have dismissed many things without explanation that others have written on this board, because they don't fit in with your perceptions.  Sometimes, this is perfectly fine, as when we are speaking of personal taste, something truly subjective.  But other times, what is being discussed is something objective, but which you do not understand - so you say that it must really be subjective.  That's where the problem is, in a nutshell.  You do not really know the subject, so you sometimes cannot tell whether something is objective or subjective.  It is clearly incorrect to dismiss anything you do not understand and label it subjective, which is basically what you have done.  Those who are knowledgeable on the particular subject see this immediately, but you do not and cannot.  For instance, take your "nuts and bolts" comment in one of your later posts.  You said "In regard to the nuts and bolts, those who regard such in their "jazz" music, make it quite clear, because some of their preferences sound like it."  This makes absolutely no real sense - you know nothing of the "nuts and bolts", and do not want to.  Fine - this much you understand.  Problem is, what you do not understand is that your perception of the "nuts and bolts" is false - it is obvious to anyone who does know even a little about the "nuts and bolts" that you have absolutely no idea of what effect they have (or have had) on anyone's playing, or the music they make, or the sound they make; yet you speak as if you can tell how someone's preferences sound in reference to that.  This is just one example.  

I actually consider Charles Ives to be the quintessential American composer.  He wrote quite a lot of music - hundreds of songs, a very famous piano sonata called the Concord Sonata, and many pieces for orchestra.  A very short and popular piece for orchestra by Ives is called the Unanswered Question - that might be a good place to start.  One of his largest scale works is his 4th Symphony.  

By the way, Frogman, my father transcribed his violin sonata for clarinet.

Hi guys - Rok has provided over the last day or so a perfect example of what I was talking about with O-10....sigh, indeed.   Frogman, this is reminding me of a certain John Cleese video from about a year ago.    

O-10, I generally visit this site once a day, usually late in the evening after I get home from work.  Sometimes two or three days will go by, but I have been an avid follower of everything on this thread even when not posting.  The reason I hadn't responded to all these posts today is that I hadn't seen them until late this evening.  All I have to say about this:  "Rok, no matter what you say they will never get it." is that I think it is abundantly clear from all of the posts from others on this thread is that it is you and Rok that will not ever get it.  Like I said, I will give up on my appeals for you guys to actually study music a little, but I will not stop correcting things that are just flat out wrong.   

Though I will add in response to Rok's post that there are plenty of great music history books out there that will answer all of his questions.  There is a very popular one by Joseph Kerman called Listen, that comes with a big record set, though it is probably on CDs nowadays.  It is a very basic overview of the entire history of music all the way up to jazz and the Beatles, and may have had subsequent updates from when it was my Intro to Music Lit text my freshman year, in the mid 80s.  Very readable, with great musical examples.  

The only specific I will answer here is that I do not see how one can truly separate the structure of music from the artistic part of it -  form is part of the artistry, part of the craft.  This is true, by the way, of improvising as well - improvisation must have structure to be understandable.  Something that must be PRACTICED.  :)  

Hi Orpheus - I am not "cleverly evading" anything.  You are either willfully misunderstanding, or refusing to understand, however you like, what Frogman and I have said.  As for me, I did not say that "I" or "you" have to practice improvisation.  I said that ANYONE has to practice it.  All of those jazz greats you have mentioned spent enormous amounts of time practicing improvisation, just like anyone has to practice any activity to get that good at it - this is what we have been trying to get through to you.  And they continue to practice it throughout their entire career - just like, for example, a Kobe Bryant works on all his moves every day - he doesn't always know which one of them he is going to whip out at any given time in the real game - he often improvises that on the court, in the moment.  But he can only do that because he has practiced it all over and over and over and over, and he is thinking in the moment about what he is going to do.  Same with a jazz improviser.  What they are doing in performance is not random in any way, shape, or form.  It is very consciously thought out, in the moment, based on all the work they have done.  Spontaneous?  Yes.  Thoughtless?  No.  It is a process they constantly work on - how do you think they got so good at it, and continued to get better?  Work! Effort!  Practice!   Did they take some days off sometimes?  Yes!  I myself have taken an entire month off the instrument several times during the summer vacation, when my face really needed the break (though it takes at least a couple of weeks after that for a brass player like me to get back into shape again, so that's hard to find time to do). I believe that you never heard your friend practicing, as in actually playing his instrument in your apartment, that summer.  But you are fooling yourself if you think he never did any kind of practice.  For one example, a large part of any musician's practice is mental, and this would be especially true of an improviser - they are constantly thinking about things they could try, and how they would work out in a given context (you yourself brought up the concept of things they wished they could do, and I tried to explain a couple of things that could be meant by that without knowing the actual quotes).  I guarantee your friend was doing some of that that summer, even if you never actually heard him play a note.  There are many things one can and does practice without the instrument, especially when they involve thinking about musical ideas - you often do not need to physically play to be able to work them out in your head.  But since you don't want to/refuse to speak that language, you cannot truly understand this, and I honestly don't know how I can explain it any better given that.  Perhaps Frogman could give it a stab again.  

Hi Orpheus - I have a couple of questions, and a comment.  First, I for one am very puzzled by your use of the term "wire-worshipers."  If this is a reference to something on this thread, I must have missed it.  What do you mean by it?  I am assuming this is not a reference to speaker wire??  

Second - this is a repeat of a question in my last post - just how do YOU think that all these jazz greats we have talked about on this thread became so good?  I really would like to hear your honest answer to this.  

Third - I for one am not "complaining" about you.  I applaud you for your love of music, and for starting this thread, which is one of the best I have ever encountered online.  I am merely trying to correct a few of your most obvious misperceptions.  I know you do not care about this, but it is not about you - it is for others that read this thread and who are interested in how music and musicians really work, of which there are clearly plenty.  

Hi Rok - first of all, "mellophonium" is actually a strange name.  Perhaps Conn called their instrument by that name as a marketing thing.  Usually, the instrument is referred to as a "mellophone."  They are still very much in use in marching bands all over the country.  What that article means is that Conn does not make one any more.  There are plenty of other makers of mellophones, unfortunately.  

Basically, a mellophone is most similar to a trumpet, except it is in a lower key, more similar to the range of the French horn.  So in jazz, like in Stan Kenton's band, they were played by trumpet players.  This is actually what the instrument was invented for - a "mellower" instrument that a jazz trumpet player could use.  Think of it as an alternative to the flugelhorn, except the flugle horn became much more popular with the trumpet players.  My guess would be that it was actually a trumpet player in your article, since he was part of a jazz group, I think you said?

However, in high school and college marching bands everywhere, there is always a mouthpiece extension fitted to the mellophones, so that French horn players can play them with their French horn mouthpieces, instead of the trumpet players.  I had to play one of those things for two years in a high school marching band, and hated every minute of it.  They are poorly designed instruments that do not play very well in tune, and don't have a particularly interesting tone quality.  They are used by the French horn players in marching bands because they are bell front instruments - as you know, the French horn bell faces backwards, and it is much easier to march and play a mellophone than a French horn.  

Another key difference is that mellophones are cylindrical instruments, like the trumpet (like I said, they are basically big fat trumpets) and trombone, as opposed to conical, like the French horn and the tuba.  This accounts for the brighter tone quality, closer to a trumpet in sound than a French horn is.  

I have had to play some of those Stan Kenton charts in the past on pops concerts, though of course we played them on French horn, which made them much harder, since they were definitely written for trumpet players playing mellophones - they are very high parts, and though I made it through that week, I actually injured myself doing it - the first time that had ever happened to me in my career.  I hope I never have to play them again.....I should explain that my specialty on the horn is the low register - I play the bottom part in the section, I am the bass of the quartet of horns, if you will.   So those screaming high Stan Kenton mellophone parts were especially difficult for me personally.   If you go on YouTube and look for videos of the Stan Kenton band, you can see the difference between the trumpet and the quite a bit larger mellophone.  They are trumpet players playing them there.   It is much more common  in marching bands for horn players to play them, though, and that is about the only place you ever hear mellophones anymore.  They suck, and just about all horn players hate them with a passion.  They also confuse the kids, because since they are actually big fat trumpets, they are fingered like trumpets, instead of like the French horn.  So the students have to use one set of fingerings in marching season, and another set when they go back to their French horns for concert season.  

I believe you live in Texas somewhere?  If so, you have definitely seen mellophones at pretty much any high school or college football game on the marching field at halftime.  And it is definitely the poor horn players that are forced to play them, sigh....my junior year, I escaped to finish high school at an arts academy, and never had to play one of those damn things ever again.  Never had to play in a marching band ever again, either.  That is terrible for the embouchure - it ruins many, many brass players.  

Frogman reminds me that I never answered that question about what is the hardest when I went off on my mellophone rant, LOL!  He is absolutely correct that each instrument has it's own problems.  Among the brass, though, as I think I have said before, it is usually said that the horn is the hardest - we have to cover the largest range on the smallest mouthpiece, which means we are using less surface area, and therefore taxing the muscles more.  We also are regularly called upon to produce a wide variety of tone colors in the orchestra - some consider the horn the most versatile of orchestral instruments, in fact (the cello perhaps being the most versatile solo instrument in the orchestra).  We are called upon to do many different types of things, and to regularly blend with the woodwinds just as much, in fact often more, than we do with the rest of the brass.  It definitely requires a particularly good musical ear to play the horn professionally.  The horn also has perhaps the best solo repertoire of all wind instruments, though the clarinet has some really nice solo rep as well, certainly the best among the woodwind instruments.   (And some consider the clarinet the hardest to master of all the woodwinds, too.  It used to be much more common than it is now, but there are still a few schools that offer a master's degree in woodwind specialty - some of the doublers we have talked about on Broadway have this degree - do you, Frogman?  Those who have done such a degree are usually in agreement that the clarinet was the hardest one to play a really good recital on, and that the saxophone is the easiest by some distance; in fact I don't think I have ever heard anyone disagree that the saxophone is easiest among those who have actually played them all.) 

We also talked some about the trombone and how the slide makes it, in the words of one of the best orchestral trombone players, both the easiest and the hardest instrument to play in tune.   Easy because you can fix your tuning extremely quickly with the slide, but hard because it is extremely difficult to nail it exactly, again because of the slide.  The tuba is not the easiest one to play, either - it requires moving the air quite differently from the rest of the brass.  What is usually considered the easiest brass instrument to play is the euphonium, it is sort of like the sax in that way, and I would agree with that.  Except it is much more financially lucrative to play sax, since the sax has such a big place in jazz and in musical theater.  The euphonium doesn't have a big place anywhere....

Hi Newbee - I would say that your experience is quite common.  Many people that don't think they like something when they first hear it change their minds later, after more exposure to things more easily understandable.  


Artists, too, both composers and performers, react to each other all the time.  

There is a movement away from dissonance in the classical music world as well - many of the current composers are writing much more tonal music again.  Others are reacting against this.  

I think much of it has to do with the times.  You mention Berg and Schoenberg - they were living and writing in a time when the world was in the middle of two huge wars, and their music reflected that, as did that of many other composers, in different ways.   Much of the minimalism that is being written today is a reaction against that type of music.  

A lot more dissonance crept into jazz in the 50s and 60s, as different social movements for change happened, some of them violent.  I think the smooth jazz of the 80s and 90s was in part a reaction to that.   

An example from earlier in history - Richard Wagner changed music more than any other artist has ever effected his/her art form, though not in the way he thought he would, with his "Gesamtkunstwerks."  But for pretty much 100 years after him, every composer had to deal with him and his ideas, and everything was a reaction to it.  Music splintered off in so many different directions after that - it was never the same.  Even Beethoven did not change music as radically as Wagner did.  Ok, enough rambling for the night.  :)

Hi Orpheus - I just saw your question about what classical music would be cool.  I have been sitting here for fifteen minutes trying to decide how to respond.  This is actually a difficult question, as I have absolutely no idea what you would think is cool.  I could give you a couple of recommendations of things I like, but if you didn't like them, then you might not respond well to further suggestion.  

It would be better if you explored for yourself at first.  The problem becomes then, where do you start?  There are lots of different ways to approach that, too.  One approach might be - what is your favorite instrument(s)?  When you listen to jazz, do you like the pianists the best?  Then maybe try some solo classical piano music, or some piano concertos.  If you like the trumpet, then maybe find a recording of some trumpet  concertos.  Do you like the vocalists?  Then pick either opera (again so many different places to start), or maybe some art songs, by say Schubert.  If you went this route, then you are at least starting with something at least somewhat familiar, the instrument being featured.  

Another way to approach it would be by picking a composer to start with, and listening to several different types of pieces by that composer.  Again, there are many different places to start here, and I have no idea which composers or what era of music you might like the best - and by the way, that's another way to start - pick an era (Medieval/Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc.) and listen to several different works by different composers in that era.   

I hope this is somewhat helpful.  If anything above strikes your fancy, then maybe we could get more specific with recommendations.  

Orpheus, in the classical world, Andre Previn is mainly known as a conductor, though he did write a few pieces.  He also wrote a few film scores.  I don't think I have ever even heard any of his classical compositions, let alone played them.  Certainly they are not performed very often, especially if he is not conducting them.   His recordings I have heard where he is a conductor did not particularly impress me.  Not saying they are not good, just that there are much better conductors.  

Hi O-10 - I saw the link to Previn playing a Mozart concerto.  That is interesting, as I don't believe I have ever heard his classical piano playing, or if I have it was way back when I was in school, and I don't remember.  

I honestly do not know when I will have time to sit down and listen to that entire clip.  Things are kind of crazy for me work-wise, and I have very little free time.  I saw it too late tonight to check it out tonight, but the next time I know I'm going to spend at least a half hour on my computer I will check it out and get back to you - I just can't promise that it will be this week.  

Happy Birthday to Ella Fitzgerald!Enter your text ...

Hi Orpheus - one of your recent posts reminded me of the Previn conversation, and that fact that I never did listen to that.  So I just did.  Previn's general reputation, both in the classical and jazz worlds, is that though he was quite talented, he was not very consistent.  At his best he was very good indeed, but he was not often at his best.  For  me, the particular clip you posted is blah.  The orchestra members are clearly bored out of their minds, and his own performance is perfunctory as well.  Definitely not Previn at anywhere near his best.  I don't remember if the date was listed on that clip, but I would guess it was towards the end of his tenure as their music director.   If it was near the beginning, that must have felt like a long tenure, indeed.....

You also asked for comments on what you call a "controversy."  Though I am much busier these days than I used to be, I have visited this site every few days and have kept up with all the posts (though not all the music posted, unfortunately).  My personal opinion is that this "controversy," as you call it, is mostly in your own head.  I think it is pretty clear to everyone else reading this thread that Frogman does not have a "mission" against you.  One thing you said in that post is very telling for me - "since Frogman is a musician, and you value a musicians input over a sincere and honest evaluation of the music..."  huh??  

First of all - this implies that Frogman is not sincere and is not giving an honest evaluation, which I think is ridiculous, and I think everyone else that reads this thread would agree.  

Second - While I think you are sincere about what you like, and honest about it too, I would say that what you are being honest and sincere about is not really the music itself - it is your own emotional reaction to it, which is NOT the same thing at all.  You have repeatedly proclaimed your ignorance of music and that you are proud of it and will never study it.   You simply do not speak the language, and don't care.  This is precisely why this is not a "controversy" to anyone but you, and also why there can be no actual debate or even meaningful dialogue with you about music.  You can't really tell us WHY you like one performance over another, or one version of a tune better than another, because you don't speak the language.  But you do get mad if someone says they don't agree with you, especially when they have good reasons.  All I can say is that this is the price you must pay for maintaining your ignorance.   

Hi Orpheus - 

First, you seem convinced that I was the person Frogman referred to in that post - I am not at all sure.  There could be a few others.  

Second - you had asked me to respond to the video you posted of Andre Previn performing and conducting  a Mozart Concerto with the Royal Philharmonic.  This is what I belatedly responded to last night.  I had no idea you wanted a comment from me on the other thing, which I did not listen to.  I can go back and find it if you like.  

As I said before - your "controversy" is in your head alone.  I take everyone else's silence on the subject so far to mean that they probably agree.  

I did not offer to teach you anything (in my last couple of posts, anyway, and I certainly will not in future, either).  My intention was merely to try to explain why musicians and music lovers who have educated themselves about music do not and cannot take some of what you say about music seriously (because you proudly proclaim your ignorance of it).  I do not think this is unreasonable - I am truly sorry if this offends you, but this is your communication problem - not mine.  I personally don't think you can have a real  complaint when people don't understand a point you are trying to make about music because it doesn't make any real sense, but hey, that's your right if you want to be that way, and you refuse to learn some musical sense.  Everyone who does have musical sense sees right through it.  As I said before, I will speak up for the sake of others who read these forums when something is posted here about music that is clearly wrong.   And that's my right.  I am not going to argue with you about it - that is impossible, for reasons which have already been said.   If you really want me to exit the thread again, however, I will.  

And by the way, I did post here about my favorite jazz albums, years ago when you first started this thread.  I could easily add to that post if you wish, but I don't see much  point if  you are just going to lash out like you have been lately.  Enjoy the music.  

Hi O-10 - I went back and found the Andre Previn jazz piano clip you say your "controversy" is about.  "Elevator music" is a pretty good description, actually.  For me, the best that can be said of it is that it is very light entertainment, and while there is nothing wrong with that, it is certainly not great art.   The string accompaniment is pretty cheesy stuff.  Previn is a musician who could do a lot of different things very well, but no one of them truly great, and I mean by that world class, on a consistent basis.  There are certainly much better examples of his piano playing, both in the jazz and classical idioms, than the ones you have posted here.  I heard a record of his jazz playing that was pretty cool once, but I just checked, and I don't own any of it, so unfortunately I can't tell you what the title of the album was.  

I am also not understanding why you felt the need to post the entire Wikipedia entry on Previn a couple of times??  I am very familiar with who he is and what he has done in his career in a general sense, as is Frogman.  I have never met or worked with him; I don't know if Frogman has.  I am not so familiar with much of his recorded output as a pianist. Being an orchestral musician myself, I am naturally therefore more interested in him as a conductor than as a pianist, and I am much more familiar with his work in that field, where again I would describe him as good, not great.  

I own only seven or eight classical albums where he is the conductor - most of them where he is conducting the music of British composers, which he was justly well known for.  In particular, he recorded much of the music of Ralph Vaughn Williams with the London Symphony on RCA, and I have a few of those.  There is also a good recording he did of William Walton's Belshazzar's Feast, also with the London Symphony, on Angel.  That one has an interesting cover, too.....

Hi O-10 - as Frogman has tried a couple of times to explain to you, it is not the tune itself that sounds like elevator music.  It is the cheesy string arrangement backing up the piano in that particular Previn recording that sounds like elevator.  I guarantee you Previn himself performed it live in a much different fashion that would not have sounded like elevator music - probably many times, in many different versions, since he wrote the tune.  That's the thing about jazz - it is never the same twice, even from the same performer, unless you are listening to a recording.    Don't you remember that from your world class friend who lived with you that summer and never practiced who you heard perform a few times a week?  I wonder what he really thought about your proud ignorance of music?

And no, of course the Ella performance of that tune does not sound like elevator music - your conclusion that I must think so because I thought the other one did is completely illogical.  If you really cannot understand that, then it is truly hopeless to have any sort of intelligent conversation with you about jazz, let alone music in general; but I think you really do understand that, and are just pretending not to - so I am forced to wonder, as others have, why on earth did you start this thread when you are so resistant to anyone else's opinions?   You should start a blog if you want the floor to yourself - this is an open forum.  

Hi guys - first, to answer a question Rok posed:  "If the LP is not released, how does the artist get paid or make money?"  Answer:  the artists are paid for their work in the recording sessions themselves - in fact, this is the biggest single payment they receive, unless the album does incredibly well and they end up making a fair amount of royalties over many years.  Most albums don't sell that much, though, and the royalties do not usually add up to what the original payment for the recording sessions were.  Only the very biggest artists make a significant amount of money in royalties - also the studio musicians who do most of the movies in LA and London.  Also guys that play for TV and radio commercials that end up getting used over and over again for years and years do very well if they are lucky enough to have done one of those (for instance, think of those Motel 6 radio ads that may have the voice-over changed up, but it is that same music that they originally recorded and gets re-used in otherwise new commercials - those guys that did that session still make very good money in re-use payments, but that is unusual nowadays).  For orchestral musicians, the upfront payment we get for the session itself is much bigger than anything we ever get afterwards in the way of royalties, if there even are any.  It also depends, for us, on the type of recording and the agreement it is recorded under.  Many orchestras now self-produce their recordings, and they have a limited, local release, which makes it cheaper for them.  

The Academy of Early Music Berlin is one of the finer early music ensembles going right now, and that is a very nice performance.  The very best early music groups are still in England, though, which is sort of where that whole movement got started.  There are some good ones here in the states, too.  To answer Frogman's question on my opinion of the natural horn playing - I think those guys are pretty good, though there is definitely better around the world, both here and in England.  The best performance of the Water Music on natural horns that I know of is John Eliot Gardiner's group (The English Baroque Soloists) - those guys that play for him are really great.  That is something I have always had an interest in doing but have never pulled the trigger on - I don't own a natural horn.  I really should, as there is a need for it where I am - I could easily get enough work with it to justify the purchase and learning the technique.  Part of it is that I am a low horn player, and much of the solo natural horn work would be high, quite a bit different from what I normally do.  I have always wanted to find a good high horn player to do it with me as a pair, so it would suit me better, but that hasn't happened yet.  

Hi O-10:  RE Your post of 5/7 2:08pm about Coltrane not needing to practice.  Here we go again.  

You have repeatedly had two professional musicians on this thread tell you how incorrect your "theory" is.  I seem to remember a couple of other folks who have played an instrument a little contradicting you as well.  Now jzzmusician makes another.  

Once again - even if one has the greatest talent anyone has ever had, this does NOT mean that one does not have to practice.  Your comparison to making chili is absurd.  ANYONE can learn to make chili, and could make it again at any time thereafter.  It does not require any truly difficult cooking skills (trust me - my wife is related to one of the most famous ever chili cooks in the state that is most famous for it, and I know exactly how to make that award winning but very secret recipe).   A much better comparison would be to an athlete such as Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, who in addition to being one of the most talented basketball players ever were also some of the very hardest working ever.  Or lets stay in the arts, if you prefer, with Pablo Picasso - unquestionably the most talented painter ever born, yet also a workaholic.  

The idea that practice could take away improvisational inspiration is by far the most laughable comment you make - it reminds me of how proud you are of your lack of knowledge and how understanding you think that makes you.  

A playing level, or an improvisational level that high MUST be maintained/developed on a daily basis.  This doesn't mean there can't be some periods of time off occasionally.  One of my teachers took an entire month off the horn every summer, and I have done that a couple of times myself.  But it takes a couple of weeks to get back to where you were if you do that, so you actually have to have at least six weeks off if you are going to even contemplate it.  So, if your friend truly wasn't practicing that entire summer (which no one else reading this seriously believes), and only performing every few days, then his playing level would have gone down considerably and very noticeably (shockingly so to his colleagues) over the course of the summer.  But I guess you couldn't tell that, and I bet you won't even mind admitting it.  You really don't seem to comprehend what the problem with that is, which is -  if you can't even hear something THAT obvious,  then you have zero credibility on anything else you have to say about the music or the performance or the performer, and no one who knows anything about it is going to take you seriously on those subjects, or really anything else that requires the sense of hearing.  Which is a real shame, as this thread is otherwise a great source of information unlike any other out there that I know of in these or any other audiophile forums, and you are to be commended as the original beginner of it. 

Hi O-10 - first, I want to say that I do feel bad at how acerbic my post last night was.  I have been very ill with a strange stomach bug, and it was bothering me, and while that is not an excuse, it is a reason the bile came out in my post.  I apologize for the tone of it.  

Second - we actually had quite an extended conversation on this thread a couple of years ago, I think, about different ways that classical musicians improvise.  Mostly it is keyboard players who do it on a regular basis. All professional organists, for instance, can improvise as well as a jazz musician - they do it every day in their jobs, too.  I can improvise myself, though I do not do it in my job.  I used to do it quite a bit when I was in grad school and when free-lancing shortly afterwards, before I won my permanent full time job, and even in public performance sometimes.  Almost never in the jazz idiom, though - just once or twice in big band rehearsals when encouraged to try.  I have also taught some of my horn students the basics of how to do it (which are the same no matter what the idiom, in fact one of those kids ended up immediately applying what I taught him to his jazz guitar playing with great success - surprised the hell out of the jazz band director at that university, who rewarded him with a couple of big features during the rest of his senior year).  So yeah, I could very easily do it to save my ass.  Am I saying I could do it like Coltrane or Frogman?  No way.  But in the classical idiom, I'm more than passable at it.  

Hi O-10 - as Frogman and jzzmusician pointed out, your post in response to mine was quite wrong.  There is nothing you mentioned about improvisation that a classical musician cannot do, even if we assume that we are only discussing the style of improvisation that you are talking about.  Any competent musician of any genre can do that, with some practice.  All it requires is some basic knowledge that you are not interested in.  We get that you don't want to be taught anything.  However, you will have to accept that therefore there are things you will never understand and will continue to be wrong about; and that we will continue to correct misinformation you keep putting out there because of this.  

Lee Morgan is a player I would be very interested in discussing and learning more about.  I only have a few of the albums he is on, and I don't think I have any that he is the leader on.  I would love to hear what everyone's favorite albums of his are.  

Hi O-10 - I have heard Sidewinder; I bought it on LP for my trumpet playing (not professionally) brother once, though I don't have my own copy.  I have not heard Search For The New Land.  Lee Morgan is one of his favorites, too.  

Hi Rok - Frogman is correct.  Most Beethoven symphonies are scored for only two horns.  The exceptions are #3, which is scored for three, and #9, which is scored for four.  Sometimes you will see more than two players, though.  In these cases, some of the sections of the work are being doubled - many conductors like to do this, though the players themselves almost never like to do that.  Sometimes you might see three people out there in a piece scored for two, or more commonly five players out there for a piece scored for four horns.  In this case, the extra player is called the assistant.  They don't have their own part; they are there to assist the other players, mostly the principal.  Many principal players would use an assistant for such a difficult work as the Beethoven 7th, though there is not being one used in that particular clip.  

By the way, another reason that the conductor could be turning over many pages at once is if they are going back to take a repeat.  Or, they could have put a cut in the work.  In either case, you will see many pages being turned over at once.    

FWIW - I won't even address this post to O-10, since he does not want to be educated.  However, Frogman's modesty is showing here, and I will say what he will not.  There is absolutely no way that O-10 has heard even half of the jazz that Frogman has, even if he is decades older.  The very idea is ridiculous.  Frogman is a PROFESSIONAL JAZZ MUSICIAN (also classical).  Music is his life - he is not just your average audiophile on here who just listens to music in his spare time.  He makes it - he lives it - he breathes it.  He has of course listened to it and studied it all of his life, and the vast majority of his waking hours just about every single day are devoted to it.   It is quite within the realm of possibility that in fact he has heard more jazz than everyone else participating in this thread put together.  

Alex, that was a great post.  Tone is debatably the biggest consideration for all professional musicians, at least those that play acoustic instruments.  Classical musicians in particular have to be able to play with extremely wide variations of tone color, though to a trained ear they will also always sound like themselves.  One of my old-school teachers said something that I agree with myself and tell my own students - no matter how well you can play the instrument, who will want to pay to listen to you if you don't have a good sound?  

I am much like you when I am listening for pleasure (as opposed to for study) - I simply won't listen very long to someone whose tone I don't care for.   And I'll let you in on a little secret - I generally have a dislike for the sound of electronically produced music.  It just doesn't have the life that acoustic music does, for me, no matter how well done.  It always sounds a little dead, or metallic, in comparison.  

Many actors actually do create stories for their characters - they are called "back stories."  They give the character a history that helps them present the character as more real and believable.  "Method" actors in particular utilize this technique.  These actors very much consider creating these stories as part of their job, and a more important part of it than what the writers have given them in many cases, depending on the play/film.   Also, many scenes in films/plays nowadays are improvised.  This can also be considered creation of story.   Oh, or did you not want to be taught about acting, either?  :)

I have been catching up this evening on what has been happening in this thread in the last few weeks.  One of Rok's recent comments struck me as very strange: "One of the problems with this thread is that, too many posts are directed at, and posted for the benefit of the 'viewers' , and not directed at their fellow posters."

Huh?  The whole point of posting on an open forum is so many people can read what you are posting.  This thread is not a private conversation, it is a public one.  If you want it to be private, you should exchange email addresses and have your conversation that way.  

I personally feel that the biggest reason that there aren't very many posters on this thread is that some of you (including the OP) have made it crystal clear that  you do not welcome (or even have any respect for) views that disagree with yours, regardless of the relative merits of the opinions expressed.  Many have commented on this here over the last few years and have been ignored, laughed off, and even vilified.  These attitudes just don't lend themselves to the participation of others, which is a real shame, as this thread was an excellent idea and it still has many excellent posts in it.  I will take my share of the blame for saying some things in a way I probably shouldn't have in response, which always turns people off.  There is a reason I am a musician and not a writer.  I have stuck with this thread, though, and will probably continue to, as I have learned a great deal from it.  

I have only been a "lurker" here for a long time now, for various reasons.  I have to say now, though, that Frogman's post at 12:09 on 3/22 is spot on.  Spoken not only as a musician, but as a true lover of music.  

Here is a link to an article on something we have discussed quite a bit here: 

http://arbanmethod.com/wyntons-twelve-ways-to-practice/

Hi Orpheus - I have deliberately refrained from joining the arguments here the last several months, though I have read it all.  I am done arguing with people here.   I was very surprised, therefore, that you actually called me a "troll."  Please explain to me, if you can, how my post with the link to Wynton's article fits that description in any way.  I was merely posting something germane to previous discussions here, that I thought people would be interested in.  The post was not directed at anyone on this board in particular, and was most certainly not intended as a comment on you or your friend.  You are trying to read something into it that is simply not there, and I hope you can look at it again and understand that.  Peace.

Interesting discussion here re Davis, Morgan, and Brown.  This is more up my alley, being a professional brass player.  As Frogman has said, the removal of Davis would have changed the development of jazz much more than the other two, and I think this would have been true even if Morgan and Brown had lived as long as Miles.  

I am about 99% certain that if I surveyed all of my trumpet playing colleagues, that they would say Miles was by far the most influential.  I am tempted to do just that over the next couple of weeks and see what they say, and to ask them which was their personal favorite as well.  I'll report back if I do.

That said, all were fantastic players, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise here.  All three are decently represented in my collection.

Hi Alex - I just caught up with this thread again, and wanted to chime in on Dizzy, being a professional brass player myself.  Everything Frogman has said is true, and he explains it about as well as it can be explained to a layman.  Dizzy was self-taught, and quite frankly had a terrible embouchure (the way we shape our mouths and the muscles around it to play) - in fact, he is very often used as the textbook example of how not to form an embouchure - any beginning brass player is told not to look like that while playing, with the cheeks all puffed out like he did - this is extremely inefficient - the air is bunching up in his cheeks and is not getting into the instrument, hence the thin sound Frogman accurately described (and there are plenty of other problems directly associated with it as well, but more technical than anyone is going to want to read about here). Again, this is not to say that he couldn't play the trumpet.  But it is to say that he was not a particularly good trumpet player, especially as we are comparing him to other professional players - he was a fantastic musician, but these are not the same things.  There is only so far one can develop as a player of an instrument if one's basic fundamentals are that flawed, no matter how good a musician one is in other respects.   Though many musicians don't like them, perhaps an athletic analogy is appropriate here.  There is only so far a baseball pitcher can go if his basic throwing motions are flawed.  Perhaps an even better comparison might be to swimming - the better your technique with each stroke, the better  you will swim.  Anyone can learn to swim, and pretty much anyone can be taught to make a sound on a brass instrument - you could teach a monkey to make a  loud noise on a brass instrument.  But you couldn't teach him to play soft with great control...hope all this makes some sense.  

Hi guys - still lurking and glad to see that the conversations are generally more civil again. Ghosthouse, I want to respond to your yin-yang comparison of Frogman and Orpheus. I will state first that I also do not doubt that Orpheus accurately judged the audience reaction, etc., and I also want to say that I very much appreciate his stories - they are great contributions to this thread. This post is not about either of those things. 

I just want to say that they are not yin/yang, or two sides of the same coin. This would imply that they have the same knowledge/understanding, but different approaches/outlooks, if either is the right word. But this is simply not the case. Although they both unquestionably love music, one has studied it extensively all his life and has made it his profession (and very successfully so!), and writes about it very clearly. The other has openly expressed contempt for the very idea of studying music, and has no real understanding of how it works. However, he seems to think that the fact that he loves it so much gives him the same kind of authority in speaking about it. He has every right to think that, and write whatever he wants to here, and I have told him I am not going to argue with him anymore about the subject, or attempt to educate him anymore (though I do admire Frogman's efforts, and they are far more successful than mine were). This basic difference is the source of the unfortunate ill-humor you speak of, and why they cannot be considered yin and yang. It is a shame. But, despite some of the rancor expressed here from time to time, this is still the best long-running thread on this site. I have learned a great deal here, and I'm sure will continue to as long as it lasts, and I very much appreciate Orpheus as the originator of this thread. 

I can't resist posting here today about two things (I have always been "lurking" here every so often catching up on the thread).  

First, RIP Roy Hargrove. The trumpet world and the jazz world have lost another one way too early.  Got to hear him live a few different times. 

Second, there are some good book recommendations here lately. I wanted to add my standard recommendation to anyone who wants to appreciate the music they listen to more, no matter what style/genre it is. This is the composer Aaron Copland's famous book, What To Listen For In Music. The examples are mostly from the classical world, but it applies to any and all types of music. It would be a good starting place or at least supplement to the good books mentioned here specifically about jazz. 

I was catching up on posts on this thread over the last week or so tonight and saw a couple of mentions of Gunther Schuller.  In addition to being a great writer/jazz historian, he was also a great composer, both of jazz and "classical" music. He organized brass groups in New York that crossed over both styles of playing and made some very interesting records.  He played my instrument, the French horn. He was actually principal horn of the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, and wrote a famous book on horn playing.  He was a great man and great musician.  Had the pleasure of meeting him my freshman year in college when he came to speak at my school.  He died in 2015.  He can be heard on some classic jazz albums, including Birth of the Cool. He was also good friends with the best jazz horn player of the era, Julius Watkins.  He and one of the other top orchestral horn players of the era, John Barrows, can both be heard (in a backup horn quartet) on Watkins' record entitled French Horns For My Lady, recorded for Phillips. Watkins himself was mostly a side man, as you can imagine, playing the horn, but he was leader on a few albums, notably a couple he recorded for Blue Note with a sextet he put together.  

Hi Frogman - I have never really been away, but I am only on the site maybe once a week or so nowadays, sometimes less. I have been tempted to chime in many times but refrained. I am always amused to see the large number of deleted posts when I check in, lol!  I couldn't resist chiming in about Gunther Schuller and Julius Watkins, though.  I know of Chris Comer, but haven't met him.  

Checked in tonight to catch up on this thread, and noticed some postings of the Ravel Pavane for a Dead Princess.  For me personally, one of the very most beautiful versions of the opening horn solo was Myron Bloom's, with the Cleveland Orchestra and George Szell conducting. It is on an LP with the Debussy La Mer.  Anyway, Mr. Bloom died just the other day - horn players all over the world are mourning him.  I listened to his Pavane that day.  Quite a bit different sound from Stefan Dohr, who although of course a very great player, is definitely not everyone in the horn world's king, especially from the musical side.....horn playing has changed in New York a very great deal over the last decade or two, Frogman, especially if many are expressing a preference for Dohr, who is pretty much a polar opposite of what used to be the New York horn style.  Although that was not my style (and neither is Dohr's or Bloom's), it is sad to see it almost completely disappearing now.  

Hi Schubert - I was referring not to musical styles but to styles of horn playing.  Sound concepts, equipment played on, etc. The New York horn players in the not very distant past had a very distinctive style -  players like John Barrows, Gunther Schuller, who has recently been mentioned on this thread, Julie Landsman, Phil Meyers, etc. They all played the same make of instrument.  They of course had their own individual sound and style, but all very easily identified as New York as soon as you heard them start playing. All of these types of regional differences, both here in the US and all over the world, are fast disappearing nowadays, and this is a sad thing in my opinion.