Jazz for aficionados

https://youtu.be/PRMPQg43wgk 

O-10, the lyrics for NY Voices’ “Stolen Moments” were written by Mark Murphy. I posted his rendition of the tune with his lyrics just above your NY Voices post. I have always liked NY Voices; not quite the singers that Manhattan Transfer are, but I like their arrangements. Nice rendition of Murphy’s lyrics. And very nice “Round Midnight”. Glad to see you changed your mind about the lyrics for that tune.

Along the same lines as setting lyrics to a tune is setting lyrics to a solo. Manhattan Transfer’s take on Coleman Hawkins’ famous and ground breaking solo on “Body and Soul”:

https://youtu.be/7oyemhTQjBw

That’s very funny, pjw, The Jetsons.  I get it.  MT can be a bit of an acquired taste.  I find that reaction to them can be a little like the way some rockers react to Steely Dan. It’s that “look how hip I can be!” vibe.  I think I referred to it as “urban chic”.  Still, the singing and the tightness of the harmonies are pretty great.  When in a certain mood, I like it.

Re Xmas music:

Rok, for something different and certainly interesting you may try these. Hungary has had a very rich choral tradition for centuries. I love the choral music of Zoltan Kodaly and Bella Bartok. My wife bought this a couple of years ago. This music has a beautiful simplicity that you may like. The recording quality is excellent (Harmonia Mundi):

https://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Music-Medieval-Hungary-4/dp/B00005N8D3/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Hungaria...

This one is not Xmas music per se, but this choral music evokes a similar feeling:

https://www.amazon.com/Kodaly-Choral-Works-Female-Choruses/dp/B00LDMYLCM/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Kodaly+...

Both can be sampled on amazon’s site.

Amazing! Amazing how much deep knowledge and insight some have. I check in after being away for a day or two only to learn that I have been completely in the dark about my utter lack of character. That I “have been sitting on the sidelines of life”, that I have “never shared love” and that I have only been a “parade follower” all my life. Wow! Shoot me now. Please!

Also amazing how the need for that kind childish self aggrandizement at the expense of others would be laughable were it not so sad. O-10, I understand that you are going through what must be a very difficult time in your life; you have made that very clear. I am sorry for that.  It must be very difficult for it makes you not just presumptuous, but also mean spirited. I wish I could offer some words to help, but I could not do better than Schubert’s. What I can do is point out that you really have no idea about what I feel about your experiences; I assure you that it’s best that way.

I wish you well.

I too like Chicago the band, pjw.  They were the very first major Rock band I ever heard live.  In was while in HS, probably 1972 or 3 at Queens College, NY.  Very exciting for a kid that age even though Southern Rock (Allman Brothers) was more my thing at the time.  Didn’t really appreciate Terry Kath’s talent till much later. 

So, in other words O-10, you have not enjoyed an instrumental version of Round Midnight since the first time you heard a vocal version of the tune? Or, when did Or, was there something unique about Bryant’s rendition that made you hear the dippy lyrics? Just really trying to understand your very strong feelings about this.

Nice to hear.  That scenario is replicated all over the country.  A lot of young talent out there.  Young players get better and better all the time.  Unfortunately, “serious” music like Jazz and Classical will never have the kind of audience that more popular forms will, but the music is here to stay.  The music changes and evolves and the problem is usually that the older we get the more “trapped” we tend to feel by the way the music was and what we are used to.  Good for you for supporting your local musicians!

Sometimes things could not be more timely.  Prescient, I say! 😊
Welcome back, acman3.  Superb timing.  Oh, and great clips.  Love Garzone.

Thanks for your clarification, Alex. So, let’s see....

You seem to object to the use of the word “nonsense”. You seem to find it offensive or provocative. Is that it? Allow me to pose this question:

Which is more offensive? To contradict a comment made or belief expressed (mine) in response to an entirely different person’s (pryso) comment with an opposing viewpoint; and then finalizing that opposing viewpoint with “case closed”? Or, for the person who was contradicted (me) to then refer to the comment “case closed”, a comment that leaves no room for discussion or debate, as being nonsense?

Nonsense.  Case is not closed at all.  It may be closed for some; but, not for everyone and certainly not for those who can relate to a different type of genius.  The recent discussion about lyrics is a great example.  Some get trapped in a certain viewpoint and make up their own reality while others are open to new possibilities.  Of course, there’s always the much simpler way of looking at this and similar issues:  glass half full/glass half empty.  I’ll take half full anytime.  

O-10, I suppose it is no surprise, but I could not disagree more with your comment...

**** Old school is the only school", and even you have been confirming this with your posts. ****

Your assessment of the “new” Jazz that I have posted here is your assessment and in no way an indication of any “confirmation” on my part. The first half of your sentence “Old school is the only school” makes my previous point perfectly. This serves as a great segue to my response to you, Alex. That sentence is what I would consider “nonsense” and is along the very same lines as what was the reason for and what I referred to with my previous use of the word “nonsense”. I referred to the assertion that it was “case closed”. Nonsense. Unless there is no possibility of a different viewpoint it is nonsense. Case is not closed.
Now, to your comment, Alex. Don’t be so quick to judge my words to another when your judgment is based on a contradiction.

**** Creative genius...it is definitely the matter of perception and of ones standards ****

If it is, in fact, a matter of personal perception then the case cannot be closed. Don’t you think? That is the contradiction .

**** we are kind of split between the ones who like older stuff more, ****

You make the same mistake that is often made here. Those who like the new stuff, don’t like the old stuff any less.....glass half full. Difference is there is no automatic bias against the new stuff which would be.....glass half empty.

**** still I ve got the feeling that it has not got the ’power’ as ’older’ artists had. ****

That’s the bias.

**** Maybe with time we shall be able to see it better....****

If you truly believe that, then it cannot be case closed. And I do hope you shall be able to see it better.

Regards.

Alex, thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with your premise. Only thing I would add is that “passion” is not an excuse for lack of fair mindedness. I agree with your stance on lyrics. On that very subject:

I don’t suppose it has crossed the minds of those vehemently opposed to added lyrics that by that (questionable, at best) standard possibly as much as half of the most popular tunes in instrumental Jazz would then be deemed “invalid” since those tunes were conceived as songs with lyrics (“vocals”). The Great American Songbook is just one canon.

**** Vocals are vocals, instrumentals are instrumentals; let them be separate and never the twain shall meet; unless on a temporary basis. ****

An entirely different approach to the song.  Warning: It’s a vocal version 😊

https://youtu.be/gTmVgIYwd3k

Very kind of you, Schubert.  I am tempted to say that you give me too much credit, but it is more to the point to say that you don’t give yourself enough credit.  In answer to your question:


From the start I felt that an interesting thread about this great music was a very good resource for the Audiogon community and I felt that there may be value for some to hear a musician’s perspective about it all.  From the start, and putting aside talk of technical matters, the two most important ideas that I hoped the offer of a musician’s perspective might bring to the Aficionado table were:  That the learning process is endless.  There is always much more to learn and I very much include myself in that; I have learned much here in various ways.  Perhaps even more importantly, that true love of the music requires not only respect, but a certain amount of humility.  IOW, love and respect the music and not so much the fact that we love the music.  I could go on, but I think that for anyone that “gets” that message enough has been said.

Regards.

O-10, there is nothing “political” in what I write.  If you cannot bear the idea that someone has a different viewpoint from yours, or that there may be honest agreement among dissenters please don’t make it anyone’s problem but your own. Again, I could say much more, but I am beyond tired of your bs and petty attacks. Look at yourself and your own responses for where the conflict lies. Never too late to change the course of things.

You can add “desperate” and “disingenuous” to the list. Oh, and you are welcome, for saving your thread (literally) from the delete bin.

One further thought on the issue of lyrics and why this debate is, as I said before, much to do about nothing. First, let’s establish some semantics guidelines; it would be helpful in avoiding confusion. By definition, a “song” is a musical composition intended to be sung; it has lyrics. A wordless composition is a ”tune”, “instrumental”, or “piece”; which doesn’t become a “song” until lyrics have been added.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing the actual percentage, but I would wager that at least half of all “songs” were composed by a song writing team. George and Ira Gershwin, Kander and Ebb, Rodgers and Hart, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Bernstein and Sondheim, Lennon and Macartney and Elton John and Bernie Taupin to name just a few of the most prominent ones. As described in the film “Rocketmam” that I saw recently (didn’t like), often one half of the team (John) has a stack of “tunes” that he has composed waiting for the other half of the team, the lyricist (Taupin), to write lyrics for the tune; or, the lyricist has a stack of lyrics waiting for a tune. Many of the great and popular songs played as Jazz instrumentals were written first as wordless tunes and lyrics were added after the fact; or the reverse is true. Any tune is a candidate for lyrics.

mary_jo, of course the question has “firm answer”. As you point out the performance is key. A great singer can make inferior lyrics sound fantastic. A poor singer can take poetic genius and make it sound terrible. Same for the musical performance part of it. As always, our personal bias has a tendency to creep into our reaction. Forgive me if I am mistaken and I don’t mean to take liberties, but I suspect that your feeling about lyrics being unnecessary, for Aranjuez in particular, became stronger as you became a stronger guitarist yourself.

Here’s an interesting twist to the question. Two vocal versions; one in Spanish the other in French.  Same song, same singer, two different languages. She can sing and has recorded in several different languages. Which version of the song is more effective? Both beautiful, but for me the Spanish version wins hands down. Is that because of my personal bias (Spanish is my native tongue); or, is this a reflection of the well documented connection between the music and the language of a culture making the Spanish version more effective?

Spanish:
https://youtu.be/VQA-0q9f4qo

French:
https://youtu.be/sERXZEM6sy8

You may find this quote interesting:

“That melody is so strong that the softer you play it, the stronger it gets, and the stronger you play it, the weaker it gets." - Miles Davis

Correction, I meant to write:

**** mary_jo, of course the question has NO “firm answer” ****

Sorry. In adding quotation marks, I erased the “no”.  Talk about confusing matters 😱.

The clarinet doesn’t get a whole lot of love in Jazz. It’s not a particularly sexy looking axe; in spite of its shape 😊. I think, though, that a lot has to do with Jazz fans’ association of the instrument with “Dixieland”; or, what some consider Dixieland to be. Talk about unfair bias. In spite of all the justified appreciation and talk about traditional New Orleans music and blues and its earthiness and soul, the role and contribution of the clarinet in all that seems to get short shrift.

When most Jazz lovers talk about the clarinet in Jazz, the names that usually come to the fore are names like Shaw, Goodman, DeFranco, Hamilton and more recently Eddie Daniels. All great players and more than deserving of their fame, but they all followed the earlier great and very influential clarinet players.

Today is George Lewis’ birthday! One of the earliest and most important:

https://youtu.be/tKL-RJDPH3w

Welcome back, Schubert.  Masterpiece indeed!  How was Korea?

Hah! I love that stuff. And, I love the clips. I roomed with a trombone player in college and he played that record almost nonstop. But, that’s not the only thing I love about the post. I refer to how interesting it is that sometimes support for our particular point of view comes from unexpected sources. Dick Katz, who studied at the Peabody Conservatory, Manhattan School of Music AND Juilliard; and was a Jazz educator. Considering all the silly derision levied here upon the idea of scholarship and Jazz, an unexpected source indeed.

This is interesting for yet another reason re unexpected sources.  You may find this story interesting. This past August I was performing with the Philadelphia Orchestra at SPAC and on the same program was Wynton’s JLCO performing Wynton’s “Swing Symphony”. I am friends with a couple of the members of Wynton’s band and after the rehearsal one morning we went to lunch at a nearby restaurant. During the meal, after much talk about the music the conversation turned to, of all things, audio. One of the guys was interested in buying a sound system. I mentioned Audiogon as a place to get acquainted with what is out there and the forums being a good place to learn about putting together a system. Conversation about the forums led to....you guessed it, this thread. One of the topics that came up was the idea of....you guessed it, traditional vs. “new” Jazz. I mentioned some of the ongoing disagreements here on the subject. To a man, the view was that the feeling that only old Jazz is of any value or that many of the younger players today are not on the same level as players from the past is absurd. That not only is it absurd, but that the belief is one of the things that hurts Jazz’ viability today the most. Then the punchline: Wynton feels the same way! Wynton is a big supporter of the new generation of players and not just the players playing traditional Jazz. He also likes some of the non-traditional “new” Jazz very much. His views have changed over the years and he, for “political” reasons, needs to maintain and cultivate his public persona of the unwavering traditionalist.

I couldn’t stop laughing! Well, when I was alone.

I was going to bring this up here back then, but I had the good sense to not “stir the pot” unnecessarily. BTW, my invitation from a couple of years ago (!) stands. If you’re ever in NYC I would be glad to introduce you to some of these guys and probably Wynton as well.

The music:

https://youtu.be/JrypkiPgPxc

Great Kenny Wheeler clips, pjw.  Thanks.  I’ve been a fan for quite some time.  Distinctive style and tone; very complimentary to Jarrett’s piano style.  

Great bebopper, Red Rodney.  My first exposure to him was when he co-led a quintet with the great Ira Sullivan.  Used to go hear them at the Vanguard years ago.  Ira is one of the true unsung heroes of Jazz.  Fantastic multi instrumentalist.  He is a local hero still residing in my old stomping grounds is South Florida.

https://youtu.be/sFHLhSIIzsQ

https://youtu.be/aQsEicb4x74

Rok, first, some context:

Every arrangement of a tune has a structure that is adhered to. Within that structure there may be room for a predetermined number of solos by specific instruments. Sometimes the arranger is very specific about what the length of the solo should be and other times the arranger gives the designated soloist free reign to improvise as long as he wants, but this is done with the understanding that the soloist will improvise as long as he has something to say and not just to be indulgent and go on forever in a way that doesn’t fit the spirit of the tune or arrangement. That is basic ensemble protocol. All this is specified in the designated soloist’s part (sheet music). When it is a brand new composition and unfamiliar to the player(s), the chord changes are written in the part and the soloist follows that chord progression as spelled out in his written part. Sometimes, as is the case here, the tune is in a basic and very familiar twelve measure blues form. Any Jazz player worth his salt can improvise over a twelve bar blues in his sleep. This is the reason that sometimes you see players looking at the music while they improvise and other times they don’t.

Not quite sure I fully understand your question: “Did Kisor blow this solo during rehearsals?“

Do you mean, was it Kysor that improvised at this point in the tune, as designated by the arrangement, during rehearsals? Yes, undoubtedly. During rehearsals, the soloist gets to blow his solo (rehearse) just as he will during the performance. Obviously, since it will be an improvised solo, it will not be “this solo”; but it will be his solo at the same point in the arrangement. This is all a necessary part of the rehearsal process. The arrangement and its performance will be most effective musically if there is no doubt or hesitation during the transitions from, as in this case, instrumental soloist to vocal statement or soloist to soloist. Unless rehearsal time is running short (happens) the soloist will get to improvise as long as he will during the performance; but, again, only as long as is musically appropriate.

In this particular arrangement Kysor was given “free reign” to play as long as he needed; again, within reason. He plays six choruses. How do I know that he was given free reign as opposed to the length of his solo being dictated by the arranger? Notice what he does at precisely 4:29. He makes a quick gesture to his right with his horn. That’s a visual cue to the band that the next chorus he plays will be his last chorus.

This performance is interesting on a few counts and relates to the issue of “new” vs “old” Jazz and your clip is actually very timely. Traditional tune performed with an obviously traditional feel; and interesting that the opening statement is played by a different trumpet player (Kenny Rampton) than the trumpet player that improvises a solo later in the tune (Kysor). Both players sound fantastic. Rampton sounds fantastic playing in the more traditional, very inflected, plunger mute style. Rampton (a younger player) has a very modern harmonic concept. He plays very “outside” the very traditional harmony of the blues form. Very interesting and at times obtuse solo that is full of surprises and never telegraphs where he is going next. He plays his solo with a very advanced harmonic vocabulary that is clearly an extension of the vocabulary of great players like Miles and Woody Shaw. Those players didn’t and couldn’t play like Rampton. Obviously, not a criticism, just that Jazz was in a different place then. The listener may or may not like Rampton’s vocabulary because it is so different (“new”) from what is familiar (“old”) but Rampton clearly has his own voice. Killer solo which is on the same level, in every way that defines the spirit of Jazz, as many of the great solos by many of the great players from the past. “New” Jazz in the context of an “Old” setting. Great stuff.

Wynton was clearly digging it. And, btw, Wynton knows all of the above and much more. Did all that knowledge get in the way of his “digging it” (Katz/😉)? I seriously doubt it.

Isochronism, glad you enjoy the thread.  Post some faves.

Unusual times indeed. Rok is concerned with stereo channel balance and makes reference to musical “influences”!!! 😊

As far as “pouting” goes, leave me out of that one. Besides, the smeller is the feller, as they say. I seem to recall having to reel you in and persuade you to stick around just recently, Rok. 😠 Unusual times indeed.

Hey, we have even seen our pouter in chief acknowledge the influence (speaking of influences) of (musical, my word) African DNA on today’s Jazz players. Unusual times indeed.

Good news is progress CAN take place.

I will offer more thoughts on definitions and timelines when I have more time, but just want to make and stress an important point which is why some of the analogies presented don’t hold up. Nothing (!) that Kisor plays in that solo has anything (!) to do with “better training”, “speed”, etc. Notice how much space he uses. No flashiness or gratuitous speed. No super high playing. Instead, what makes his solo interesting is creativity (!) built upon a deep knowledge and understanding of what came before him with a vision to take it somewhere new. Sustains interest for the listener with ideas, creativity and great feeling of swing; the essence of good Jazz. And, he does it all with a harmonic concept that goes beyond what many of the greats (“old”...sorry) discussed here did. Great player and a great example of the evolution of the language of a Jazz. His concept is “new”, the tune is “old”.

Growing corn:

https://youtu.be/OwTU01VffwU

**** Handel, performed by The Frogman’s favorite conductor. ****

Please, don’t spread any nasty rumors.

**** Horns in tune?? ****

Actually, no 😱

Nice Getz.  

Fabulous! Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_m_RwTZa4ecVVxpmErTS_paEmDaiKxRW60

Dave McKenna, George Tucker, Danny Richmond. 1960

Me too. Good stuff, thanks. Some interesting reading on the subject:

https://newyorkjazzworkshop.com/were-beethoven-bach-and-mozart-jazz-musicians/

https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/bohp/22/

https://www.wrti.org/post/surprising-influence-js-bach-jazz-great-bill-evans

Schubert, Indian giver! 😊.  Finally had some time this morning and was going to listen and comment to what promised to be an interesting clip.  Please post it again.  

pjw, that “Embraceable You” is one the best things posted here. Gorgeous playing from all. What a nice feel that performance has!  Biggest surprise was Tommy Turk with that beautiful solo. Amazing Prez. All, except one, the tail end of an era and then ....Bird, incredible, bad reed and all. Quite a history lesson. Thanks for the clip!

I just realized that my attempt at humor directed at Schubert might be misconstrued as somehow insensitive or racist. I suppose I could delete it, but I think that the more adult thing to do is to stress that there was no malice intended and let everyone be big boys and girls. Apology to anyone offended.

pjw, if you listen closely you’ll hear that Bird’s reed is chirping or squeaking a little bit; its the high pitched sound that you hear for an instant at the beginning of some of his phrases.  Stan Getz was notorious for playing squeaky reeds.  “History lesson” referred to the clip.

It took me a long time to “get” Sam Rivers. Tenor player who was prominent in the “avant garde” or “free” Jazz scene. However, he was one of the few who could also play credibly in a more structured setting. Many free players violate one of Jazz players’ most important “rules”: You can’t play “outside” the harmony until you know how to play “inside” it. Many “free” players simply don’t have the command of harmony to sound convincing in a more traditional setting. Sam Rivers could do it....in his own unique way.

In 1964 George Coleman left Miles’ band and Sam Rivers would fill the teno slor for just a few months since Rivers turned out to be a little too “out” even for Miles. Wayne Shorter would then come in to round out what would be my favorite Jazz quintet of all time.

This recording of a concert in Tokyo that Rivers played with Miles is one of my favorite Miles records and one that seems to stay under the radar. Miles sounds wonderful and the rhythm section shows why it is my favorite rhythm section of all time. Tony Williams sounds incredible with that light touch and amazing ability to propel the music forward. To my ears there has never been a rhythm section who was as responsive and interactive with what the soloist is doing as this one; and did it as a unit. The tempo changes and decreases/increases in energy that compliment the shape of the solos is fantastic. He was no Wayne Shorter, but I find Rivers’ playing interesting on this recording. Takes it out harmonically often, but doesn’t stray to far. Unusual tone. I used to think it was ugly, but has grown on me. Great record with lots of surprises including an unusually fast take of “So What”.

https://youtu.be/ogOBeYvdC2U

https://youtu.be/-xkiPPSVRvE

https://youtu.be/4YzC76cwJwM

https://youtu.be/NFQVXp5dFdg

https://youtu.be/FOydWldAyvc

Notice the very appreciative Japanese audience.

O-10, I could not disagree more with that comment. i would be careful with stereotypes in general. I have performed in Japan many times. Always a very appreciative and knowledgeable audience that, if anything, humbles the musicians due to the contrast to many American audiences. “Pleasing the audience”? Really? This from the guy (Miles) who was notorious and criticized for turning his back to the audience during concerts? I don’t think so. I understand that you don’t like 60’s Miles, but I believe you are confusing dislike with “stereotypical”. That music is anything but “stereotypical” and to suggest that “it is not about the music” is very unfair to the musicians; not to mention not true. There is an awful lot of very inspired playing on that record.

Rok, honest curiosity and question: what would be, in your mind, the reason(s) why Coltrane might have played differently in Japan?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

O-10, I get it; I know where you’re coming from. However, Jazz fans in 1968 that were expecting Miles to be playing music that sounded like that “Love For Sale” (great!) had not been paying attention to Miles’ music too closely. That “Love FS” was 1958. Ten years before. An eternity in Miles’ evolution as an artist. The music he was playing in 1964 live in Tokyo is precisely the connecting missing link in this argument. What he was doing in 1964 was as much a departure from what he was doing in 1958, as 1968 was different from 1964. The remarkable thing is that it is all a clear and audible evolution heard in the corresponding styles. Anyone following Miles’s career since his days with Bird would not have been terribly surprised that he was doing something so different; especially with the knowledge that the great Quintet of the 60s was a thing of the past.

I find it interesting that there have been a lot of baseless assertions about “pleasing an audience” , “not about the music”, “nationalities/appreciation”, etc., and not a single comment about the playing on the Miles in Tokyo recording.  Fantastic and interesting playing from masters surely deserving some commentary.

Musicians play tunes at different tempos or different other ways all the time.  They may play it faster as a personal challenge; or, as is probably the reason on this recording, musicians react when there is a lot of energy in the room and the tempos tend to be more crisp.  

The important point to understand is that no aspect of artistic integrity has to be sacrificed, as is being asserted, by playing the tune faster or slower.  The idea that musicians of that caliber would compromise their artistic integrity by playing a tune faster, for any reason, knowing that the result will be an inferior performance is nonsense and insulting to the musicians.  

The truth is that Japanese audiences are very knowledgeable about Jazz; more so than many aficionados in the USA.  Sure, they like most people around the world are fascinated by many things American.  So what?  I find the suggestion that because of this they are less appreciative or insightful of the music, or cause musicians to cater to them in artistically harmful ways, to be very cynical and ill informed.

https://youtu.be/gwSfV4GWOgE

“Disingenuous”. Nice. Must you go there? 

What does “feeling relaxed” have to do with “consider(ing) the audience when they play. The appreciation level of the audience.”? If in fact those dancers were to feel “life changing” pressure when performing at home how does that compare to what Miles might feel playing for a college crowd? Moreover, those dancers may have given a more inspired performance because they were relaxed.

You don’t understand what it means to an artist to maintain. artistic integrity and, with respect, you’re mixing up different considerations. May I ask how many performers you have spoken to about this?

First, dancers in the Bolshoi don’t fall down......very, very rarely. You also underestimate audiences. If that was your standard as well, then you should see more ballet. The beauty and artistry in a great ballet will touch emotionally at least some in an audience even when they “know” nothing about ballet. I hate to break it to you, but artists are more concerned about what their colleagues think of their performance than what the audience thinks. An artist, by definition, keeps the bar very high. Of course they all have better days than other days, but it is seldom by design.

**** But, I think artists do consider the audience when they play. The appreciation level of the audience. ****

Sure they do....sometimes. Some may not perform certain material that they think might be too adventurous, or controversial, for a particular crowd. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the performance which was the original contention....that it wasn’t about the music; that somehow they were “dumbing it down” in order to please the audience.  Again, that goes to artistic integrity. Some artists like Miles were very uncompromising that way and would play what he wanted to play and the way he wanted to; always.

Bach and Jazz:

**** I rather enjoy this -****

**** Me too ****

**** The Blues on Bach thing is nice music. So is the Swingle Singers. I even have a CD of both groups together. It’s nice music ****

So, what exactly is the problem?

**** My point exactly.  You make my argument for me.  I just said the audience can and do effect the performers. ****

Rok, you are  going around in circles.  Of course the performer reacts to the audience.  I made that clear in my very first response to the idea that “performing in Japan is not about the music”: a ridiculous contention.  Reaction to the audience does not mean the music will be inferior. as was suggested.  

**** Miles, I don't know the man, MAY have thought these guys wouldn't know great Jazz if it fell on them. ****

What you are not understanding is that none of the above means that a performer with artistic integrity will, in any way, compromise the quality of the music or his performance; “showboating” being one example.  That was the original and mistaken contention.   Why don’t you  worry a little less about being “correct” and a little more about understanding the very interesting nuances in all this.  Great artists  care about the quality of the art first and foremost; the audience comes after.  

Shostakovich:

Case in point? Hardly. It is a great symphony!!! 
Again, you’re mixing and conflating issues. Did artists live in fear during Stalin’s Russia? Yes, a well documented fact; many left for America. So, what does that have to do with the main argument? Proponent of “the great unwashed” determining the ultimate value in music? Was Stalin the great unwashed? Seems to me he was the elite. Unfortunately, the one with ultimate power.  You are confusing thematic content and style with artistic quality. How does any of this relate to do with Miles playing Jazz to an audience? 

https://youtu.be/ghj5V5cUo1s