Jazz for aficionados

Don't know, but I kinda like it.

Upon further reflection, I agree with Rok and marija; less is more.  I wonder how Alex feels about it; he didn't seem to like the absence of titles for posted links.  

Astounding!

 

You are!  How were you able to do it the old way? 

I have; and every day.

Next Friday is the anniversary of The Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

—Abraham Lincoln

"You see what you want to see "

😊

**** A serious jazz artist must play an archtop in the vein of Russell Malone, Wes Montgomery, Barney Kessell, Herb Ellis, Joe Pass, etc None of these jazz guitarists played tele’s because the sweetest jazz tone is delivered by an archtop with at least 3" of depth. None of the old players played a tele! ****
 

Pretty bold statement.  I may have a favorite type of tone, but I wouldn't dream of criticizing the choice of gear by one of the most serious players to ever play the instrument; some would say the most serious.  Have you considered that Martino chose his instrument because that was precisely the sound that he wanted; so as not to sound like many other players?  He actually did play an arch top at various points on his career.

You may find this interesting and thanks for the clip:

coltrane1, thanks for your response.  
 

There is a saying among musicians that says:  "Nobody ever gets fired for having a bad sound".  Certainly an exaggeration of sorts amd keeping in mind that "bad" is a relative thing the point of the saying is that there are aspects of a musician's playing are far more important than whether they meet some predetermined idea of what a good tone is: great rhythm, great creativity and great individuality, a component of which is a unique tone.  
 

I get that you like a particular type of guitar tone, but you seem to be suggesting that if a player doesn't fit that tone mold that he is not a serious player.  I can't agree with that.  Is the sound of our voice more important than what we say?  I don't think so.  Btw, when judging Martino's choice of guitar and tone, keep in mind the various styles that he has explored including Fusion.  
 

Not Jazz?!

 
Regards.

It’s a pain, and inconsistent. I have a feeling that it is different depending on what device one is using. For me and my iPad, I hit the “share” tab of the YouTube video and, as before, paste unto the JFA post before submitting. The funny thing is, and what I finally figured out, is that when you paste the YouTube link to your post (before actually submitting) a window appears that states “Video Not Available, Go to YouTube to watch”. HOWEVER, go ahead and hit “Post Your Response” anyway and the correct link with image will post. Weird!

It gets really interesting when I try to add a second (or more) video to the same post (before submitting). Any video after the first, I have to hit “share” on the YouTube video, but now when I try and add it to the post, after several attempts and if I’m lucky I MAY get a small window showing the video’s URL and then hit the “Add” tab that also appears.

Personally, I much prefer the old method with just the URL, no image.

Good luck.

Not entirely sure why Marija’s joke made me think of these.

One of the best and saddest songs on the subject:

On a (somewhat) lighter note:

Has anyone heard from, or know about O-10?

Thank you, Pryso. Great stuff! Sorry I missed the birthday party.

Here is the original version; with Mingus himself on bass. What would a birthday party be without a clown? 😊

Staying in a birthday mood, today is the birthday of a great tenor player that has received scant ,if any, mention here. Great West Coast player with a warm tone and great swing. Happy Birthday, Teddy Edwards!

Great alto players mentioned. Other favorites:

Gene Quill:

https://youtu.be/Um1k6O8gsFw?si=515Zhzir5_MdE_so

https://youtu.be/He8AiFTPNcA?si=AgNvERd7c3lEdTgq

Lee Konitz:

https://youtu.be/LAufCG4rH6o?si=l3fXh4vpS2ym6Cex

Charlie Mariano:

https://youtu.be/-aVKk6LHvmA?si=NeNBR-zSxTHAcml4

Charles Macpherson:

https://youtu.be/YnHM3VxpJTk?si=tGI_yCCnoj3LCPtb

NEW BLOOD:

Miguel Zenón:

https://youtu.be/xajjEh8MyDk?si=kDDMKBZm-EEXqr2j

Glad you enjoyed it, mahgister; genius indeed.

Jazz is an evolutionary art form. The top exponents of the art form at any point in time, influence the upstarts, who then go on to push the art form to the next, some would say, “logical” stylistic stepping stone.

Woody Shaw was considered and accepted, within “the scene” as the guy who would follow Freddie Hubbard as THE next torch bearer. He died way to soon at 44 (I think). This (Freddie Hubbard) is who he was to follow in the art form’s trumpet lineage.  (amazing record!) :

You’re welcome, pjw.  Great Woody Shaw record, thanks!  

David Sanborn is the most imitated alto player in the Pop/Jazz-Funk-R&B style,  Not an improviser on the level of harmonic sophistication of the recently mentioned alto players.  However, in a funky setting he is the best.  One hears a tone and general attitude that is clearly borrowing from Sanborn from countless alto saxophone players in genres that lean more to Rock and/or Smooth Jazz.  Not a put down all all.  He has tons of what pjw recently referred to as (great) “emotional improvisation”.  Playing stuff that leans to bebop, that highly stylized, acerbic tone of his sounds a little out of place and unwieldy.  But, man, playing a Pop ballad or funky back beat he is the greatest.

That’s the point of what I wrote above. There aren’t any.

I have heard Sanborn play in more straight ahead settings as part of special event TV shows (including his own late night show years ago), award shows, etc. He can work his way through a set of changes more complicated than in most Pop tunes, but It’s not his forte. It’s kind of the reverse of the way that, for instance, Lee Konitz playing in a one chord funky groove would sound….kinda weird.  The genre doesn’t need much of that boundless harmonic skill, it needs a certain attitude and sound.

Nice! Great chart and some swinging solos. Thanks, pryso.

As you know, they were well known as a foursome as the saxophone section in the Woody Herman big band of the late ‘40’s; Woody’s Second Herd. A very unusual saxophone section in that it featured three tenors and a baritone; as opposed to the far more common lineup of two altos, two tenors and a baritone. The tune “Four Brothers” featured and celebrated the four members of the section:

pryso’s great clip brought a couple of things to mind: the influence of the great Lester Young on all four “brothers” and how much the concept of “swing” has changed over the years. Young, the “brother’s” and just about every saxophone player of that time played with a light tone, lots of vibrato and a feel good, easy sense of swing; none of the angular, more aggressive style of more modern players.

We are, and have been, in complete agreement.  I would only add that what we are discussing is at the heart of the often mentioned quote:  “There are only two kinds of music…..good music and the other kind”.  This from one of the greatest Jazz musicians.  Point is, Classical music (and all others) can “roll”.

On a different thread, mahgister wrote very eloquently about “time” in music; specifically, an orchestral conductor’s time conception. It could be said that the musical “particulars” that come into play (😉) in the expression of time in music are, fundamentally and to one degree or another, the same no matter the genre. When there is agreement on a deep level, the magic happens; and there has to be a certain level of agreement between a conductor and the ensemble for the expression of a conductor’s time concept to be expressed well.

For me, this is one of those recordings with that magic. Amazing lineup of Larry Young, Grant Green, Elvin Jones and Sam Rivers all sharing that deep level of agreement. I have posted Larry Young’s “Unity” recording a couple of times previously. Classic, little known record. This one, “Into Somethin’ “ is his first Blue Note recording.

As an aside, it took me a while to appreciate Sam Rivers; tenor player who was active in the “out” or avant garde Jazz scene and who had a tone which was not pretty in the usual sense. It took me years to appreciate just how great he was. Sometimes we are too focused on tone at the expense of our appreciation for what the player is saying.

**** the most important element in music, which is musical time out of metronomical or measured time, ****

That’s right. I would qualify that comment by streamlining the idea even further to simply “time”. Time is the most important element of music; and not only time outside a metronomic reference. It has to be all inclusive as far as possibilities. There are times in a musical performance of a particular work when metronomic time is precisely what the music demands; whether it be specified in the score, or whether it is an aspect of a conductor’s vision for the work. It is the musical cohesion and logic between the two polarities (to use your word) and all points in between that make a great performance. It is true that in Jazz this idea is “at the heart of what improvising musicians (do)”, In a much more subtle and much more controlled way it is the same and essential for the written score. In orchestral music, the magic happens when there is agreement with, or at least respect, for the conductor’s concept. That Bernstein/Corialan is a great example. Not only is it clearly heard, one can see the agreement and enthusiasm in the players’ body language, No matter the level of professionalism on the part of the players, there is always a bit extra given when they “get” what the conductor is trying to say; or, agree that the conductor is allowing what the composer is trying to say to be expressed. This is not always the case. In a way, the same thing happens in Jazz.

Some thoughts in the spirit of the thread. Where is our OP, btw?

We all have favorites. They are favorites for a variety of reasons; mostly subjective and not objective The playing style of a favorite resonates with our own aesthetic sense and it is important to remember that this preference often says just as much (maybe more) about oneself than it does about the artist; and, is not some indication that our favorite is the “best” based on any objective set of standards. Of course, the tricky part is that there are, in fact, some basic standards of excellence that have to be met to even consider an artist for being ONE of the best.

I have always disliked “best” designations. Jazz, probably more so than any other genre puts a premium on individuality and, as such, makes the notion of who was “the best” kind of pointless. I think that it can be safely said that if one must indulge in “best” designations that one unavoidable consideration is the question of whether the artist was one of the handful that truly changed the direction of the music in a significant way and made more than relatively minor contributions along the path of its evolution. I think we all know who those have been: Pops, Duke, Prez, Bird, Miles, Trane and a handful of others. So, what to do if one loves bebop, but doesn’t like hard bop and beyond; or, swing and what came before (as much?). Can the “best” bebopper be the best jazz player? I don’t think so.

Sonny Stitt was a fantastic bebopper; certainly one of the very best. Was he THE best? If so, what then does one do with Charlie Parker’s legacy? Parker was a genius bebopper and a game changer. Unless we are going to rewrite all that has been written about the history (evolution) of this music there is little question about this.

We may, but Jazz doesn’t like boxes.

Fabulous Schubert/Schiff!  Thank you.  
 

What do you think of this? :

Rok, I think you missed the point. You may be arguing a point that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I could dispute your notion of “the great unwashed decide….” , but it is not relevant to my point. It is not about who is great, but rather, is it possible to deem one individual “the greatest”. It’s at best, a silly notion, if one is to honor all that Jazz is. Who are the great unwashed, anyway? Are you referring to the average guy walking down the street who considers himself a “music lover” and may even own a couple of Jazz CD’s? OK, ask him if he knows who John Coltrane was; never mind Sonny Stitt. Now, ask him who Kenny G is. Moreover, are you not, yourself, a “fan of certain genre(s)” (to quote your definition of “TGW”)?

Of course a player needs to stand the test of time to be considered one of the greats. Many players have stood the test of time and can rightfully be considered great. But, “THE GREATEST”? That question was the basis of what I wrote. And, why even consider the issue of “modern day players”? There has not been enough time passed to be able to consider whether they will pass the test of time. Obviously. We shall see (hear).

Thanks for your thoughts on the Perahia/Schubert.  
 

Schiff’s performance is truly remarkable.  I posted the Perahia recording because I own it and know the sonatas fairly well and  because I have always loved Perahia’s playing.  You wrote that you admire Schiff’s style.  I do also and would be tempted to characterize  what I hear as, not lacking, but devoid of “STYLE”.  Not sure I can put what I mean into words.  Incredibly dignified playing in every positive sense of the word.  As much as I hate to say it, makes Perahia sound “young”:’ too much made of crescendos and makes obvious his phasing twists and turns.  Schifff’s peaks after the crescendos don’t sound LOUD; as do Perahia’s.even though there is as much actual volume.  Lovely playing.