Jazz for aficionados

Alex, sorry but I simply don't agree with your take on Dizzy's instrumental playing compared to Miles or others'.  First of all, keep in mind that a comparison of the two players was asked for; I stand by my comments even though I would not necessarily have wanted to make the comparison.  I did not say that Dizzy could not play the trumpet well or that he could not play it softly.  I made the point that compared to Miles' finesse in those areas he was not on the same level.  Your clips highlight what I described.  What can I say?  His tone sounds pinched to me; even without the mute.  You like the "edge"; edge is only one part of a great tone.  I much prefer a fuller tone a la Morgan or Hubbard.  Miles' tone wasn't particularly full sounding either; but, not as thin as Dizzy's.  His intonation is erratic compared to Miles' and he "flubs" over notes too often for my taste.   I don't hear the absolute control of other players.  Lastly, as I said previously, his improvisations often sound like bebop solos superimposed on a different style.  Please keep in mind that all of this is relative.  Again, I am not saying that he couldn't  play the trumpet; that would be silly.  Yes, I think he was playing the way he wanted to play; but, that does not mean that he could play a different way.  Regards.

Alex, for whatever it may be worth, I am not alone in my assessment of Dizzy’s tone and intonation. Again, it’s always relative to the best:

http://www.jazz-music-history.com/Dizzy-Gillespie.html

"Dizzy Gillespie was not highly regarded by most established trumpet stars at this time. The established swing trumpet players focused on good tone and intonation. He was focusing on harmonic evolution and had a rather thin tone. His tone got better later on."

https://bahai-library.com/kernfeld_anb_dizzy_gillespie

"A long-standing feature of Gillespie’s playing was evident even then, as a teenage companion, trombonist Norman Powe, recalled: "It was a very fast style. . . . He didn’t have a tone. He doesn’t have a good tone now, but his execution outweighs all that."

"Gillespie brought to trumpet playing an unprecedented ability to play fast-moving melodies, both written and improvised, above complex chord progressions. In the classic recordings with Parker, a succession of nearly perfect unison statements of extremely difficult themes testifies to his uncanny knack for matching his trumpet to Parker’s alto saxophone. He coupled this facility with an audacious imagination that made his improvisations a musical revelation, rather than merely a technical exercise, as it would become in the hands of disciples such as Jon Faddis and Arturo Sandoval. Gillespie achieved this aim at the expense of timbral nuance, and in this regard he was surpassed by Miles Davis and by a chain of stylistically related trumpeters stretching from Fats Navarro, Clifford Brown, Donald Byrd, Lee Morgan, Freddie Hubbard, Woody Shaw, and Wynton Marsalis onward, although all of these players (Davis excepted) owed their basic improvisational approach to Gillespie’s innovations.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4jkDAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=dizzy+gillespie’s+ton...

Frogman, for sure, when I wish to listen some gentle or subtle trumpet playing Dizzy is not my first (or second) pick and I agree with you on that matter. All the players you have mentioned had more to say on that subject.
.
 But it seems to me that article you posted proves my thoughts about it...
...'his amazingly sophisticated harmonic insight...his stunning ability to improvise brilliantly at any tempo...instead the limelight was thrown on the one aspect of his playing in which he placed little importance....he always regarded tone as comparatively minor consideration....he had no choice, but to give priority to sound he made'

It  certainly would be interesting to hear more recordings where he 'had no choice' but to give 'priority to the sound', but it seems that he did not cared for that aspect of his playing,for whatever reason.
That was my thought and I simply said that I believe that, by judging on his displayed technique, he could achived that aspect as well, if he only wanted.

Alex, what we are talking about are not necessarily artistic choices; and, in the case of Dizzy, I don’t believe they were. Moreover, we may be misinterpreting, what the author of that quote is saying. Some jazz players cultivate the ability to sound loose or with a "casual" attitude in their tone for artistic expression. Miles was that kind of player; he could sound beautifully in control with excellent intonation and relaxed tone and if he wanted to other times sound the way a beginning trumpet student might sound. He was in control. Other players simply didn’t learn to play their instrument in a way that allows the tone to be fully developed and with good intonation. This is rudimentary in the physical act of playing a wind instrument. Dizzy was a completely self-taught player and he put emphasis on fast playing and high playing. While this fact, unto itself, may sound impressive, it is rare the self taught wind player that doesn’t develop some terrible playing habits. There are ways to accomplish the speed and range and still not develop the other traits in one’s playing. In fact, by starting with the "fast and high" pproach it makes it almost impossible to accomplish them.  First thing any good teacher tells a student: "Play it very slowly". Moreover, his ability to improvise the way he did has nothing to do with the issue of finesse and control. In fact, it is a cliche among players that, generally, the ones who play a million notes are the ones likely to have issues with finesse and control. I have no idea whether Dizzy wanted to be able to play with the finesse and control of someone like Miles. You seem to be suggesting that he could at any moment, if he wanted to. No way! As with any other player on any instrument, if he really wanted to, sure! But it was going to require a complete rethinking of his embouchure, the way that he blows and other considerations. Reversing old playing habits could take a couple of years.

All of this may sound very calculated and in conflict with the creative spirit of jazz playing, but it is a reality that every player experiences whether studying an instrument formally or not. Many great jazz players, even if they did not attend Juilliard like Miles did for a while, started with teachers that, at least, pointed the way. There is a tendency to think that jazz players simply stick the instrument in their mouths or hands and magic happens. It’s much more than that.

"I spent my first week in New York looking for Bird and Dizzy. Juilliard was only a smokescreen, a stopover, a pretense I used to put me close to being around Bird and Diz."

Those were Miles very own words; Diz didn't go to St. Louis looking for Miles, he came to New York looking for Bird and Diz; that was from the start, which tells a lot.

Dizzy G, was the ultimate "jazz musician" who could innovate like nobody you ever heard; that's how he was able to consistently play "jazz" that sounded fresh and brand new from the 40's until his death. He never sounded "stereotypical", meaning clinging to certain riffs that he repeated, but each time he reworked his old tunes until they sounded new.

While Diz never left the "jazz compound" he pushed and re-invented his music in such a way that it was always new and fresh.


Throughout most of my "jazz life" I was equally a Diz and Miles fan; that is until Miles trolley jumped the tracks, and I no longer liked his music. Trying to quantify Miles new music would give me a a "brain-ache", therefore I won't, but leave it at the fact I could live without it.


Enjoy the music.

Frogman, I really appreciate your 'inside' comments, there is no reason why I should not believe you. It would be interesting if somebody could come up with some material where perhaps Dizzy was faced with question or comment about it, meaning why he emphasized one 'style' of playing over another

"Some days you get up and put the horn to your chops and it sounds pretty good and you win. Some days you try and nothing works and the horn wins. This goes on and on and then you die and the horn wins." - Dizzy Gillespie 

"How do I know why Miles walks off the stage? Why don't you ask him? And besides, maybe we'd all like to be like Miles, and just haven't got the guts." - Dizzy Gillespie

Similar to being a combat infantryman, the guy who got a Silver Star yesterday is hiding behind a tree today . We all have good and bad days, there are no heroes .

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.  

Dizzy might have wasted air, but I don't believe in wasting words.

" 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". So say's the "Learsfool".

That was the umpteenth bogus "Jazz" statement made by "Learsfool"- he was a fantastic musician, but these are not the same.

After that, he gets even more bogus, and ends his whole "bogus summation" with "I hope this all makes sense". Yes it does all make sense; it makes "Frog sense".


Learsfool, are you sure your on the right thread; this is "Jazz For Aficionados".

Don't believe in being polite either . Crass attacks Class .

Learsfool forgot more about music than you know and his post is very well written and insightful , a delight to peruse !.

It's bad enough that a person can insist on, for whatever personal reasons, closing himself off to new ideas or possibilities; unfortunate, but clearly a personal choice.  However, to turn to insults because, in that person's small and closed off mindset, the possibility that there might be something new or interesting to learn that he didn't know previously is too bruising to his ego is beyond pathetic.  Classic O-10:

Ask a question, pose a challenge or propose an "exercise" in comparison of musicians.  Then, when ideas are proposed that are not in line with what he thinks he believes, even in the absence of anything written that is remotely personal or that should be provocative, turn to personal insults and derail the whole matter.  Moreover, I said "THINKS he believes" because he doesn't offer anything substantive to make HIS case.  Really?

Dizzy has been the "only" jazz musician who has not had a "dropout"; meaning an album I could quite well live without since the first time I heard him. The great "Bird" has blown notes that would have been best left in his horn. (The great "Bird" might have needed a quick fix, while Diz never got close to the stuff) Plus, even the best jazz musicians have had short dry spells, but not Diz; that is according to my taste.

I don't know how many versions of "Kush" he has recorded; sort of like Monk, and "Round Midnight"; the same can be said for "Diz" and "Night In Tunisia"; no matter which one, I like them all.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xncznvkB7S8



The recording quality on this "Kush" isn't the best, but the music is.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRPlKDuRHHo


Enjoy the music.

Frogman, you and Schubert should both read the thread title together, maybe it will soak in; it's not titled "Classical Music For Aficionados", it's not titled "Music for Musician Aficionados"; it's not titled; thread for "Writing Aficionados"; it's titled "Jazz For Aficionados" and all others can get lost; especially when they attempt to speak with authority.

Frogman, you are always trying to "discombobulate" this "Miles" with that Miles, and the other Miles in order to get "Your" Miles on page 1, but it wont work; we all know when Miles Trolley jumped the tracks, and it just kept on going until it was way out in the middle of the cornfield.

Now you think you can "nit pick" Diz somehow or another to show where Miles was better, but it won't work, not until "Donkeys fly"; seen any flying donkeys lately?

Sometimes the hole a person digs for himself is so deep that any kind of retort is superfluous at best. O-10, I hope you feel better soon; sincerely.

Frogman, here is Miles Davis's last recording; Doo Bop;


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1k_BrA8CI


Here is Dizzy's last recording; we'll even let "your panel" be the judge in regard to the best "jazz" recording, and consider that musician the winner.


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auxl5QbT528




Enjoy the music.

+3'

Frogman, your allegations against me have revolved around the same thing and they are always true, and first I'll reveal why they are true.

When I began this thread, "Jazz For Aficionados" sounded like a nice title; now I are an "Aficionado" (that was a bit of humor). When one can hear into the center of the soul of the music we call jazz, that is when one is an "Aficionado". I'll give you a very specific example. "Heavy Soul" is an album that has been out since 63; that's when I bought it.

The album didn't get much mention initially, but like a snowball rolling down a hill, it gathered more flakes of snow, and now it's quite prominent among "Aficionados"; oh! there's that word again.

When I heard the depths of emotion emanating from all the musicians on that album, I knew they were saying something that went beyond the music.

"Grant Green", you remember him, his album "Idle Moments" didn't become popular until long after it was out. I heard the often spoke about soul in Joe Henderson's solo on "Idle Moments" long before others. I could go on and on, but now I think you are getting my drift as to why I am considered an "Aficionado".

Although this does not apply to our current debate, it does apply to the debate that is raging underneath.


Enjoy the music.

I know you noticed the approving looks Dizzy gave Arturo; now i know where I can get my Dizzy fix.

Went to cinema last night, saw 'Miles ahead'. Not recommended.
But, it seems that 'we' are going in circles here, with all that 'new' vs 'old' jazz, with or without 'soul'.

Just wanted to say, that, looking at the not so good movie, one must try to imagine Mile's chaotic life as described in that moment.
Its really obvious that he, regardless of his opinion that music should always evolve, could not create music from previous 'life' or time.

To be honest I doubt that anybody could, if he did not lived in a bubble.
It would be interesting to check are there any memorable 'jazz jazz' compositions that were made after, lets say '69.?

So, maybe we should just conclude that some of our preferences are about certain music in certain time frame and thats all.
Naming music from one point of time exclusively 'jazz' is certainly missperception, but one could argue that that was perhaps 'the best' period, but not the only one.
 Its like that with many other things,there is always a 'glory' period, for some, but life (and music) just goes on anyway 

 

Alex, I agree with you about the film; I saw and commented on it a few months ago.  I was also surprised with how unimpressive Don Cheadle was as an actor in that role;  regardless of the quality of the material.

What you say about our preferences is true and is something that, as you know, we have been futilely trying to "conclude" here for quite some time.  We can, as you say, "argue" about which period is "best"; but, ultimately, "best" is still about what our own individual favorite period in the music is.  That is why I object to the idea of a "best" jazz  player and the use of the term "jazz-jazz"; it implies that one period is more "jazz" than another.  Try and tell a swing music or Lester Young devotee that Monk is "more jazz" than Lester Young.  The (arguably) granddaddy of jazz Louis Armstrong famously once referred to bebop as "Chinese music"; that says it all.  Personally, I don't have a "favorite period".  I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with having one; only that I get as much satisfaction from listening to a fantastic traditional or swing band as I do from Coltrane or the best electric-period Herbie Hancock.  My feeling is that it's the quality of the performance that matters more than the particular style.  We have a tendency to deem a style that we don't like, or understand on the same level as one that we do like, as automatically inferior.  IMO, this goes to why some of our discussions here go off-track and we go, as you say, "in circles".  Take the Miles/Gillespie debate:

Putting aside how anyone of us may feel about Miles' last few recordings (which I don't like much; certainly not as compared to his earlier things) and using your 1969 date as a benchmark, Miles was doing things leading up to 1969 that was far more innovative than anything Dizzy ever did and which was still squarely in the "jazz-jazz" (😒) category.  That didn't make him "better" than Dizzy.  Dizzy was tremendously important, but most of what he did right to the end of his career harkens back to HIS "golden period"...bebop.  Sure, he reworked "Night In Tunisia" different ways; but, it's still "NIT".  

No player is or was without flaw or subject to criticism of some kind.  A big problem with out discussions is that we tend to put our favorite players (or styles) on a pedestal and when anything remotely critical is said all perspective is lost.  Why all the drama and insults from some(one) when, AFTER A MUSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE IS ASKED FOR for comparison, it is pointed out that Miles was a better TRUMPET PLAYER than Dizzy?  Especially when details explaining why and additional corroboration is given?  Seems to me that a far more productive and insightful approach would be to try and understand the difference between "trumpet player" and "musician" as Learsfool correctly stressed.  THEN we can really get somewhere if a comparison must be made.  Even better would be to abandon the  bulls%#t and arrogant notion that anyone one of us has a deeper insight into the "soul" of any music and that because someone can speak to the technical aspects of music that this somehow means that there is less appreciation of the "soul".  What a bunch of self serving cr*p!  How does anyone of us know how music touches someone else and why?  This is unfortunately the fallback position for some.  Those are things in the subjective realm.  Things like what makes a better instrumentalist than someone else or which music is more advanced harmonically or compositionally are not subjective (mostly); there are many verifiably objective ways to make those assessments.  Is any of this necessary to enjoy or love any music or musician?  Of course not.  But, to dismiss these very real issues while insisting on making judgment calls and comparisons is foolish.

But, it seems that 'we' are going in circles here, with all that 'new' vs 'old' jazz, with or without 'soul'.

Alex, could you take your time and elaborate on that. I don't think we are going in circles, I think we are getting closer to defining a very complex music.

From my point of view, music is affected by so many things other than music, which have currently gone astray, that music currently is not as good as in the past. While jazz might be most affected, if what I say is true, other genres would also be affected.

"Soul" is a word that exists in many languages, and that's the way it is used in jazz, which differentiates it from "Soul Music".

It would be impossible to describe the music of "Bobby Timmons" without the use of the word "Soul".

Jazz is an evolving music; however, I don't think it's evolving into "Doo Bop", or even in that direction.

Woody Shaw is an artist I'm not as familiar with, as I would like to be. There were so many top notch jazz artists at one time, that I will have to go back, and pick up on those I missed.

I checked his "Bio" and it's no wonder he reminded me so much of "Diz"; his mother was from the same home town, and it's apparent he crossed paths with Diz a lot. When I buy Woody Shaw, I can get young Diz with good recording quality.


Enjoy the music.

Frogman, you are a politician posing as musician; " Seems to me that a far more productive and insightful approach would be to try and understand the difference between "trumpet player" and "musician" as Learsfool correctly stressed."

Why don't you and Learsfool take that route, I'm concerned with the music coming out of the speakers, whether Diz is puffed up like a frog matters not .

+1'

Why don't we call the Miles, Diz comparison a wash and go on to the next thing; How about jazz vocal groups. "Bengal and Beyond" is the one I'm into right now.

     

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUFqUur7bZg



"New York Voices" is nice;


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP6mX_HtgGI


And don't leave out "Manhatten Transfer"


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YsE-wQn9c


Enjoy the music.

That was my first ever post taken down by the moderator. You have to admire the efficiency if not the logic.

What was their logic; flawed and all?  Curious.

Killer clip, Acman3.  Carter Jefferson on tenor tearing it up.  Now, THERE'S a player deserving greater recognition .

If I was forced to pick my favorite ten and only ten jazz records, this would be one of them.  Cult classic recording.  The great Larry Young on organ, Elvin Jones, Joe Henderson and Woody Shaw.  Amazing synergy between Young and Jones and overalll playing on the highest level:

:https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOL4BdmfT02hjS1WELDBOEr4Nk37kqI7O

Frogman, if only you were as good an Aficionado, as you are a politician; it seems you have your devotees convinced on that Miles thing, but not Acman.

Now if Miles went to New York looking for Bird and Diz? Who made Miles?

Frogman, have you ever heard the term "Modern Jazz"; what musicians is that most accredited to; can you say Bird, Diz , and Monk.

If you want to know who is the better musician, I suggest you read Miles "Autobiography".

+5'

I wonder if Home Depot has extra long shovels?

Sorry O-10, but actually I agree with both Frogman and Learsfool. Not as a devotee as you say or a Minion as rock calls it. 

I am a huge Dizzy fan, and you are correct in saying Miles, Sandoval, or Shaw would never gotten to where they got without Dizzy, and you have to look hard to find a bad cut, much less a bad album of Dizzy's, but the trumpet players who were inspired by him, actually passed the teacher as Jazz evolved. Dizzy's ideas were still amazing and he may have been the better musician, but what Frogman and Learsfool are saying is he couldn't evolve and as great as he was, he was replaced. 

It happens to most everyone, in most every field. Time moves forward and we are left behind.

Someone needs to start a new jazz forum and leave the jerk to HIS circle .

Schubert, you are the jerk going in a circle.

chill, peoples...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGThdYB38Hs&ab_channel=foreverzero001

Frogman, does everyone have a problem with the word "Soul"? Has anyone heard the album "Soul Brothers Soul Meeting"? As I specified before, the word "Soul" takes on a different meaning from the way it's used in "Soul Music". You, Alex, and Learsfool, seem to have a problem hearing and understanding the depth and meaning of that word; maybe if you listened to the album with Ray Charles, and "Bag's", or the one titled "Bean Bags", you might be able to comprehend the word.

By the way, that has nothing to do with our present debate; that's why I'm bringing it up.


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhgUUe5czxc



        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHold6ylvEM



Enjoy the music.

That was one of the funniest movies I ever saw, with some of the best "Soul music" I ever heard.

Apparently, it's time for "Down and dirtY"; you guys don't even know the time span, or jazz musicians who were influenced by "Bird and Diz". I use the two because they are responsible for what's called "Modern Jazz"; they "can not" be separated; try "Bird Diz" music and influence. Read what Lennie Tristano has to say about this music.

Since Miles couldn't wait to catch up with "Bird and Diz" in 1944, the music they were working on was before then, which means it covers quite a time span. It was a mass movement from swing to "Be-Bop", which slid into "Hard-Bop" and "Modern-Jazz". The ease with which all of this merged into "Modern-Jazz", the catch all for the jazz of a few decades is astounding.

So many of "Your" favorite musicians give "Bird and Diz" credit for their inspiration; I'll let you name them; but when you compare Miles "Revolution" in jazz which was not universally approved, to Diz,n Birds "Mass Movement" to something as broad as "Modern Jazz", you will find that Miles comes up way short when we look at "The Big Picture."

Regarding 'soul'....Orpheus, it seems that you are following that old moto ’who ever is not with me, is against me’.
Personally, my perspective about music in general or about other people’s choices is little bit wider than my own musical taste.
With little bit of tolerance toward others, we could avoid such ’discussions’.

Very well said, Alex; as usual, you are more of a gentleman than I. Ok, perhaps as O-10 says it is time for "down and dirty". Let’s get "down and dirty"; shall we?

The psychology behind some of this is truly fascinating if more than a little twisted. Here we have an individual that is so personally invested, for egotistical reasons, in being some sort of authority on the subject of jazz that he completely misses the most important and fundamental ingredient in the music: the creative spirit which, at its core, is about openness of mind to new ideas. But, no, the fantasy jazz-reality based on mistaken or incomplete ideas that he has constructed for himself and has become such a huge part of his personal identity cannot possibly have been flawed all these years. Facing this possibility is so difficult that he is willing to destroy the very forum that he started for sharing and discussing the music that he claims to love so much. And destroy it he will by insulting and alienating those who have a different point of view from his and which all evidence shows is much closer to the truth than his point of view. Better to destroy it than to have to deal with having been mistaken about anything that has to do with his personality calling card..."Aficionado". And, yes, all this bulls#% IS one of the main reasons that there aren’t more contributors to this thread. Not that, as he claims, as yet another example of the need to stroke his ego, it is that there are only a select few that have the "insight" or "knowledge" or open window to the "soul" of jazz; a select few that will be smaller and and smaller in numbers until this thread is no more.

O-10, IT WAS you who started this most recent squabble and proceeded to feed it. You asked a question and then proceeded to insult and demean those who factually and in a good spirited way expressed a different point of view from yours. You then, as is usual, proceeded to create smoke screens around your reasons and justifications for your divisive behavior by making statements about things that have nothing to do with the original questions; and you continue to do so. I could address these point for point, but not only am I tired of this, but its all pretty obvious if you just go back over the exchanges. As far as I am concerned you owe everyone here an apology. As always, all this in the hope that this thread can be better than this.

You are right 0-10, I am a jerk 1st class and because the old axiom "takes one to know one" is true,  ,truth be told, I am just jealous that you are the only other full-fledged jerk that has ever surpassed even me .

Ooookay.....here’s hoping for a fresh (re)start:

Ghosthouse, when I posted this a couple of days ago I thought of you and a post you made a while back about a relative (?) that is into Hammond organ. Posting it again in case you, or anyone else, missed it or care to comment on it. I think this record is so good that it merits reposting anyway. Let’s "chill peoples"!:

**** If I was forced to pick my favorite ten and only ten jazz records, this would be one of them. Cult classic recording. The great Larry Young on organ, Elvin Jones, Joe Henderson and Woody Shaw. Amazing synergy between Young and Jones and overall playing on the highest level:

:https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOL4BdmfT02hjS1WELDBOEr4Nk37kqI7O

****

Apparently, it's time for "Down and dirtY"; you guys don't even know the time span, or jazz musicians who were influenced by "Bird and Diz". I use the two because they are responsible for what's called "Modern Jazz"; they "can not" be separated; try "Bird Diz" music and influence. Read what Lennie Tristano has to say about this music.

Since Miles couldn't wait to catch up with "Bird and Diz" in 1944, the music they were working on was before then, which means it covers quite a time span. It was a mass movement from swing to "Be-Bop", which slid into "Hard-Bop" and "Modern-Jazz". The ease with which all of this merged into "Modern-Jazz", the catch all for the jazz of a few decades is astounding.

So many of "Your" favorite musicians give "Bird and Diz" credit for their inspiration; I'll let you name them; but when you compare Miles "Revolution" in jazz which was not universally approved, to Diz,n Birds "Mass Movement" to something as broad as "Modern Jazz", you will find that Miles comes up way short when we look at "The Big Picture."

Let us examine what Miles has to say about Dizzy Gillespie.


"The greatest feeling I ever had in my life-with my clothes on-was when I first heard Diz and Bird together in St. Louis, Missouri, back in 1944. I was eighteen years old and had just graduated from Lincoln High School. It was just across the Mississippi River in East. St. Louis."



"As much as I loved Bird back then, if it hadn't been for Dizzy I wouldn't be where I am today." After that, Miles goes on and on with two pages almost exclusively about "Dizzy Gillespie".

"I'd go over to his house, and Lorraine, his wife, wouldn't let nobody stay there too long but me. She would be saying to Diz, "What you doing with all them people in my house! Get them out of here and I mean right now!" So I would get up to leave too, and she'd say, "Not you Miles, but all the rest of them people got to go".

"Dizzy was also very, very beautiful and I loved him, and still do today.



Frogman, when it comes to laying down "Bull=7#^", nobody lays down more of it than you, and you always do it in such a way that pits me against somebody else.

Let me give yall the Frogman; "he is willing to destroy the very forum that he started for sharing and discussing the music that he claims to love so much. And destroy it he will by insulting and alienating those who have a different point of view from his and which all evidence shows is much closer to the truth than his point of view. Better to destroy it than to have to deal with having been mistaken about anything that has to do with his personality calling card..."Aficionado". And, yes, all this bulls#% IS one of the main reasons that there aren’t more contributors to this thread. Not that, as he claims, as yet another example of the need to stroke his ego, it is that there are only a select few that have the "insight" or "knowledge" or open window to the "soul" of jazz; a select few that will be smaller and and smaller in numbers until this thread is no more.

O-10, IT WAS you who started this most recent squabble and proceeded to feed it. You asked a question and then proceeded to insult and demean those who factually and in a good spirited way expressed a different point of view from yours. You then, as is usual, proceeded to create smoke screens around your reasons and justifications for your divisive behavior by making statements about things that have nothing to do with the original questions; and you continue to do so. I could address these point for point, but not only am I tired of this, but its all pretty obvious if you just go back over the exchanges. As far as I am concerned you owe everyone here an apology. As always, all this in the hope that this thread can be better than this.

Frogman, you set this up by pitting everyone else against me, as far as "You are concerned" I owe everyone an apology" Is that a fact?

According to the great "Schubert" Someone needs to start a new jazz forum and leave the jerk to HIS circle .

Anytime there is a squabble, it can be traced back to the Frogman, who always points the finger at me, and then he comes up with the small number of people on this thread which has lasted longer than any other thread on "Audiogon".

Well, I say to you Mr. Frogman, you have my blessings on your new thread.

Is all this really necessary?
Just because somebody has a different opinion, feeling or appreciation?
Even more, when all the talks is in fact about jazz....

No.

Was listening to early Count Basie today. Wonderful feel on this classic pre-bebop recording and I love Helen Humes’ voice and style. Music that puts a smile on ones’ face; thought it would be just the ticket right now:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ0vmG_tbYA