I'm going to review records in my collection, and you'll be able to decide if they're worthy of your collection. These records are what I consider "must haves" for any jazz aficionado, and would be found in their collections. I wont review any record that's not on CD, nor will I review any record if the CD is markedly inferior. Fortunately, I only found 1 case where the CD was markedly inferior to the record.
Our first album is "Moanin" by Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers. We have Lee Morgan , trumpet; Benney Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; Jymie merrit, bass; Art Blakey, drums.
The title tune "Moanin" is by Bobby Timmons, it conveys the emotion of the title like no other tune I've ever heard, even better than any words could ever convey. This music pictures a person whose down to his last nickel, and all he can do is "moan".
"Along Came Betty" is a tune by Benny Golson, it reminds me of a Betty I once knew. She was gorgeous with a jazzy personality, and she moved smooth and easy, just like this tune. Somebody find me a time machine! Maybe you knew a Betty.
While the rest of the music is just fine, those are my favorite tunes. Why don't you share your, "must have" jazz albums with us.
The most pointless arguments we can possibly have are; "What is jazz, or what is not jazz". That's right up there with what is or is not "Blues"; this is determined by the current majority; I'm reminded of "The Beatles"; "Let it Be".
What we hear is determined by the same factors as what the musician plays musically. The musicians origination is one of the greatest factors in what he plays. What he is actually playing, and what he thinks he's playing might be two different things, but words are one thing, and music is another, and words, not music is what's in the books.
I have a number of music encyclopedias, and the musicians that are labeled as "jazz musicians" is astounding; it seems that the most current books are the most different in regard to what the musician is playing and what I hear, but in this case, definition is determined by younger people for younger musicians; whatever it states is what is, like it or not.
I must not forget that when a record is played, we hear differently; what sounds good to a much younger person may not be so agreeable to me. I'll give you a better example.
Since I knew some of Miles Davis's close friends and relatives; although they would never say it in public, but only in casual conversation with someone they confided in, they could live without Miles most current music. When you think of how many times Miles changed over the years, and how many generations have come to like his music, it's not hard to understand how those who based their collection on what was best during the 50's and 60's, might not have been too fond of his last music, although they didn't love Miles one bit less than when they grew up together.
Most of the conversation/debate above can be summed up by looking at the recording career of Miles Davis, who I believe, over the long run through his contract with Columbia Records, made more money then any other jazz musician in history on recordings. Yet he still was constantly evolving in his music. He considered staying in the same musical comfort zone blasphemy. Eventually he did not even want to call his music jazz anymore. This is evident progressively in all of his years recording.
Starting out when be bop was the in thing he recorded on sessions with Charlie Parker and others. He then went into be bop/ hard bop so you could say he played mostly be bop/hard bop from 1945-1958, when he started to experiment with modality on the title track from the Milestones recording. Kind of Blue was based entirely on modality followed by Sketches of Spain based on Spanish folk music. Constantly evolving you could easily here the freshness of what he played from 1965-68 with Shorter, Hancock, Carter, and Williams. These 4 years saw Miles helping pioneer the post bop genre with more abstract recordings. He then moved into his electric and avant garde recordings In A Silent Way and Bitches Brew. Continuing forward using predominately electric recordings into a jazz/funk/rock type fusion, which, in my opinion was clearly predominant on the Cellar Door Sessions and Agharta. I had quite the listening session last night with Agharta disks 1 and 2, in which I have imported Japanese pressings and the sound is amazing. The music on Agharta takes you on a hour and forty five minute (both discs) "trip" through some amazing music.
So, IMHO, Miles' career tells us all we need to know about how jazz progresses if the artist wants to whether there is money in it or not as Miles was a wealthy man.
I was writing my post above when you posted yours. It is not a coincidence that we both used Miles as an example of the evolution of jazz. and the different directions you can take with it.
***** Eventually he did not even want to call his music jazz anymore.*****
I have always given him credit for this. Now think about it for a moment, Miles Davis, did not consider his music Jazz ANYMORE. He did not say his music was never Jazz, just that it is no longer Jazz. Post-Bitches Brew I assume.
Btw, Wynton said the same thing about Miles' music during this period.
*****What we hear is determined by the same factors as what the musician plays musically. The musicians origination is one of the greatest factors in what he plays. What he is actually playing, and what he thinks he's playing might be two different things*****
Never thought about it that way. You could be on to something. I guess Mose Allison does think he is playing Jazz and Blues. From his point of view, he is.
Miles said he did not want his music to be called jazz PRECISELY because of what we have seen here recently and on and off for about five years now. The insistence on the part of some to limit the definition to what he or she has decided it should be and nothing else. Sound familiar? And this, as if they were truly qualified to be so opinionated and limiting, not to mention dismissive and insulting of other’s opinions; especially when those opinions are held by listeners who are clearly experienced and astute. Talk about “bogus”! Miles felt that attaching the “jazz” label to it was far too limiting and went counter to the true spirit of jazz: improvisatory creativity and boundless search for new ways of expression. The very meaning which ironically seems to elude some.
Worse still is when so many misconceptions and distortions, not to mention contradictions, are bandied about as if they were truth with not one iota of humility and deference to the simple fact that compared to some of the musical geniuses that we discuss here we have a great deal to learn.
**** just that it is no longer Jazz. Post-Bitches Brew I assume. ****
Wrong. He said it well before he started playing the kind of jazz that some would insist is not jazz at all.
**** The public decides who and what is great and good, and what is not great and good. ****
One of the recurring and mistaken “gems”. Kenny G anyone? Informed, thoughtful and open-minded listeners determine what is good (for themselves).
**** Why is it that Jazz is the only genre that MUST evolve? People still love Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc....... no matter how much noise the Stravinsky types make. No one is throwing their Classical CDs in the trash because the music is old. Why should I dump Ellington. ****
The height of absurdity (sorry, but the “bogus” comment opened that door for me). All genres evolve and do. To feel that Stravinsky is noise speaks volumes. Now we get to the good stuff as concerns this thread. Just who is saying “dump Ellington”? I have always found it very telling that those who see validity in quality new jazz are never dismissive of quality old jazz and do nothing but appreciate it as well; there is room for both. Moreover, they are often also the most informed and astute re old jazz.
**** they crave recognition of their talents and their efforts from the public. ****
Hate to break it to you, but what artists crave the most is recognition from fellow artists; they are each other’s toughest critics.
**** Change does not mean better. It’s just different. ****
Who said anything about “better”? Problem is the narrow-minded insist that change necessarily means worse. It does not.
Ok, this one takes the cake. So, Mose Allison, jazz pianist, composer, singer and recording artist only THINKS that he is playing jazz. But, you know better, he really isn’t. Not that it is a kind of jazz that you don’t particularly like; it isn’t jazz at all. Poor guy doesn’t have a clue as to what he’s doing. Got it.
*****Talk about “bogus”! Miles felt that attaching the “jazz” label to it was far too limiting and went counter to the true spirit of jazz: improvisatory creativity and boundless search for new ways of expression. The very meaning which ironically seems to elude some.*****
Lets see: He thought calling it JAZZ was too limiting because the true spirit of JAZZ is improvisatory creativity and boundless search for new ways of expression.
I guess that statement makes sense to you and your ’followers’. Btw, I didn’t say his music was not Jazz, Miles didn’t think it was Jazz, and Wynton said it wasn’t. That’s good enough for me. I guess your learned opinion trumps the opinion of Wynton Marsalis.
*****One of the recurring and mistaken “gems”. Kenny G anyone? Informed, thoughtful and open-minded listeners determine what is good (for themselves). *****
Well, ’listeners’ may determine what is good for them, BUT listeners don’t make a living playing music. Musicians do. And successful musicians know who and what ultimately signs their checks. The rest hang around barber shops talking what coulda, shoulda, woulda.
*****Hate to break it to you, but what artists crave the most is recognition from fellow artists; they are each other’s toughest critics.*****
Does not even pass the common sense test. Just something you said to Refute my point. You can’t eat or pay your rent off of peer group acclaim.
*****Ok, this one takes the cake. So, Mose Allison, jazz pianist, composer, singer and recording artist only THINKS that he is playing jazz. But, you know better, he really isn’t. Not that it is a kind of jazz that you don’t particularly like; it isn’t jazz at all. Poor guy doesn’t have a clue as to what he’s doing. Got it.*****
Absolutely. He thinks he is playing The Blues. Just like the middle class boys from London and Liverpool, and their fans. They think it’s the blues. Probably passes muster at Julliard. But not at the Rum Boogie. And trust me, they know.
Yes, I do know better. You think I was born yesterday? I think I know the blues when I hear it. Poor guy had a clue he was making money, mostly outside the South, other than that, he is clueless. I wonder if he ever played in any juke joints in Mississippi?
And I’m glad to hear you have finally got something. I was beginning to wonder.
I asked a few questions in my previous post, concerning new ’Jazz’ and the players thereof.. I see you were selective in ignoring them. hmmmmmmmmmm. Makes a body wonder.
Cheers
Btw, my career choice had no room for all this humility stuff. That’s where we agree that everyone will be right an equal number of times.
**** Btw, I didn’t say his music was not Jazz ****
You’ve been saying it is not jazz since you started posting here. Pleas don’t make me have to go to the “archives” to prove you wrong again.
**** Does not even pass the common sense test. Just something you said to Refute my point. You can’t eat or pay your rent off of peer group acclaim ****
I never say anything just to refute a point. Go spend a few decades around musicians of all persuasions and then get back to me. You have no idea of what you speak.
**** I asked a few questions in my previous post, concerning new ’Jazz’ and the players thereof.. I see you were selective in ignoring them. hmmmmmmmmmm. Makes a body wonder. ****
Perhaps you mean these:
**** 5. What year was the last Jazz Standard written?
6. These modern guys spend a lot of time playing, or trying to play, Trane, Parker et al. I wonder why? ****
Be careful what you wish for. I was merely trying to spare you any further embarrassment since the answers are so obvious and I found it hard to believe that you would have to ask. Just a few modern jazz standards that come to mind:
Birdland Maiden Voyage Wave Forest Flower Chameleon Spain A Child Is Born Watermelon Man Footprints
Most written in the late 70’s- early 80’s. Of course, and the key point, I have no doubt that you understand that just as it took decades for the songs that would eventually be considered “standards” to be considered as such, it will also take worthy newer compositions a comparable length of time. And, I’m also certain that you understand that most “jazz standards” were not written as jazz tunes at all, but were written for Broadway and other popular genres.
Re the players:
It is no surprise that you would not be able to hear that what good post -Coltrane players are doing is an extension of Trane without sounding LIKE Trane. Others still sound nothing like Trane (Lovano). Cannonball, Phil Woods, Charles McPherson and others were an extension of Bird, so should we ask why they were trying so hard to sound like Bird? Besides, I don’t think anyone who by his own admission has never liked Bird’s playing much is qualified to ask the question.
As always this nonsense gets very tiresome. Just what is it that you gain by denigrating others’ viewpoints which, if anything, are inclusive of others’ tastes?
**** That’s where we agree that everyone will be right an equal number of times. ****
*****Most written in the late 70’s- early 80’s. Enter your text*******
That's coming up on 50 years!!!! That's what you call modern?
*****And, I’m also certain that you understand that most “jazz standards” were not written as jazz tunes at all, but were written for Broadway and other popular genres. *****
I know that, but I was speaking of standards created by Jazz players / composers. And you knew that. Stalling!!
Your list seems kind of old to me.
*****As always this nonsense gets very tiresome. Just what is it that you gain by denigrating others’ viewpoints which, if anything, are inclusive of others’ tastes? *****
I am not denigrating anyone or anything. Just stating my point of view, along with a few facts.
Having done so, I think I will take a sabbatical along with the OP. As someone said recently, my kind of music is no longer discussed here. But they did offer to give me links to places where it is discussed. I sure do thank you all.
It is our custom to acknowledge the passing of all jazz artists and their contribution to the art. Cecil Taylor contributed greatly to "Avant Garde" jazz. Anyone who considers Avant Garde special, might post links that will enlighten us who might be a shade in the dark.
Thank you Jafant for informing us, and Acman for that link that sheds light on Mr. Cecil Taylor.
Disputes are best settled in a way that they no longer linger. In the case of Mose Allison, his obituary says he was a jazz and blues pianist, since we never argue with anyone's obituary, that's settled once and for all, "He was a jazz and Blues pianist".
There must be a way to settle disputes of this nature in a non-arbitrary fashion; if "Wikipedia" says it is so, there it is, case closed for this thread.
Music is emotional, and so are we; consequently we must have a non-emotional manner of settling disputes of this nature in this thread, that closes the case. If someone doesn't like the verdict, I suggest they take it up with "Wikipedia".
There is nothing I hate more than being misunderstood; when people from Boston talked, they assumed they were speaking English, but some of us who also spoke English, failed to understand them.
When you have a crowd of people, from every state in the "United States", such as the first gathering for basic training in one of our branches of service, that's when you will discover, we may all speak "English" but we still don't all understand the English that is spoken from each individual state.
That's what I meant when I spoke of our "origination"; it also has an effect on how we speak musically.
I would like to thank pjw81563 for introducing someone most of us were unaware of, "Ladie Kim". I know this is my first time hearing Ladie Kim or, Kim Zombik, because there is another Lady Kim known for "Twerking". I don't want you to get them confused.
Right now, her CD's are outside of my economic range, consequently I won't be getting acquainted with Lady Kim anytime soon.
O-10, I appreciate your comments. There is nothing wrong with disagreement nor even with dispute when it is handled with a modicum of respect for others and for others’ point of view.
**** I am not denigrating anyone or anything. Just stating my point of view, along with a few facts. ****
Rok, those relatively new to this thread may not be aware that this latest dispute is nothing new. As I have suggested many times previously there is a way to express one’s point of view without referring to others’ points of view as “bogus”, “noise”, etc. Why that is not obvious nor a priority when having a “discussion” is a mystery to me, but imo that is what causes problems; and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Clearly, your “facts” may not be someone else’s. Perhaps this example will cause you to reconsider your “facts” (and “sabbatical”?) and consider the possibility that there may be something else at play here:
**** Having done so, I think I will take a sabbatical along with the OP. As someone said recently, my kind of music is no longer discussed here. ****
I went back one month over this thread’s posts (to 3/7) and took a look at all the posts. I stopped at 4/6 with the first Mose Allison post. I stopped there because that seems to have been the catalyst for the recent dispute, but mostly because I couldn’t take the counting any more 🤪. I divided the posts during this period into three categories. Each submission of a music clip was counted as 1 whether it was accompanied by commentary or not. A commentary without a clip was also counted as 1. I didn’t need this exercise to know what the results would be, but since “facts” seem to matter most let’s present some facts. The three categories were:
1. Music clips that were presented without any claim of being jazz of any kind (Doo wop, Classical, Soul), and/or commentary unrelated to music.
2. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “new jazz” (loosely speaking, post-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion).
3. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “old jazz” (loosely speaking, pre-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion). And btw, the majority of these were submitted by those also supportive of “new jazz”.
I hope I will be forgiven for being off by 10 or so in each category; expediency demanded a bit of a rush job. I believe the results are representative of the entire history of this thread. The results:
1. 95
2. 65
3. 250 !!!!!!
Begs the question: Exactly what is the problem? I hope you reconsider.
Miles seemed to be like a plant, he had to continue growing or else he felt he was dead. Actually the PBS Nature program last week on Butterflies suggested a better simile. He metamorphosed through multiple rebirths in style, just as pjw outlined.
I remember attending a Miles concert in the mid-’70s. When we entered the auditorium the curtain was open and the stage was lined with speakers and electronics. When the musicians entered everyone "plugged in". Well, maybe not the drummer and percussionists, their instruments were already mic’ed. I can’t say now but it was likely 7 or 8 in the band, and they were loud! The concert was long enough to have an intermission and by the break at least half the audience walked out. That was not the Miles they knew -- and loved.
Because he remains one of my favorite musicians (but yes, I don’t enjoy EVERYTHING he did) I’ve read a few books and interviews on and with him. My sense is he despised the fact that jazz musicians such as himself achieved limited popularity and financial reward compared to many rock musicians which he considered to be without much talent. So his restless musical mind drove him to explore new "electronic" expressions, but he also admittedly sought to reach a wider audience. From my reading that was a very conscious move.
For the record, I enjoy "Bitches Brew", but a few albums later he lost me.
Apparently near the end he did revisit some of his "classic" numbers. Was that the nostalgia of aging? I don’t have any recordings from that period.
Otherwise, can we simply admit we don’t all hold the same tastes and preferences and just post what we enjoy to share with others to judge for themselves? That is how I read o-10s concept in beginning this anyway.
**** Since "Bitches Brew" came out in 1970, there is no way you can call jazz after that "new jazz". If so, there is a ton of new jazz that I like. ****
Not my criterion (dividing line). I would prefer to call it simply jazz. Your comment makes my point. Why attach those divisive labels to it which come with preconceived notions and biases? It does the music a disservice. Of course there is a ton of jazz to like after BB. There still is.
Nice Salvant clips. I haven’t always liked her that much, but she sounds great here. Thanks for the clips. I like the piano player too. His bio is a great testament to the scope and depth of many of today’s young players and shatters a lot of the preconceived notions and biases that some of the “old jazz” hardliners hang on to. Check it out:
In answer to your question: Well, if you go to the very source of that style (stride), it would have to be James P. Johnson or Willie “The Lion” Smith, but most associate Fats Waller with the style.
I have enjoyed your comments on this issue . I too agree it is fruitless to debate what is or isn't "jazz". I have been listening to jazz for the better part of 4 decades(all types) and have seen it go through many changes, assimilating other forms of music to bring something new to the table. I believe that jazz , at it's ESSENCE , does evoke change and evolution by the creative artists who participate. I believe it's part of the natural scheme of things. Every night when a jazz musician gets on the bandstand he or she is changing the music they play. Every time they solo the music is evolving as they are playing differently than previous engagements. A perfect example of a musician looking for change and a new direction is Miles Davis in 1959 when KOB was recorded. Looking for a move away from the chord changes of bebop which had dominated the music for almost 15 years he consulted with George Russell whose musical theory was based around scales.He bought in Bill Evans , who was also familiar with these theories and the freeing harmonically from chord changes allowed the music to expand melodically and creating a major change in jazz music. And these changes in the music have continued with styles labeled as "free jazz", "post bop" , "free bop", "jazz-rock", etc. BTW it is no surprise that Miles Davis dropped the term "jazz" when describing his music. It is well documented that many african-american musicians did not like the term jazz which was coined by whites who controlled the business . I think where this discussion gets bogged down is in STYLISTIC differences. And as you said appreciation of music is subjective. I say if the music touches your heart and soul and you like it ,great. If someone else doesn't like it as you say "let it be"'. An example of subjective response to music is frogman stating previously that Charlie Mariano was his favorite alto sax player (BTW I have been trying to dig into the archives to see what subjects were previously covered and contributors feelings on the subject) . I was impressed that he said he would not say Mariano is the "best" sax player as this would be a "dicey" proposition. This goes to the element of subjectivity. I like Charlie Mariano a lot but Art Pepper is my favorite alto player. But I also would not say he is the "best " in his category as this denigrates the contribution of others. I might try to explain why he is my favorite but that doesn't make him "better" than someone else's alto sax choice. This type of back and forth bickering that has been going on makes no sense. As you said "agree to disagree"
To label a group of musicians such as the latest generation as "changing the music so they could play it " suggests that these newer musicians are dumbing down jazz music. Which is in no way true. I agree with frogman when he said today's musicians are better trained than in the past and can do more different things . Does that make them better than musicians of the past ?Not necessarily. I may make this point: that when jazz music changes stylistically that the listener may change how they listen to the music to be able to appreciate what the musicians are attempting to convey. Or to put it another way it takes a different set of ears to absorb and appreciate a new direction. Some people try and they get it , others try and the music does not resonate with them. I have been lucky to absorb and appreciate many of the new directions in jazz. I don't want to go on forever so i will wrap it up. frogman I feel your frustration and appreciate your thoughts. I would like to pose a question for anyone on jazz standards. Can participants in this forum name more "current " songs by artists they feel should be or are jazz standards? Or is the selection of jazz standard decided by the musicians themselves by those who play other frequently other's tunes? Just what is the process? I appreciate the feedback of all.
@nsp - I 100 percent agree with all of your points. I love Miles, Dizzy, Trane, Monk, Nina, Ella, Cannonball, Jimmy Smith, Sonny Rollins, Art Blakey, Bird, Art Pepper, Ben Webster, Ray Brown, Chet Baker, Stan Getz, Antonio Carlos Jobim, and Oscar Peterson to name a few. I also think some of best part of jazz music during that era was that they all recycled certain songs, songs today we call standards and each one of them gave us their own interpretations of it. But I also love today's music as well. Cats like Christian McBride, Joshua Redman, Marcus Miller, Ben Williams Esperanza Spaulding, Charlie Hunter, Roy Hargrove, Kenny Garrett also to name a few. All I believe has made songs that I believe will be jazz standards one day. I'm a big George Benson fan, but I notice he doesn't get the same run as some other guitarist on this thread. Why, because he crossed over? All nonsense to me because he has made some of the greatest contributions to this art form. The same of the late great George Duke. I love jazz music as it's a part of my everyday life. Music is personal, if it moves you, grooves you, makes your head nod, foot tap, fingers snap or inspires you that artist has completed his goal. Judging eras in music is as silly as judging athletes you can't. Simply because we can't speak to ones music connection or motivation. I thank God for our legends of the past and for those today that were inspired by them. I ask the question, what is life without music? God gave us these fabulous artist to satisfy us all from within, why must we spend our time trying to decide who is better. Enjoy the music and accept our blessing.
nsp, these are some of my speculations in regard to why new jazz just doesn't "wig" me.
I spoke of "origination", which is where the musician, and the listener came from. When they both came from one of the major cities, they were on the same frequency, and communicated. Now that so much, meaning a large part of our major cities no longer exist, it complicates things. Music does not exist in a vacuum.
Clubs in our major cities were where so many jazz artists honed the art of making jazz. Presently, the jazz environment is in a flux. If you look to somebody from the country to produce good jazz after going to a good music school, you might be disappointed.
So many times I hear about how good the artists in the past are compared to today. I've also noticed how today's artists can excel at playing classical, but not jazz, or they can play jazz as long as it's written down. That tells me artists of today, are as good as artists of yesterday, when it comes to their instrument, but they haven't mastered the jazz vocabulary or feel.
The improvising skills required to play good jazz are honed in night clubs with other jazz musicians. If these clubs, and that environment don't exist, the music has to come up short.
In the meantime, while the new jazz musicians work out the kinks, I'll be listening to the old jazz.
Quite correct you are about "Birth Of The Cool" That whole affair, although it started around 1949 I believe, so it must be said that was miles first foray outside the bebop stuff, was kind of strange. The nonet, which had revolving musicians and was recorded in over a year I believe, with just a few songs being released as singles until the album was released by Capital Records (11 tracks) in 1957. Not one of my favorites but you are correct in that it was his first "alternate direction"
orpheus10 Cecil Taylor was a one of a kind spirit who went his own way and carved out a style unlike anyone else. Intense, thought provoking , not for the faint of heart. Some thought he was all noise , no technique, I disagree. Not always easy to listen to but a journey well worth taken.http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJWcxzZBVE
**** I think where this discussion gets bogged down is in STYLISTIC differences. ****
**** that when jazz music changes stylistically that the listener may change how they listen to the music to be able to appreciate what the musicians are attempting to convey. Or to put it another way it takes a different set of ears to absorb and appreciate a new direction. Some people try and they get it , others try and the music does not resonate with them. ****
That point is so important and goes to what I am afraid is an old stereotype. That of young players and the whole “music school” myth.
**** I've also noticed how today's artists can excel at playing classical, but not jazz, or they can play jazz as long as it's written down. That tells me artists of today, are as good as artists of yesterday, when it comes to their instrument, but they haven't mastered the jazz vocabulary or feel. ****
O-10, I have to respectfully correct you on that point. I am not sure where or why you have this notion that good players today can play jazz only when it is written down or that they can’t excel at it. That suggests that they don’t improvise. It is simply not true and goes to nsp’s point. It also seems to contradict some of what you have said in your last few posts. If they are not improvising it is not jazz. THAT is a given. They most certainly can improvise; and some do it brilliantly. They play in a style that apparently does not resonate with you. That’s fine, but don’t short change them. If anything, many excellent young players today have absorbed a broader vocabulary than most of the old guard. It is the style (feel) that is a distillation of all the previous styles that perhaps does not resonate with you. Moreover, young players today still hone their craft in clubs and jam sessions as they always have. That is another stereotype. On a smaller scale than in the past, but on any given night in NYC you can find good jazz at several clubs. What is different is that in SOME cases they also have a more formal training as instrumentalists. They can do things on their instruments that many of the older players could not. That opens a lot of possibilities. Again, it is the style that is different.
O-10, thanks for your comments. I don’t understand an “observation” of something that cannot be there. The issue of whether current players are improvising or not is not a matter of observation it is a matter of fact or not; and it is a very simple matter to establish. I have no issue with you not liking the way that modern players play, but I think they at least deserve credit for what they are in fact doing.
I don’t understand the comment about Mingus. Those examples may be the best for you, but I don’t understand the relevance here. I would appreciate some clarification on this and perhaps some clips of examples of prominent modern players in which you feel that their solos are “written down”. Feels like we have done a complete about face on the issue of modern players. I hope not. Btw, re Aaron Diehl’s style and your question: what are your thoughts?
Again, some really great comments by nsp, bluesy, pjw and pryso as well. I think that the spirit of the “ESSENCE” of jazz that nsp talks about is something worth striving for as listeners.
bluesy41 Well spoken we ARE blessed and let's enjoy the music. The answer to your question : we are nothing without music. Maybe you are onto something when you say that artists in the past recycled songs more often giving different versions and maybe today's artists do not do this to the same degree. Maybe only after having your peers play your song(s) many times will a pieceor body http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rPkr5QOwqgg of music be then considered to be a jazz "standard". I am not sure and hope others weigh in on the subject.
**** Maybe only after having your peers play your song(s) many times will a pieceor body of music be then considered to be a jazz "standard". ****
That’s exactly right. It becomes a jazz “standard” because players like to play a certain tune and the tune becomes part of the jazz lexicon over time. Not all tunes lend themselves to jazz interpretation nor are they necessarily good vehicles for jazz improvisation. Players like tunes with a good melody, but also with interesting harmonic changes that have a certain musical logic to them. Or, as in the case of modal jazz (KOB), they have a “simplicity” or economy of harmonic movement that, in a way, opens up more possibilities to the improviser as he is not bound to the constantly changing harmonic backdrop. At the other end of the spectrum, sometimes players simply like the challenge of a tune like “Giant Steps” which, more than anything, is a test of a player’s ability to “think” VERY quickly on his feet with its very fast changing harmonies.
nsp makes an important point. "it takes a different set of ears to absorb and appreciate a new direction. Some people try and they get it , others try and the music does not resonate with them." Music can change over time, sometimes as listeners we follow that, sometimes we don't.
For an example I believe I mentioned this once before. When I first heard Ornette Coleman around 1960 I considered that pretty far out (non-melodic), not something I enjoyed at the time. But time passes, we learn and our perspective and tastes can change. I can't say exactly when but at some point his music was no longer off-putting and I "learned" to enjoy it. Today it may still not be the "norm", but it is no longer nearly so far out.
frogman Eric Alexander - I hope that song does become a standard in the future.I've been listening to him for a little more than a year and like everything he has done. Strong tone , excellent solos, great ballad player.Wish he wrote more of his own music . He is pretty much a straight ahead bebop guy . He has stated he was influenced byMonk , Dizzy,Sonny Stitt,Clifford Brown, Rollins ,Mclean, Joe Henderson George Coleman and even ;late-period Coltrane.His recordings for Venus records are my favorite. I highly recommend that album with Charles Earland and had to post this cut:
Definitely some Rollins and more than a little Joe Henderson; along with his own thing, of course. I remember the first couple of times I heard Lovano. It was back in the 80s when he was in the section in the Mel Lewis Jazz Orchestra (previously the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis big band and currently The Vanguard Jazz Orchestra). You know, I wasn’t that impressed by his playing. It was mostly me, and because I was too preoccupied with the post-Coltrane type tenor sound (think Liebman, Grossman and Berg...thanks, acman3) and I couldn’t get next to Joe’s warmer and less edgy sound which is partly a result of his preference for vintage Conn tenors as opposed to the ubiquitous Selmer horns of the Coltrane crowd. His concept has developed a great deal and I am loving what he does.
Been thinking about your question re tunes by current artists that should be standards. Here’s a few that came to mind that I think could be candidates based on the criteria that I mentioned. They at least lend themselves to be played in a jazz style. Most tunes have been around for several years and a couple have been done that way already, so time will tell. Tunes penned by current jazz players are harder to consider since not enough time has passed; although current players do borrow each other’s tunes; Again, time will tell.
NY State Of Mind (Billy Joel) Black Cow (Steely Dan) Maxine (Steely Dan) I Love You Just The Way You Are (Billy Joel) Help Me (Joni Mitchell)
ghosthouse, very nice!!! Loved the “It’s One Big Party” clip. Thanks for that. Love Peter Erskine!!! What a nice and light feel he has; one of my favorite drummers. Really enjoyed Chuck Manning’s tenor playing. Knew the name but had not heard his playing. It’s interesting to me that while he has a much (!) more modern harmonic concept his tone immediately reminded of Harold Land who was from an entirely different era in jazz; a little dry with just a little edge and never sounding like the horn is about to split at the seams. Land hasn’t gotten much attention here although I think O-10 posted some clips a while back.
Thanks for checking it out, Frogman. Appreciate the courtesy and always appreciate your thumbnail reviews. I have a hard time tracking who plays what on that album. All Music Guide lists multiple drummers, guitarists, etc. but no track by track personnel listing. I'll take your word on that being Erskine. The drumming on it is is nicely propulsive without being heavy handed (trademark style, maybe). The album is worth finding on Spotify or Tidal. Actually, the full thing also available on YouTube. Quite a bit of variety track to track and good sonics from the Cryptogramophone label
Frogman - Checked out the Harold Land "Little Street" track you linked to. I do think I can hear the similarity in tone to that of the sax player on that One Big Party track. No screetch in Land’s playing there; not overblowing; nice rich tone.
By the way, is that something of a Coltrane/Giant Steps quote in the opening few measures of One Big Party (starting right at the 7/8 second mark)? Sounds awfully "familiar".
re your drummer correction - The A. Cline listed is Alex Cline drummer/brother of guitarist Nels Cline. It might be him on that track. Either way, Erskine or Cline, good work.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
