Jazz for aficionados

No it's not, it's Saturday!

In Japan :-)

********So, in the spirit of enlightenment and sharing can you expound on that a bit? What is it the makes it empty for you; what is lacking? Better yet, what do you hear in the "Bebop" clip that you don't hear in the "Tenor Of The Time". Perhaps the music was better than you think, and had the intended impact on you simply because a very good argument can be made for the tenor of our time being "loud, fast and empty". But, the playing? No way!*******

When I was in college, it seemed as if the Trumpet players were always the brash and trash talking bunch. I was one of them. But the guys from Memphis and New Orleans were light years ahead of me. One of our favorite things was to have what we called 'head cutting sessions'.

We would get the Excerise book and see who could play it the fastest and longest without screwing up. Once we destroyed the Purdue University Trumpet section at the Indianapolis 500. We were bad!! :)

My point is this: That was not music. Just notes used to improve technique and sight reading. And that's what Harrell sounded like to me. Playing the exercise book.

Also, the body language of all, save the bass player, did not indicate that even the players themselves, were into the music. The piano player could have been Horowitz playing Chopin!!!

I did not mean to imply that 'fast and loud' was a negative. Esp, since my favorite tune is "Hog Calling Blues"!

In the Bebop tune, I heard a Jazz GROUP, playing bebop Jazz, with, among others, a trumpet soloist. In the Woods/Harrell thing, I heard a guy blowing a trumpet. It did not convey anything other than that to me.

You must keep in mind that I am a member of the unwashed masses, and often times miss the finer points of music. I just know what I like, when I hear it.

I have one final point to send.

Cheers

Rok, thanks for expounding. We are all entitled to like what we like; simple as that. It's interesting to try and understand the reasons why (it is for me, anyway) that's all. In this case we will just have to call it a case of Mars and Venus. I find Faddis's playing on the Bebop clip to be exactly what you object to in your account of your trumpet playing colleges buds: "how fast and high can I play this"; bordering on the "bullshit" for me. Harrell's is a thoughtful and well constructed solo. Different strokes for different folks. BTW, don't be to critical of his "body language"; he has been living with (and controlling) schizophrenia for many years and that is his usual stage demeanor.

Cheers.

A few posts back, remember the 'treacherous road' thingy? I wanted to make a point but it seemed as if we had moved on so I didn't. I will make it now to elighten you as to HOW I, approach, receive, judge and understand music.

Recently I received several of CDs from Amazon. Among them two CDs of Spirituals. I love only Jazz more. The CDs were: GREAT AMERICAN SPIRITUALS. A great CD. The songs are sung by Kathleen Battle, Barbara Hendricks and Florence Quivar. WOW! What a lineup. They didn't sing together, they each did several songs on the CD.

These are two world class Sopranos, and a World Class Mezzo. They have performed around the world, at all the great Opera Houses, under the greatest conductors, and singing the greatest and most beloved roles in Opera. Taught at the top schools and by the top teachers. Their 'nuts & bolts' are impeccable!! I will enjoy this disc forever! Highly recommended!

The second CD was MAHALIA JACKSON - LIVE AT NEWPORT

She sang spirituals here also. The two CDs only had two songs in common. A night and day difference. I don't know if Mahalia has much, or any formal training. Probably just started singing at her church. Her 'nuts & Bolts? I am sure they don't match the divas. But here is what Mahalia can do, that the divas can't: She can make a person Cry!

I remember the effect singers like her, had on people from my childhood. Old women with eyes shut, slowly nodding while tears streamed down their faces. And the choir was nowhere near in Mahalia's class. Mostly field workers and domestic workers. Zero training! No 'nuts & bolts. They used to scare the hell outta me. When they started singing I always moved closer to my Mom.

That's the difference THAT CAN exsist between impeccable 'nuts & bolts' and less polished music, and musicians, conveying emotion.

That's it. That's me.

Cheers

*****he has been living with (and controlling) schizophrenia *****

Sorry, I didn't know. I withdraw the comment.

Cheers

Rok, thanks. I can't disagree with you about anything in your post; save for the IMPLICATION that having the training and being polished precludes being able to convey emotion. Clearly there are performers that were born with "the gift" and can get the message across wether they have the training or not. I don't know much about Mahalia Jackson's background to know wether she had any training or not; I just know how much I love her singing. But, the flaw in your argument is not in the substance of the general point, but in the specific example. Saying that Kathleen Battle singing spirituals doesn't move you the way that Mahalia Jackson does proves little. Have you ever heard Mahalia Jackson sing Schubert Lieder? I haven't either, but I am fairly confident that it wouldn't make me cry the way Battle can. This a common mistake by performers; singing or playing in a genre outside their comfort zone.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qki5oy1z14

Kathleen Battle sure is pretty, I'd rather look at her than hear her sing; but that's the "subjective" opinion of a jazz aficionado.

You just can not have Christmas without Mahalia Jackson's "Silent Night"; she convey's the religious aspect of Christmas like no one else, it's almost supernatural, and that's not as subjective as one might think, because people in London England will agree with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpMc5OVHnc

Enjoy the music.

Rok, I admit to being baffled by your statements toward Tom Harrell . You could not be more wrong in your assessment of his playing. I was led to Mr. Harrell in the mid eighties by a trumpet player/teacher who worked in a record shop I hung out in. Very emotional player who I have never heard struggle in any way technically. Roars through changes while keeping his ideas coherent.Has 30+ years of very good to great recordings.

I intentionally choose a burner, as I was reminded of this GREAT version of Phil Wood's bands, by listening to the trumpet playing of Blue Mitchell.
Hal Galpner was/is a very good piano player. Check out some of his solo
work.

If he had been around from 1955, and died in 1963, AND played on Blue Note you would love him.

Acman3:

****If he had been around from 1955, and died in 1963, AND played on Blue Note you would love him.****

You know what? I think you are correct. But to play for Blue Note in 1955, aha, he would have been a different player. :)

Also, I am only speaking of this one tune. I am not trashing the guy totally. They are all magicians to some degree. And in that sense, I love them all.

Suppose the only Miles, or the first Miles, I had heard, had been 'Bitches Brew'!! That would be the only CD of his I would own. At least, until I could sell it.

I am sure Harrell is a good player. I do admire him, after learning of his condition. And he does know his way around a trumpet.

Woods is still fat!

Cheers

*****Kathleen Battle sure is pretty, I'd rather look at her than hear her sing; but that's the "subjective" opinion of a jazz aficionado. ******

Mercy Lord, Mercy!!

Cheers

In no particular order:

Best of the Blue Note Vol 1

Best of the Blue Note Vol 2.

Best of Chet Baker Sings

Sarah Vaughan and Cliffford Brown

Kind of Blue

Big Joe Turner Greatest Hits

Cannonball Adderly - Somthin' ELSE

Charles Mingus - New Tijuana Moods

Louis Armstrong - Hot Fives & Sevens

Miles Davis - Sketches Of Spain

Honorable mention:

Dinah Jams - Dinah Washington

The Blue Note Jazz Profile Series - Various Artists - Promo disc.

Another sweet group from the 80's. Offsprings of Mingus, and on BLUE NOTE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6jTm3dsc0

Acman3:

Very nicer tune. I have three CDs by Pullen.

'Live...Again', 'Kele Mou Bana' and 'Random Thoughts'. I will give them another listen and rerport.

The CD 'Breakthrough' that the clip was from, is now offered by 'these sellers' for $443.51 new! So I probably won't have that one.

Nice tune. Thanks.

Cheers

"There are two kinds of music, good music and the other kind" - Duke Ellington

I think a certain idea is getting lost in these discussions. Well, at least the idea that I tried to bring forth about the "nuts and bolts" part of music appreciation. The idea that disregard for, lack of interest, or ignorance of that aspect of music is somehow a higher calling, or that it leads to a deeper emotional connection to music is simply mistaken. It is not a prerequisite for the appreciation of music (obviously), but it can do nothing but enhance the emotional experience, and helps us be a better judge of the good and the bad.

On a more personal note, and this is something that every musician feels strongly about is the obvious (if cliched) truth in Duke's comment. I listen to everything, there is no genre of music that doesn't have the good and the bad; and I confess that I find it remarkable (and this is not meant to offend) that anyone can feel so passionately about a particular genre (any genre) and dismiss the incredible beauty in Kathleen Battle's singing, even if that genre is not the preferred genre. We all have our likes and dislikes, but like Duke said....Anyway, I strongly encourage all to be more open to this idea.

The "My Favorite Things" comparison. Orpheus, at first I thought it was a joke; it's like being asked to compare grandma's chicken soup to a spicy Cajun gumbo. I am not sure where to begin. One is a vocal rendition, the other is an instrumental version in which the tune is almost inconsequential; it's simply a vehicle for the players' improvisation within that tune's framework. On the vocal version you have classic production values and orchestration coupled to Andrews' charming and mildly theatrical singing; impeccable in the nuts and bolts considerations of pitch, control, and beauty of tone while (even more importantly) conveying the perfectly appropriate feeling of innocence that the lyric demands. A timeless, classic, and beautiful vocal rendition with an orchestration full of subtlety and restraint; what is there not to like? Coltrane's version could not be more different. His ascerbic and raw tone on the soprano gives this version an almost surreal quality. There is not much of an "arrangement" to speak of and obviously no orchestration. The rhythm section lays down a waltz feel very different from that in the vocal version, being much more swinging and not as appropriately light and buoyant. As I said, more than anything, a vehicle for improvisation which is done in typical Coltrane fashion; reaching, searching, with a sense of purpose that is typically Trane.

Grandma's chicken soup may not be as interesting as a Cajun gumbo, but man, there sure was perfection and comfort in that chicken soup; in its own way, a thing of beauty. Love that Cajun gumbo, but it could give me heartburn like the chicken soup never did. All in all, as far as the MUSIC, the emotion, both equally valid and good.

BTW, I don't tire of that story; I am envious as hell. I look forward to your comments about the two versions of MFT.

"“I believe in things that are developed through hard work. I always like people who have developed long and hard, especially through introspection and a lot of dedication. I think what they arrive at is usually a much deeper and more beautiful thing than the person who seems to have that ability and fluidity from the beginning. I say this because it’s a good message to give to young talents who feel as I used to.” - Bill Evans

The Frogman:

******The idea that disregard for, lack of interest, or ignorance of that aspect of music is somehow a higher calling, or that it leads to a deeper emotional connection to music is simply mistaken.*******

I love it when you make your 'teaching points'. But in this case, no one has taken the position you stated. We all appreciate the 'nuts & bolts'. It's what makes Music, Music. Without them, music would just be a random collection of sounds. There could be no such thing as 'genre'. But we do get your point.

I guess it boils down to which is more important to the consumer. Since most of us wouldn't know 'nuts & bolts' if they fell on us. :)

In my field, we would call it being schooled in the military arts. Just having a lot of men and weapons is not enough. You must know when and how to deploy them.

As always, you just don't talk, you inform.

Cheers

Frogman, no one could have made a better comparison. I like both of them for the reasons you gave.

When I was a child, one of mothers cousins who became moderately wealthy, figured that since she had the money, she should acquire the image of a "cultured person", and that included opera. She decided my mother should accompany her to the opera, and since my mother couldn't find a baby sitter, I had to accompany the both of them to the opera.

Maybe that memory of people in strange costumes strutting around on a stage screeching in some unfathomable language scarred my appreciation for any thing "operatic"; Frogman, not everyone can appreciate caviar, and many of the other finer things in life; like "opera", for example.

In a previous post I said that Mahalia Jackson could make a person cry and that the Divas could not. I was wrong. Listening to the 'Great American Spirituals' now. Florence Quivar!!!!! Being a Mezzo, her voice is ideally suited for this type music. WOW! What a voice!
What Voices!!!

Cheers

Frogman, picture "Calvin", as in "Calvin and Hobbes" at the opera.

Enjoy the music.

Florence Quivar is pretty too, not as pretty as Kathleen Battle, but thank God, less "operatic"; even so, neither one of them can compare to Mahalia Jackson when it comes to spirituals; however, here's one I liked by Florence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uuh5BvQ9QI

Enjoy the music.

It's time for something different; how about many different versions of "Summer Time". These versions will span a wide genre of styles and music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm4--XgFk8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM_Nb6dpnys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guKoNCQFAFk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alrBe2XF0IA

One of those versions swept me away, I bet no one will guess which one it was.

Enjoy the music.

No "teaching points" offered, Rok; just trying to offer a perspective that I feel will enhance the listening experience. You see, from my perspective, the problem is that you and others want to be able to make proclamations about what is "the best", "the worst", "empty", "not jazz" etc. based only on personal likes and dislikes, and then when there is disagreement and the comment is challenged no substantive argument is made for why the original proclamation should stand. Every single time (well, probably not EVERY, but close) that I have disagreed or agreed with the merit of a particular artist or recording I have offered specific and detailed reasons why, with specific examples that are not rooted in opinion and emotional reaction only. Example: if a player is not making the changes of a tune, there is really very little room for disagreement. Why you or anyone else should feel more offended, provoked, or whatever you want to call it than someone who disagrees with a proclamation of "this is the best" is beyond me. But, you are right, I don't just talk. That's the problem; there's too much that is simply talk with little purpose other than self gratification. I don't consider that a discussion.

****I guess it boils down to which is more important to the consumer. Since most of us wouldn't know 'nuts & bolts' if they fell on us. :)

In my field, we would call it being schooled in the military arts. Just having a lot of men and weapons is not enough. You must know when and how to deploy them.****

As usual, you make my point; in more ways than one. You can't have it both ways. There IS a tendency to dismiss the importance of the nuts and bolts (man, am I starting to regret using that term a while back!), and that IS usually accompanied with the implication that because someone does "have a lot of men and weapons" that person "doesn't know when and how to deploy them". That attitude becomes a simple excuse and justification born out of some insecurity, for not "having enough men and weapons". It's very easy to always fall back on "well, it's what I like, so that's enough". But, enough for what? What's the point of your "reviews" if your comments can't be backed up with more than just opinion and expressions of what you happen to like? Tell me then, at what point is it OK to point out that the alto saxophone referred to in a posted clip is not an alto at all, but a tenor? That by any reasonable standard, when judging the merit of a performance, the fact that the tempo of a tune slows down dramatically beginning to end, it should be pointed out? That any jazz "aficionado" should know when a tune's chorus ends, and strive to be more than one of those clueless listeners in jazz clubs who start applauding before the player finishes his solo?

The irony here is that these attitudes go completely counter to what the very players that you idolize hold dear; especially the commitment to always want to learn more and more about the music they love and that the best way to do so is to play with players that can challenge them? Anyway, I suspected that at some point these discussions would start to get a little too personal and tense for comfort. That is unfortunate

The Frogman:

Oh My! Seems as if we have finally come full circle. I remember back in the beginning of this thread, or the one that preceeded it, I was attacked from all sides for saying I thought Jazz needed 'defending'. All I got was:
BOO!! HISS!! OUTRAGE!! DEFENDED FROM WHAT!?!? IDIOT!!

Seems as if you are now 'defending' Muscians and Muscianship. They do need defending!! I know the feeling.

All your comments are right on target, IF, I said IF, this were a class at a music school. Or, if this was a thread consisting of Jazz players, or just Musicians in general. I said many months ago that you would eventually be bored with the comments made on this thread. I think I said, 'bored to tears'.

This entire thread is about what we like, or don't like. Musical expertise has nothing to do with it. It's all based on emotion. If it does not grab you, or connect with you, what difference does it make how well the player can play the instrument?

Based on your argument, Maurice Andre could have been the greatest Jazz trumpet player in history. The fact that he didn't/couldn't play Jazz is not important. He for sure had the N&Bs.

The question is this: Which way makes for a more interesting thread? After all, we are just here to TALK about the music we love, and to be exposed to, or turned on to, music we are not aware of.

Great Jazz, might have great N&B's, but great N&B's, does not always make great Jazz.

When you say Harrell played a classic Bebop solo on the clip, I say, so what? I didn't like it. And, judging by his place in Jazz history, and CD/LP sales, I am not alone! Remember, these players of today still have to COMPETE with the all-time greats. Miles' and Hubbard's CDs are in the same rack as Harrell's.

Was Miles among the best when it came to N&Bs? I don't know. It does not matter. My ears, his reputation, and his place in the history of Jazz tell me, it does not matter!

BTW, I would say that the opinions on this thread are much more 'justified' and 'backed up', than those on ANY OTHER THREAD on the entire Audiogon site.

None of this is personal to me. Enjoyed your post.

Cheers

Rok, with all due respect, and I blame my apparent lack of clarity, you're not getting it (my point).

****Based on your argument, Maurice Andre could have been the greatest Jazz trumpet player in history. ****

My argument does not suggest that in the least.

****BTW, I would say that the opinions on this thread are much more 'justified' and 'backed up', than those on ANY OTHER THREAD on the entire Audiogon site.****

And who, pray tell, is the reason for that? ;-)

Frogman, I for one, and I suspect there are many others, appreciate your posts. Unlike some other's posts, they offer the opportunity to learn something other than just what an (un)informed participant's personal (subjective) opinions are, interesting though they may be. If nothing else, your posts help folks keep an open mind, or should anyway. :-)

Well!! I guess I know when I am not appreciated.

I will take my expertise elsewhere!!

Goodbye cruel thread!

Cheers

******** If nothing else, your posts help folks keep an open mind****

Thanks, Newbee. That's really my motivation, its not about ego or being right. There is so much more that can be learned about this great art form and music in general; the little that has been touched upon, arguments and all, is just scratching the surface. And the truth is that for musicians there is value in understanding and not losing sight of why certain music elicits passion in listeners no matter what it's technical merit may or may not be.

Rok, I truly admire your passion for this music. It's obvious that you connect with what matters most, the emotional side of it; that's a hell of a lot more than many on this site can claim. As O-10 likes to say: "Enjoy the music". This one's for you; gives me chills every time:

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=TRUjr8EVgBg

But, he should fire his piano tuner. Ah, shit! I did it again, that nuts and bolts thingy; I just can't help myself :^)

Hi guys - sorry to be again away from the discussion for so long. I must admit, reading through the recent posts here, that I am very dismayed and frustrated at some of what I am reading. Frogman has made a valiant effort - I do not feel there is any lack of clarity to his arguments here. He certainly writes much more clearly than I, and makes the arguments I would make better than I would. This perhaps makes it even more frustrating to me that some are not getting it. I will make another attempt myself. And please, Rok, I know you have said you are not taking this personally, so I trust that will continue to be the case.

I must quote Rok again here: "All your comments are right on target, IF, I said IF, this were a class at a music school. ... This entire thread is about what we like, or don't like. Musical expertise has nothing to do with it. It's all based on emotion. If it does not grab you, or connect with you, what difference does it make how well the player can play the instrument?"

These two statements sum up the attitude which boggles the mind of musicians. We do appreciate very much the love for music that you obviously have - trust me, we are very aware of the fact that people like you are keeping the music alive. You are our audience, and we couldn't make a living without you.

That said, it is also extremely distressing to realize that despite loving the music so much, you yet are amazingly ignorant (please understand I speak not of intelligence here, but knowledge) about the music you love, and can apparently only relate to it on what you call an emotional level.

Yes, music has emotion, and this is one reason why it is called a universal language. But this is only scratching the surface of what music is. You can listen to music just for the sheer beauty of the sound - this can be an escape, a consolation, just feeling good, whatever. But it is also brainless. You are not really thinking about the music. This aspect of music is extremely important, but it is not the whole story, and more importantly, it should not overwhelm the rest.

Now we get into expression. Most people believe that all music has some expressive power, even though some composers, like Stravinsky, insist that music is an object or thing with no other meaning than a purely musical one. Another composer, Aaron Copland, states the problem this way: "Is there a meaning to music? My answer to that would be yes. Can you state in so many words what the meaning is? My answer to that would be no. Therein lies the difficulty." You must not be afraid to not know what any piece of music is "about."

Music can express all sorts of different emotions or moods, much more than words could describe. This is why many musicians, like Stravinsky, say it only has a purely musical meaning. Another way of saying this, Copland says, is that they do not feel the need to find words for this meaning. Even if you are satisfied with your own description of what a piece of music means (or why you like it, which amounts to the same thing), there is no guarantee that anyone else will describe that same piece in the same way you do. And if it is a really great piece, it shouldn't be saying the same thing to you every time anyway.

What many non-musicians don't have enough awareness of is the purely musical. Besides the sound and the expression, music does exist in terms of the notes themselves and their manipulation by the composer or performers or both. I would be remiss if I did not add that us professionals are sometimes too conscious of this and tend to forget about the simpler yet deeper planes. That said, most people concentrate only on the melody, maybe the rhythm. Harmony and tone color they take for granted. And I haven't even talked about form. Copland makes an analogy to the theater. It would be like going to a play and only concentrating on the actors, costumes, sets, sounds, movements, and the emotions you feel, while totally ignoring plot and plot development. Now, in the theater, you are not consciously aware of all these separations, you take it all in at once without thinking about it. It is the same when listening to music. To quote Copland again: "the ideal listener is both inside and outside the music at the same moment, judging it and enjoying it, wishing it would go one way and watching it go another - almost like the composer at the moment he composes it; because in order to write his music, the composer must also be inside and outside his music, carried away by it and yet coldly critical of it. A subjective and objective attitude is implied in both creating AND LISTENING to music." (My bold.) I would also add that the performer is doing this as well, whether it is an orchestral musician, or a jazz soloist improving, or a rock musician jamming.

We want you to listen more actively - you WILL deepen your enjoyment and love for it by doing so. As Copland says, you want to be "not someone who is just listening, but someone who is listening FOR something."

The weirdest part to me about this discussion taking place on an audiophile website is that everyone here will say that they listen this way to their systems, and that is why they can detect minute differences between two pieces of equipment, etc. Why the hell wouldn't you do the same for the music you love? That's the reason your systems exist in the first place!!

The quotes and frankly much of the argument above is taken from Aaron Copland's book "What to listen for in Music." I have recommended it here many times, and can never do so enough, no matter what kind of music you like.

Ah, The Lobotomy Award lives! Well, knowing how you feel about Nina Simone, that would appear to be the obvious answer; but, I don't think so. Simone's version is great, interesting and definitely sets a mood, but not the kind of mood that I think one can be "swept away" by. The fact that there are two operatic versions is, I think, a decoy ;-) If I had to choose which one of the two sweeps ME away, it is easily the Maria Callas. Both versions are good and both use the exact same, and original, Gershwin orchestration. The Price is ordinary with bland orchestral playing and uneven singing (the intonation on "fish": ouch!). On the Callas, the clarinet solo at the end of the introduction tells us right away that this will be the better "caviar" with beautiful phrasing and expression compared to the one on the Price which is very straight with zero rubato. Callas is wonderful. That leaves the Janis Joplin: I love Joplin, but not the kind of thing that comes to mind (at first) as your kind of thing. But, as Duke said..... This one is raw, but is pure emotion; that's the one that I think "swept O-10 away".

As usual, The Frogman missed the boat.

The easy ones first:

Joplin, she is a fraud and so is her music. Just a horrible rendition of an American classic. There ought to be a law.

Simone, Tried to be TOO profound, or TOO cute, TOO soulful or TOO something. She could have nailed this song. It was in fact boring. Just sing the song!!

Callas, great voice and opera singer. BUT, I did not understand a word she said. I could follow her only because I knew the words and the tune. I guess she thought she was singing Mozart.

Price, another great Opera singer. She nailed it! Not in spite of 'fish', but because of 'fish'. This is from an opera about poor blacks in South Carolina. It ain't European Opera. Price sang the song as if she understood that. And for those of us that know that area of South Carolina, she was spot on in her intonation.

Price should be the winner. And besides, she is my home Girl!

The idea performance would be from the singer performing the Opera itself! If the answer is not Price, then O-10 deserves to be 'swept away'. I have a Texas-Sized broom!

Cheers

Rok, I guess you'll have to use that Texas sized broom. Frogman, I think you missed your calling, maybe you should be a psychiatrist. Since you got it right, I'm holding this post until after other responses; but Janis Joplin just swept me away. There was even more involved than her raw pure emotion, her time was my time; that was when I was living my life just as Janis was living her's, not a moment to waste, each second of life had to be savored, and Janis conveyed this in her music. A decade went by and all I can remember was good times, me and Janis had a lot in common.

That was the "Age of Aquarius", and Janis was one of the leading proponents of our life style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE

Janis Joplin captured the spirit you see in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9oq_IskRIg

What's so amazing, is the fact that you got the others right as well, I find this hard to believe.

Enjoy the music.

Rok, there comes a time when one has to simply stop pulling punches in the interest of civility and good will and just say what one is feeling. This sparring and chest thumping is really getting old; I, for one, am done with it. Why you feel the need to make some of these idiotic statements is beyond me:

****As usual, The Frogman missed the boat.****

Do you really think that is true? Really?

It obviously eluded you, but the challenge from O-10 was not to name what was my or your favorite "Summertime", but which "swept HIM away" while providing the hint that it would be unlikely to guess which it was. So, by way of sleuthing I made my conclusion. We may disagree about Price vs Callas, and I could expound on why you are simply mistaken, but like I said, it's really getting tiresome; and frankly, I don't think it would matter what I said, you are so entrenched in your views and rigid ideas.

After reading your posts for quite some time now certain patterns have become obvious: you are too quick to react, you have difficulty dealing with middle ground (gray areas) as opposed to black or white, you fail to see how you contradict you own forceful proclamations, and you are (or choose to be) completely oblivious to your own biases re music and artists and the reasons that you deem them meritorious or not. I could go much deeper into that last one, but it is way too sensitive and inflammatory a subject for me to go any further. Let's just say that you have been quite transparent about this, and as my last submission for The Lobotomy Award contest :-), i will say that obvious hints are in the first sentence of this paragraph.

It is unfortunate when positive and stimulating endeavors come to a point such as this. As I have always said, I admire your passion for the music and always (apparently I was mistaken) felt that you were a great candidate for possibly expanding your horizons about music by hearing a different viewpoint. Unlike every other time that we have had disagreements and things have gotten a bit heated, there will be no olive branch.

O-10, I want to thank you for a most wonderful thread. I hope my contributions have been enjoyable; I know yours and those of the other contributors have been for me. The marriage of great music with good sound is a wondrous thing and your thread has done a great deal towards uplifting the one-sided pursuit of good sound without enough consideration for the quality of the music that is so prevalent among audiophiles. Without meaning to be indulgent about this, I find it too frustrating to engage in the sparring that I find myself in on a regular basis (wether initiated by me or not), so I will be taking a breather from the thread for the foreseeable future. Knowing how meaningful this music and this thread are to you, I felt I owed you an explanation for my absence.

I think this was my first contribution to the thread. There was a reason why it was, and it still is. Best wishes.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=I777BcgQL9o&p=PL202DD92307605864

O-10:
I agree with The Frogman. I will leave also. O-10 you are the best OP ever on this entire site. You stayed with it all the way.

But The Frogman is correct, he and I were fighting more than discussing.

Guys, I really enjoyed it and I learned alot.

Now, to figure out how to withdraw from the Audiogon.:)

Cheers to all.

Rok, Frogman, I really appreciate you guys telling me you're leaving, and not leave me waiting for your next post; but without you two, there is no thread.

Frogman, your going away present has been the most consistent tune in my universe. Without a doubt, this has been the most enjoyable thread I've ever participated in, and thanks to you I've learned a lot as well.

Rok, you made this thread every bit as much as me, we made it together with your reviews. "Eliminate the negative, and accentuate the positive", I forgot where that came from, but I'm sure you remember. I've tried to make that a constant theme in my life; for example, what has this thread contributed to my tranquillity and peace of mind? In these stressful times, have I found it to be a pleasant divergence? After you answer those questions, you might discover that this thread means more to you than you think. In a storm, the willow bends while the mighty oak stands firm. After a storm, many times the mighty oak is flat on it's back while the willow tree is still standing.

This thread could be more important to the three of us than we realize. Since the holidays are upon us, and it's time to turn our attention to other things, this is a good time to take a break; but if anyone wants to restart this thread, just post.

Enjoy the music.

O-10:

You are a sage! And a diplomat! And I am glad I got to know you. Thanks for the kind words, but you were always the soul and spirit of this thread.

Is it possible to carry on via email? I think you are correct when you say, we are going to miss it.

The best to you, and yours, always. And thanks for being just an all around good guy. A rarity on this Site!

Cheers

Rok, you were right in regard to your assessment of Leontyne Price and "Summertime"; it was from a Negro opera that came out in 1940, her version was perfect, but it was not the one that swept me away.

Remember when me and Frogman jumped all over you about "Moonlight In Vermont"; this is the same thing in reverse, you preferred a version that didn't stick to the script. Music is SUBJECTIVE and what sounds good to you is all that counts.

In no way am I saying that you should change anything; however, I am saying that we must accept one another as we are. Whatever petty point of contention between you and Frogman, that went on and on, should have been dropped before it reached this stage.

Enjoy the music.

******In no way am I saying that you should change anything; however, I am saying that we must accept one another as we are. Whatever petty point of contention between you and Frogman, that went on and on, should have been dropped before it reached this stage.******

O-10, as always, you are a voice of reason. I agree with all you said. Maybe I will learn someday, not to sweat the small stuff.

BTW, after playing The Fairfield Four's 'Standing In The Safety Zone', at the appropiate volume this morning, all is right in my Kingdom! Makes one feel glad to be alive. Puts all other things in their proper petty place.

I have two new(to me), Ellington CDs. 'Three Suites'(includes his take on 'The Nutcracker') and 'The Ellington Suites'. Are you familiar with them?

What is your opinion on buying 'refurbished' speakers?

Cheers

I buy raw speakers from Parts Express and tailer them to my taste. If you got a really good buy, and you like the cabinet, YES. After you purchased them, the people at Parts Express could help make them the perfect speaker for you; ask a lot of questions about the crossover. By replacing existent capacitors for better caps will give you an audiophile speaker.

I hope that helps.

If you don't know anything about crossovers, tell them you were hoping for a 3 way 4th order T type with polypropylene capacitors. If the speaker doesn't have that particular crossover, could they update the existing capacitors?

O-10:

I found this while trying to bring order to my book case.

" 1,000 Recordings To Hear before You Die "
by Tom Moon.

Very good reading. Well written. Excellent synopsis on each recording. All Genres. Includes 'world' music.

I have found a few over-looked gems, and I am also surprised at how many I already have. The historical aspect of the writing is the most interesting.

This does not pretend to be a list of 'the best', just ones you must hear. Important Recordings.

Check it out.

Cheers

Sounds interesting. I was looking at the cover of our book, and noticed Monk was wearing "argyle" socks, I know you remember those; also when "Cherry Pink and Apple Blossom White" was hot, so was that combination color, plus black added, hot in argyle socks. Pink and black was a real hot color combination back then. Now that I don't have to write about music, I can just listen and reminisce about better times.

Enjoy the music.

**** Now that I don't have to write about music, I can just listen and reminisce about better times****

I know the feeling!!!! :)

I can swaer that I NEVER wore Argyle socks! But I remember Pink and Black being a hot combination. Even in automobiles.

Cheers

I was listening to "Delilah" by Max Roach, and Clifford Brown, when it hit me that not a single note was wasted by any of the musicians. That's my opinion, "To thine self be true", is the philosophical advice I've been given by the hippest of the hip, and Nica may have said something to that effect, but whether she said it or not, she certainly lived it, and that's an even more profound statement.

There is "nothing" about music that's not subjective, it's not necessary to learn one single solitary note in order to enjoy music, and I have zero intention of learning one single solitary note. Although it may be true that musicians enjoy music more than none musicians, this "non musician" is doing quite well, thank you.

Each one of those musicians on the "Brown and Roach" record probably knew "Charley Parker" personally. Before I even knew what jazz was, when I heard Bird, it was like music from heaven, message sent, message received; and that could explain why those musicians are so coherent to me.

"Loud fast and empty"; that was your sincere opinion, and since all music is subjective, that was the way that music affected you, and "you" don't listen for me or anybody else; you're like that guy who went to a house of ill repute, and was asked the question, "Who you gonna satisfy with that little thing", and he replied with great gusto, ME!

Enjoy the music.

***** "Who you gonna satisfy with that little thing", and he replied with great gusto, ME!*****

Well, if I had known they were a bunch of blabber mouths, I would not have gone there in the first place. I'll take my business elsewhere in the future. But the girls were from Nawlins, and the piano player was the second coming of Jelly Roll!! Great stuff all around!!

Masx Roach from the book:

"wishes would be a superfluous luxury for me, because I have everything I desire. That's the most important thing in the world."

Do you think his music, and playing, reflect that contentment?

Max Roach seemed to come across as more 'sophisticated' or educated, than the average guy at Nica's. For sure a better dresser. But that could be a function of finances.

Cheers

Max Roach was no doubt the best dresser, not only in this book, but throughout his entire career. He was on top of the world until Clifford Brown was killed in that accident, in 55. For a while after that, he just couldn't get it together. The love between compatible musicians is incomprehensible. I almost got in a fight with a well known professional jazz musician I will not name, simply because he asked me questions about a another jazz musician that he had made records with and loved, and I told him the truth. (this was personal, nothing to do with music) He got mad and began an argument in front of a night club, telling me that couldn't be true. Naturally the bouncer and the club owner, who didn't have a clue as to what this was about, assumed I was in the wrong.

Much later I understood what I had told him was something he didn't want to believe, but he knew it was true, he just took his frustrations out on me.

The reason I tell you this is because we will never understand that love between musicians; but it took Roach a long time to get it together after that, can you find a date for his answer to that question.

Stereophile magazine interviewed Max in his apartment overlooking Central Park, not long before he died which was in 07, and I recall him mentioning the chair in his living room was one Bird had sat in. Naturally he had a decent rig, but it wasn't "Audiophile". Like I stated before, none of the jazz or blues musicians I've known had audiophile rigs; not that I've known a lot, but think about it, these musicians were always on a live set, why would they have a finicky audiophile system.

John Lee Hooker said he liked a "funky sound", and something easy to work. He wanted to hear music when he pushed the "on button", that's why he had the same kind of "Adcom" in all of his houses.

Since These musicians were interviewed by Stereophile you can look them up, but Branford Marsalis is the only famous jazz musician I can recall with an Audiophile rig, and his wasn't anywhere near the rigs these people have here. What does that say about audiophile rigs, and professional jazz musicians?

Enjoy the music.

Rok, you can enjoy and appreciate the musicians in our book if you just stick with one group for awhile. Right now I'm into Roach and Brown primarily for "Richie Powell", who was Bud Powell's younger brother. He didn't live long enough to record on his own, consequently you have to listen to him with Roach and Brown which isn't a bad deal.

Miles said Roach was never quite the same after Brown died, and I agree; at any rate I'm really enjoying what I can find on you tube with Roach, Brown and Powell.

Enjoy the music.

'Delilah' was a nice tune. All the folks on Amazon were impressed as well. Here is an interesting excerpt from the Amazon Site Reviewer:

Amazon.com
"Many a young musician has been sabotaged by his own considerable abilities. So caught up are they in technical execution that they give elements such as emotion and taste short shrift. Trumpeter Clifford Brown was a musical dynamo, a man who was capable of playing many instruments well and who possessed supreme natural instincts and boundless energy. Brown painstakingly practiced and perfected his technique, but when practice time gave way to playing time--there was no other time for him--Brown's command was so deeply ingrained that he was free to concentrate on those other elements: emotion and taste."...............

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Puts a smile on my face!! :)

I ordered it today. Seems like one I should have. Thanks for the tip / clip.

Cheers

Clifford Brown was killed in 56, not 55. I got that wrong because my cousin had a 55 Chevie, and I remember it as new, but it was a year old. We were cruisin Chicago in the Summer time like it was new when that accident involving Clifford, Richie, and Richard's wife occurred. That was a sad time because my cousin bought every Roach and Brown record as soon as it hit the record store.

I have the CD 'At Basin Street' and 'Plus Four'. Listening to Basin Street now. Thanks for all the info in your posts. Here is the review from Amazon.

Amazon.com
"The Clifford Brown-Max Roach quintet was already one of the best in modern jazz, but when they added Sonny Rollins to the fray in late 1955, it became a lineup for the ages. Basin Street, recorded in early 1956, marks the studio debut of Rollins with the band, and the result is a supercharged highlight of the postbop era. The three furiously paced standards that kick off the set feature superb blowing and crafty arrangements that offer spontaneous intros and rhythmic shifts. Of special note are the contributions of pianist Richie Powell, Bud's younger brother, who not only adds three excellent compositions (the intricate "Powell's Prances," the poignant "Time," and the irresistibly catchy "Gertrude's Bounce"), but also proves himself to be a standout soloist and accompanist. Of course, Brown's bright tone and remarkably fluid ideas are in full bloom as well. Sadly, the quintet would record only once more (Plus 4, issued under Rollins's name) before the June 1956 accident that claimed the lives of Brown and Powell." --Marc Greilsamer

Cheers