Jazz for aficionados

Michelle Rosewomen playing with some M-Base musicians, 20-25 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIjm3i5bAnY

I believe Jazz is in, or heading for another peak. Tremendous musicianship, and most of all great writing. Of course, some will pine for he past, which I also love, but really liking most of the directions Jazz is taking.

The Frogman:

Your links didn't work. Please re-check them. I did youtube her, and I don't get this 'faint of heart' business. I find her stuff very accessible. Maybe because it has cohesion.

It could be that watching a performance creates empathy for the players that LP/CD do not. It's great seeing young people trying to create SERIOUS music.

Cheers

Jazz is musicians music.
I knew some big time jazzman once upon a time, most had little money.Audience was simply not there in USA, most what they did make was in Europe according to Paul Bley.

Agree about Michelle Rosewoman. And like Chazro points out, not for the faint-hearted; but, man her stuff is interesting! One of the most creative musicians on the Latin scene; she kills!

Where's ONE?!

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=sHhZAIs8XrA

This intro is just beautiful! The great Howard Johnson plays some beautiful penny-whistle (!) and then kills on tuba.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=sJ60HyN9Eos

And some keep claiming that jazz is dead?!

It will never be abstract again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmOFAtg9twM

Cheers

Michele Rosewoman released one of the top Latin Jazz recordings this past year!

Michele Rosewoman's New Yor-Uba! VERY ethnic/folkoric mixed with very exciting Jazz voicings. Not for the faint-hearted though!;)

http://www.michelerosewoman.com/newyoruba/

Billy Bang Quintet -- RAINBOW GLADIATOR

If this is an example of Avant-Garde Jazz, I stand corrected.
This is great stuff. The booklet was a joke, did not even list the players by name or instrument.

But, I just had to go to AMG, to discover the ID of the piano player. Her name is Michele Rosewoman. She can play. Another 'discovery' of mine.

Check it out.

Cheers

The DCI championships used to be televised each year. Another casualty of lowest common denominator programming.
I love this stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myiEWUL37ZU

Check out all the different group's youtubes from the 2013 Championships.

Cheers

No, but watched the intro; seems worthwhile. Go for it!

Everyone familiar with MOOC?

http://www.mooc-list.com/course/introduction-music-etsu

Cheers

Thanks for the clips. On that first clip, in spite of the poor audio quality, I can hear the Bob Meyer that I remember; good writer, too.

Your clips led me to, and reminded me of, a clip of Bob playing with South Fla legend and Chicago native Ira Sullivan. We often bring up the topic of players who seem to go into relative obscurity and and don't seem to get their due. As has also been pointed out, and as incredible as it may seem, some artists simply don't care about popularity and fame. These guys are incredibly dedicated to their art and they just want to play their music; Ira Sullivan is one of those people. One of the most interesting people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing and one of the most incredible multi-instrumentalists ever, Ira could burn on trumpet/flugelhorn, all the saxophones and on flute. He is 83 now and still playing great. Every instrument he plays sounds like his main axe; incredible!

Ira on trumpet:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=igJKk5L8EF0

On tenor:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4y5-ImyDTr0

On flute (next to Joe Farrell, my favorite jazz flute player:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ry-stUpBXEQ

On alto and trumpet with another almost forgotten great bebopper Red Rodney. Skip to 6:00 for an amazing exchange between Ira and Red:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69zE8JrTdCg

Thanks for the clips. On that first clip, in spite of the poor audio quality, I can hear the Bob Meyer that I remember; good writer, too.

Your clips led me to, and reminded me of, a clip of Bob playing with South Fla legend and Chicago native Ira Sullivan. We often bring up the topic of players who seem to go into relative obscurity and and don't seem to get their due. As has also been pointed out, and as incredible as it may seem, some artists simply don't care about popularity and fame. These guys are incredibly dedicated to their art and they just want to play their music; Ira Sullivan is one of those people. One of the most interesting people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing and one of the most incredible multi-instrumentalists ever, Ira could burn on trumpet/flugelhorn, all the saxophones and on flute. He is 83 now and still playing great. Every instrument he plays sounds like his main axe; incredible!

Ira on trumpet:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=igJKk5L8EF0

On tenor:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4y5-ImyDTr0

On flute (along with Joe Farrell, my favorite jazz flute player):


On alto and trumpet: you can skip to 6:00 to hear an amazing exchange with another overlooked, and almost forgotten, great bebopper Red Rodney:

[URL]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69zE8JrTdCg>http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ry-stUpBXEQ[URL]

On alto and trumpet: you can skip to 6:00 to hear an amazing exchange with another overlooked, and almost forgotten, great bebopper Red Rodney:

[URL]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69zE8JrTdCg

Beto y los Fairlanes are a regional legends in Texas. I think you can see why. Always a ton of fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjAdGCmw-IY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryMlHt0AGc

One of Bob Meyers Concept Orchestra Tunes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJOicnDA174

That is the same Bob Meyer. Sad news. Thanks for the clip. He was well past his prime in that clip, he used to be an interesting and fiery player. May he rest in peace.

Nate Smith the drummer is not to shabby! Nice Group!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QPTosXHYk8

Found this online. Sorry if it is the same man. Seems to have done a lot. I have some Beto and the Fairlanes somewhere, and will see if he plays on it.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/statesman/obituary.aspx?pid=165564976

Acman3, yeah, a shame that the Sullivan clip is only getting 50 views. You're right about the NTS, a lot of great young players have come out of that program and the One O'clock Lab Band. Do you ever hear about or know a trumpet player (also plays saxophone, incredibly enough) named Bob Meyer? When I was going to school at U of Miami in the late '70's there was a guy from Texas (Austin, I think) who was living and teaching at U of M. I remember that he was a rough-around-the edges player, but with fantastic jazz feel and style. I have often wondered what happened to him; I had heard he moved back to Texas.

I will checkout Chris Parker; thanks for the tip.

Frogman,I thought the Joe Sullivan big band narrative showed how there are enclaves of musicians all over the world, perfecting their craft. Community. Striving to move forward, knowing if they stop growing and stretching, they will stop getting that RUSH of playing music. I thought it fit into the conversation without actually commenting myself. Listen again if you get a chance.

Joe Sullivan has been in rotation for a while on my local college station KNTU at the University of N.Texas, which as you may know is a pretty good school for JAZZ. Did you notice the Youtube had less than 50 views?

I am a fan of Fred Hirsch, and have several of his CD's. I love the last CD with Julian Lage. Lage was new to me .

I am familiar with Ted Nash. I will dig into his music more. I have only heard him in other peoples bands. I listened to a little of the Presidents Suites, but only little snippets.

I would be lying if I said I had heard Rich Perry. His playing, from what I have heard today, has a beautiful breathy tone. Very nice! I did notice he had a CD out with Jim Mcneely's music. I am a big fan of Mcneely's writing and piano playing, so that may be a good one for me.

I have Tim Hagan's Animation and the live CD that followed. Lost track after that. He is a very good trumpet player. Sometimes the style he WAS playing got in the way of how good he was. Always fun though.

I will have to look into the other players. Only so much time!

As far as Donny Mcaslin,I Iike his music. He is a good soloist. As Rok mentioned he did get a little long, but he is young and having a blast. I personally like a lot of electronic jazz. I will have to keep an eye on him.

Have you heard of a pianist named Chris Parker?

The Frogman:

****Well, if you insist; and, please understand that my lack of enthusiasm for this performance and Niquet is the very reason that I had not commented.*****

Negative reviews can be more instructive / valuable, than the positive ones. This is the stuff I most want to hear.

Forgot to say this earlier.

Cheers

Wow, lots of posts since I was last able to check in! Sorry guys, but I am in the very busiest part of my season right now and simply don't have time to listen to all these links. In a couple of weeks, I could go back and do so, but right now I just can't.

Rok, I pretty much agree with everything Frogman has said. I actually had a music theory major in my undergrad as well as my horn major, so I am qualified to teach it, and have privately. Triads are the basic building blocks of pretty much all Western music, until you get into the 20th century avant garde composers. Triads continue to be the basis of all popular music, including even most jazz, though it is much more experimental. Frogman's suggestion of buying a keyboard is a good one, however I would also suggest a set of books written by a guy named Paul Harder. They are "programmed" courses - meant to be taken at your own pace. You cover up half the page that has the answers as you work through. There is an accompanying CD. He has one for Fundamentals of Music that would be great for you, and then there are others that reach the equivalence of freshman and sophomore college music theory, much more than you would probably want to know, unless you really got into it.

Now for the abstract art stuff. Basically, yes, I agree with the author of your book. As to your questions - yes, music is more abstract than painting. As the author says, painting is two dimensional - you can see and even touch it, and can look at it over and over again. Music is only heard, and then it doesn't exist anymore, at least that particular performance, unless it was recorded (Richard Strauss and other composers and conductors and performers were horrified at the very idea of recorded music when the possibility first arose, by the way - recordings have fundamentally altered the way people think about music compared to even just 100 years ago). This is much more abstract.

if someone had never heard Don't Cry For Me Argentina before and did not know that it had words, it would be purely abstract for that person.

The other questions are more interesting - you are getting into aesthetics now. Someone putting words to an established tune definitely gives a meaning to the result that is not abstract anymore. However, you could also make up a completely different set of words and seemingly (or really) giving the music a totally different meaning. Which one would be correct? Would either be at all close to what the composer may have been thinking/feeling? He/she may be completely horrified. These questions do not have a simple answer.

Another fantastic performance of the Water Music, by the way, is the English Baroque Soloists, conducted by John Eliot Gardiner, who is my favorite period instrument group conductor. The natural horn playing is superb, far better than any other I have ever heard, including the one Frogman mentioned, which is a good one indeed.

Didn't see the video in question, but Frogman is probably correct that they were coached. Video has also fundamentally altered the way people think about music, especially performing, in mostly negative ways. Now there are huge numbers of people that think if you aren't wildly moving around or making funny faces, you can't possibly be emotionally involved. That's a load of crap.

Hope that decently answers your questions. Need to get to bed now. I promise I will go back and listen to some of these clips you guys have posted when I get time.

*****First of all, for a really great performance of this beautiful music on original instruments try Trevor Pinnock with The English Concert; and for my favorite with modern instruments but still using period performance practice try the Marriner/St Martin In The Fields.******

I have the Marriner / SMIF CD. I am almost embarrassed to admit I have six CDs of this music. The first one I purchased years ago was "The Academy of Ancient Music / Hogwood" It's on authentic instruments also.

****Niquet is the type of conductor that drives me nuts. There is, again, a sense that it is about what looks good. His technique is showy and dramatic with large motions that serve no musical purpose.*****

My thoughts exactly. I remember thinking, this guy is demonstrating that maybe Conductors are not needed past rehearsals. But the man is French, so looking good is important. Did you check out the shoes?

I understand that Andre Rieu is an excellent musician, that found he could make a lot more money as a showman. His stuff is not serious. I just love 'Amazing Grace' on bagpipes.

The band Barenboim conducted was the Israeli-Arab group he established. He did all nine symphonies during that Proms. There is a DVD out. Thinking of getting it. Like I need more sets of LvB.

I thought the horns were the highlight of the performance. They sounded so 'real / natural', on my computer setup. I love that sound. Not disagreeing with you, just to my amateur ears. And, the visuals were great. I think that makes a tremendous impact on a person's perception of the performance. The sound and video were excellent by youtube standards.

Thanks for your review. Very insightful.

Cheers

****But the real shocker for me, is that not one of our 'pros', commented on the performance of Water Music and Fireworks by the French Orchestra. ESP, the conductor!! What do you think of this guy?****

Well, if you insist; and, please understand that my lack of enthusiasm for this performance and Niquet is the very reason that I had not commented. I, too, love the sound of period instruments and I love performances that educate about the history of the music; but, I have some issues with this performance.

First of all, for a really great performance of this beautiful music on original instruments try Trevor Pinnock with The English Concert; and for my favorite with modern instruments but still using period performance practice try the Marriner/St Martin In The Fields.

The Niquet performance by comparison has some real problems with the ensemble playing. There are some major and distracting problems with intonation, especially the horns and trumpets. While period instruments (natural trumpets and horns) are harder to play in tune than modern instruments, recordings like Pinnock's don't suffer nearly to this degree. Additionally, having the woodwinds standing was an odd choice. It looks good, but there is an imbalance between the winds and strings, the winds being too prominent in relation to the strings. Overall, not a memorable performance on musical grounds; but, impressive visually and educationally and there is value in that. Niquet is the type of conductor that drives me nuts. There is, again, a sense that it is about what looks good. His technique is showy and dramatic with large motions that serve no musical purpose. Like the Andre Rieu performance, it's not my cup of tea. BTW, the Baremboin/LVB is great; he is one of the very best classical musicians on the scene today.

There is a historical inaccuracy in the presentation of the Niquet performance. The Music For Royal Fireworks was composed for wind band (no strings); that is what was heard at that first royal performance. It wasn't until later that Handel reorchestrated it for full orchestra as heard on the Niquet performance.

Lastly, you'll just have to take my word for this (perhaps Learsfool will chime in on this), and I bring it up because you have often commented about performers appearing to be working too hard at "performing"; but, I would bet that those musicians were coached to "perform"; to make gestures that looked good and made them appear to be "involved". This goes to my previous comment and it's something that, having been in those shoes, one just knows. Glorious music 'though.

No pressure, Acman3; I was not taking you to task with my comment at all.

i have been real busy. i will respond to links tonight.

Under the heading of: You learn something everyday, I always thought Water Music and Fireworks were written during the same time period, and for the same event. Turns out that Fireworks was written 30 years later. Don't I feel silly.

Cheers

*****That is a very strange and illogical question.*****

When I read that, it hit me like a bolt out of the blue!!

THE GOOD LORD IS TESTING ME!!!! Just like Job.

But the real shocker for me, is that not one of our 'pros', commented on the performance of Water Music and Fireworks by the French Orchestra. ESP, the conductor!! What do you think of this guy?

Last Chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q27aV-IiQWo

Cheers

And BTW, Rok, for whatever it may be worth, Wynton thinks Ted Nash is "the bomb". I don't know if you connected the dots, but Ted is 2nd alto in the LCJB and is often featured and has gotten some recent commissions for new works (worth hearing).

O-10, I am not quite sure I understand what the problem is. I can appreciate and respect Acman3's choice to not engage in much of the debate/discussion, but, over the last three days alone, there have been close to a dozen links to new music and no reaction to them except from Rok and I who are the most "guilty" of discussing the "factors around the music". Some of us find it very interesting to discuss the factors around the music. In my opinion that is, in great part, what leads to new discoveries, because by discussing these is, in fact, one of the most important ways to "broaden the definition". The problem is that, as usual, we can't have it both ways. If we simply want to share links to music that we each like and leave it at that, that is fine; but, if one doesn't want to be subject to discussing the "factors around the music", then I think those posts should be free of proclamations about things that may need to be challenged when they have no basis in fact or reality. There have been, and continue to be, comments made about the state of jazz, what is jazz, the quality of certain artists, etc. that are simply not rooted in what is the accepted wisdom (and, in many cases, fact) on those subjects. There is a deep and pervasive romanticized and politicized (for lack of a better word) influence on many listeners' views of the sphere of the art world that is simply incorrect, and this can lead to a bias and very premature dismissal of certain music without first giving it a fair shot. As you have often pointed out, the reasons for our individual likes and dislikes is subjective, but it is important to understand that there are, in fact, certain objective standards that separate good art from bad. I commend Rok for wanting to broaden his horizons by learning more about, yes I will say it, the nuts and bolts.

Rok, thanks for your impressions of those young players. I don't know what you listened to by Ted Nash, but I would give him another listen; he really is a great player. I must say that I don't know what the hell the comment that "he talks too much" ("he's fat"?) has to do with wether the guy can play or not? Try this (and you can ignore the visual "accompaniment" by the Youtube poster):

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-njySw6I_U

I just had a thought that relates to the "abstract" question (I will give Learsfool the first shot at that one) and visuals when listening to music. As nice as videos of live performances are, I think we have had ample proof of the problem with what we SEE during a performance coloring our reaction to the music. I think it is fair to say that the quality of the music should be judged on its own and not be influenced by wether a performer does too many facial contortions, "dresses like a buffoon", or "talks too much".

Anyway, the business of "popularity" is getting a little tiresome and the main point is being missed. Facts:

-Artists don't go into the arts for the money or popularity.

-That jazz is less popular now than it once was does not mean that there is no quality jazz now; or, even, less jazz now. I hope my recent links have demonstrated this amply.

****Name me one artist that is considered great, but not popular with his audience, intended or otherwise.****

That is a very strange and illogical question. If an artist has an audience, is he not, by definition, popular? Nonetheless, a couple of thoughts:

Why then, did so many greats (Dexter Gordon) have to move to Europe?: because his audience was shrinking; iow, jazz was becoming less popular in the USA. Did that make him less of a player? And, btw, most of these guys didn't move to Europe for the applause, they moved there to make a living because there simply wasn't enough work here.

Food for thought:

****In Europe, they like everything you do. The mistakes and everything. That’s a little bit too much.****. - Miles

The reason that I feel so strongly about the subject of "popularity", particularly as concerns the young crop of players, is that I know a lot of those guys and I know how they struggle to make ends meet while maintaining an incredible sense of dedication to their music with interest in popularity being so far behind their interest in honing their craft and making great art that it is impossible to describe. In spite of a much smaller audience base compared to the past when jazz was the popular music, jazz continues to thrive and move forward. Let's remember that jazz artists themselves were often reluctant to call the music "jazz" because they felt the name was too limiting. That Miles seems to be defending Dixieland in that quote is not the point of his comment, but that limiting ourselves to a narrow view of what jazz is is stupid.

Re triads:

Don't have any more time now, but I will quickly point out that a triad is simply a chord comprised of two thirds stacked on top of each other. Four kinds of triads: major, minor, diminished and augmented. There is much more to it, and while I think you are a great candidate for and would strongly encourage you to buy yourself a keyboard (electronic if you don't want the expense and hassle of a real piano/you would not believe what can be bought for around $250) as a learning tool, for now, a printout of a keyboard off the internet would make things much much easier to understand if you want to go further.

Cheers

0-10:

I certainly do not wish to limit the discussion. I am ready and willing to broaden my horizons. I will also tone down my negativity concerning modern and world Jazz. Can't learn anything with a closed mind. Thanks for broaching this subject. I, for one, do tend to go off on tangents.

Cheers

From my book.

" I would suggest that instrumental music is the most abstract art yet conceived by humankind. some might quibble with me; but in this I know I'm right."

He goes on to say; "Drawings or paintings, representational or not, are physical objects and exist in at least two dimensions. You can see and touch them."

"Poetry and literature, while not concrete objects, are written in a language that a person would understand. Therefore we fully understand what the artist is trying to say."

"But what is instrumental music? It is music that has no words, no literary information beyond its title, to explain why it exists, and why it sounds the way it does. It's neither physically dimensional nor concrete......Music has to be played, and when instrumental music is played, it exists only in the ether as concussion waves assaulting our eardrums."

"Color me a literalist, but as far as i'm concerned, that's about as abstract an art as I can Imagine."

NOW:

AS I was reading this, the local FM station was playing 'Don't cry for me Argentina' Instrumental version. My questions are:

would a instrumental version of a song originaly written with words, be abstract? Would it be abstract, if the person had never heard the words before?

Horace Silver wrote many instrumental Jazz songs. They would be abstract. Dee Dee Bridgewater did a CD of his music, put to words. Her words. Is her CD abstract? Does it change Silver's music from being abstract?

Why are sound waves assaulting the ear drums more abstract than photons of light assaulting our eyes? Speaking of abstract paintings here.

Thanks for your brilliant insights.

You guys up to speed on "triads"?

Cheers

Mahler wrote Classical Symphonic music.
People didn't like his music
Mahler and his music are not POPULAR
Mahler is not great
Mahler dies
New people begin to play and listen to his music
New people like his music
New Orchestras play and record his music
Now Mahler's music is very POPULAR
Mahler is now recognized as a great composer.

I don't see a problem

Cheers

Rok, on the off chance that you are actually being serious (which I still cannot really believe) - Haven't you ever heard of someone being called "ahead of his time?" Pick any art form you wish, and a very large percentage of the truly greats in that form were not "popular" during their time. Their art survived anyway because it was great art. Music history is full of such composers - to name just one, the symphonies of Gustav Mahler are now very often played, but during his lifetime, almost not at all. Some of them he never heard himself, except at his piano when writing them. There are many writers (James Joyce, to name one in English) and visual artists one can say the same of - folks who barely scraped by in relative obscurity during their lifetimes, but are now considered one of the all time greats. No one goes into the arts to make money - this would be an idiotic goal. In fact, huge numbers of very talented students majoring in the arts even at the very best schools end up dropping out (if not dropping out of school, at least abandoning it as a career goal), because they decided they didn't want to work as hard as is necessary, since it was not going to bring them the income level they wanted, even if they attained the very highest level in their art.

I look forward to your question on abstract art.

Miles defending Dixieland?? That's incredible! Nothing wrong with Dixieland, it just sounds incredulous.

I was just wondering if this was Miles, Pre or Post, dressing like a buffoon(wynton Marsalis) and looking like Sinbad the Sailor(our OP). :) We won't get into the 'Bitches Brew' Era.

Did Monk indicate how a players was suppose to eat and play rent for those 15-20 years? Spoken like a man with a secure income. (from that european countess, or whatever she was)

Looking back probably caused Miles too much pain and regret.

The last quote from Monk is true, I guess. That's why I have CDs of the stuff I like.

Cheers

****I don’t like to hear someone put down dixieland. Those people who say there’s no music but bop are just stupid; it shows how much they don’t know.**** - Miles

****I say, play your own way. Don’t play what the public wants. You play what you want and let the public pick up on what you’re doing? even if it does take them fifteen, twenty years. **** - Monk

****Always look ahead, but never look back. **** - Miles

****I don’t know where jazz is going. Maybe it’s going to hell. You can’t make anything go anywhere. It just happens. **** - Monk

The Frogman:

Ted Nash:
I am sure he is a fine technically competent musician. But this music just did not do it for me. Watching it is interesting, but to listen on CD, I don't see that.

He talks too much. The band members seemed uninterested when they were not playing. What happened to listening to each other. Music not fluid at all. just unconnected segments.

Gary Smulyan:
Liked his stuff. I had to go to youtube. Might not be the one you sent. But I like his style. "Bella Napoli" was very interesting. I could listen to that on CD/LP.

Rich Perry / Tim Hagans:
Again, great players, just not my cup of tea.

Fred Hersch:
Non-Jazz. Too many reviews from "The New Yorker" and "Vanity Fair" and sources like that. All saying in effect, he marches to a different drummer. Which is true. But not always a compliment.

I will concede that you are a better judge of talent than I am. So if you disagree, I agree you are correct. I just stated my opinion.

Jazz, the very word conjures up images of Smoke filled night clubs, small clubs, women, drinking, noise, laughter, dancing, working girls, guys playing for the pleasure of it, blowing over the din, not a sheet of music in sight.

These guys are light years from that. Maybe they are beyond it. Maybe better. Maybe too deep for me. Maybe it's what people like these days. Maybe they are technically perfect.

Maybe thats's why I have 3000 CDs and 6 Cd players. I can live in the past forever. Because as the man said, "Art Is not linear"!

My book just covered "Abstract Music". I have a question. Learsfool made a statement that fits right into what the book says. It's kind of long, will take some time to condense it. Send it later.

Cheers

The Frogman:

Donny McCaslin:
Both clips were good. The C-Jam Blues clip had a lot of energy and enthusiasm. The tune they chose to play didn't hurt matters at all. He did play longer than he should have. Sometimes, players continue to solo, after the solo is over. Youthful exuberance??

Casting for Gravity:
This guy does play Jazz. Would have been better without the electronic stuff. But it was Jazz. It would be silly to compare these young guys with the all time greats, I just expect them to play Jazz. This young man does. They will find their groove, and get even better with time and experience. I just hope he has the patience to stick to it. And, ditch the electronics.

Cheers

Learsfool:

****Rok, I must agree 100% with Frogman - your comments in your latest post are way off base. Laughable, even. Are you trying to troll us? Seriously?!*****

I assume you are talking about the 'popularity' remarks. I don't get the humor. Do you disagree?

Name me one artist that is considered great, but not popular with his audience, intended or otherwise.

I have no idea what a 'Troll' is. Must be an 'Audiophile'
thingy.

Cheers

Here's one of the most interesting and forward-looking young saxophone players around and making some very interesting music; and an amazing instrumentalist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NKgvNKHCBdM

And here he is, along with Joshua Redman, as soloist "ringers" in a band comprised of HIGH SCHOOL (!) players. First of all, check out the expressions on the faces of the kids (!) in the saxophone section as they listen to McCaslin and Redman solo; check out that kid on bass playing his ass off. If that doesn't bode well for the future of jazz, I don't know what does.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvy4xbWJmp8

McCaslin's playing (even if a little too long) is an absolutely amazing display of ideas and virtuosity. Redman also plays very well and more melodically, and seems to have a look of worry as McCaslin plays, as if saying: "I have to follow THAT?" But, it's the kids that really impress. Yes, contrary to popular cliche, they can learn a lot in school. Don't worry folks, jazz is alive and well.

Enough already! It seems that Acman3 is the only person still on the music, as opposed to factors surrounding the music that none of us know for sure. Let's get back on the track that will lead to new discoveries of jazz. But before we leave, I think we should all agree to broaden the definition, or not. In order to appease Rok, I've stayed within the narrow definition of the word, while my definition is quite broad. What ever the mutual definition is, is fine with me.

Enjoy the music.

Rok, I must agree 100% with Frogman - your comments in your latest post are way off base. Laughable, even. Are you trying to troll us? Seriously?!

Acman3, thanks for the Joe Sullivan links. Nice! New to me. Very harmonically interesting writing; he has a unique voice harmonically. I particularly liked Lofsky's guitar playing.

Here's a band composed of some of the best young NY jazz cats.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ_BjtbP_Lk

We can debate the issue of the meaning of popularity ad nauseum, and I could point out that you could not be more mistaken re the motivation of true artists being popularity since to most true artists popularity, even when sought and achieved, is secondary to the simple need to perform their craft; no matter what. However, as concerns this discussion the point that you, perhaps conveniently, continue to ignore is that jazz WAS the popular music at one time and is no longer for many reasons already discussed, that in no way does that mean that great jazz is no longer being played; quite the contrary.

Your feelings about popularity as concerns the artist really don't come as a surprise. For some insight into your mindset about this, I would bring up, again, the subject of the great Phil Woods. When first discussed, and after my accolades of his playing you were, at best, unimpressed with his playing and your most positive comment about him was "He's fat". Months later, as you read more and more about him and became more and more aware of the countless recordings he was on and how he was held in the very highest esteem by top players, all of a sudden he seemed to move closer to the top of your list (so to speak). I would suggest that his great stature was there to be heard and did not need the support of anything else aside from your ears.

Let us know what you think of the players I recommended.

**** As I said before your points go to the issue of popularity; what does that prove?*****

To most artist, 'popularity' is EVERTHING! It's priceless. It means success. Financial security. It also 'proves' the artist is connecting with the intended audience.

Popularity is the whole point of being an Artist.

People just have to accept the fact, that the unwashed masses, decide the fate and fortune, of all Artists. :)

Cheers

****Go out to hollywood to take a group photo of all the great western / cowboy stars. You may find a couple. They are all gone. Because Westerns are all gone.****

Huh?! Strange analogy, but re your post in general, see my previous post; I said it all before. Just what is it you think, that when I say that there is a lot of good jazz still being played, that I am making this up? As I said before your points go to the issue of popularity; what does that prove?

**** So it is possible I am not up to speed on the current crop of Jazz players.****

You think? More like the understatement of the year (thread). I suppose I could turn the tables on you and ask YOU to name a few to prove my point, but I will recommend a few. Some of my favorite young jazz players:

http://tednash.com

"The Mancini Project" is a favorite, but any of his recordings are worth hearing; as are any of the recordings by the following.

http://richperrymusic.com

http://www.garysmulyan.com/m/

http://home.earthlink.net/~smoulden/scott/scott.html#lp1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hagans

http://fredhersch.com/index.php

Lots more, but this should get you started.

Cheers.

The Frogman:

I am still 'discovering' Jazz music by people that died in the 70's. So it is possible I am not up to speed on the current crop of Jazz players.

Could you recommend a couple of albums for me to try?

Cheers