Jazz for aficionados

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

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

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? ;-)