Village Vanguard session with Bill Evans

I think the village vanguard recordings are fantastic. Why ? Well it's not because of the number of notes played or " needed". What a curious concept. I have no idea how many notes are needed to express ones self in any given situation but if there were some arbitrary limit then Trane would have exceeded it by a country mile in his "sheets of sound" days. This is how HE expressed HIS 'zen-ness' and , I think, his spirituality by reciting almost every possible musical permutation in his journey to the bottom of that particular rabbit hole. Evans expresses his soul differently. I like the recording because I see the beauty in it. I don't think someone elses reasons should sway your opinion however. As for kinda blue it's iconic and of the highest quality but I don't love it as much as I do several other miles titles. BTW I am surprised by newbees comment about the recording quality of 50's - 60's jazz. Other than almost always undermiking piano I view this period as a golden age of great quality. After 1970 recording quality for me dropped way off. 1958-1965 was peak with 1961 being the best IMHO. I have no idea why this is so. I might be a bit prejudiced by the great performances of the time. - Jim

If you question why this is considered such a great recording, then you just don't get it. That's not a bad thing. Remember it is all subjective. If you can listen to "My Mans Gone Now" and not see the greatness, you really do not get it. Again, that's OK. For me, this album is much better than "King of Blue". I have always considered it overrated.

BB King said, "It ain't the notes you play. It's the notes you don't...." or so I heard he's reputed to have said. In any case, I don't find DazzDax idea "curious" - it isn't really about "note counting"...that's simply code for another manifestation of "less is more". There's a video of Bill Evans talking with his brother about a related concept (authentic vs non-authentic performance based on a solid understanding of the fundamentals). I don't take DazzDax question as "dissing" the Village Vanguard sessions, rather trying to stimulate some worthwhile discussion about what makes some music great. (Thanks for eliciting the wonderful quote from Miles about Evans' playing. I had not heard that before...it is certainly a propos).

Ghosthouse, I think the use of space can be very moving and sometimes less is indeed more. Some people like Count Basie made a living out of it. Others (Pops) used the implication of notes ( not playing them but playing in a way where one expects to hear certain notes ) and then used these 'implied notes' as part of the melody he was playing. This use of space and compactness of playing, this level of virtuosity may indeed be objectively said to be of the highest level. What I found "curious' was to take only one aspect of expression ( space or perhaps compactness- often a Milesian attribute) and try to use it as a some sort of standard upon which to objectively judge the quality of another recording. What makes great music IMHO is it's ability to go beyond the here and now and to offer a transcendent experience to the listener. Each of us has a unique experience we bring with us each time we listen to music or view great art. That's why something might be so obviously magical to me but not to you and vice versa. I don't get a lot of modern art when I go to an art museum but the guy next to me might be in tears. His view and the view of the painters align so that he sees 'through' the painting to its greater meaning which alludes me. Is it great art or great music ? I say yes if it allows a way, if we can but see/hear it, to a deeper meaning which is ordinarily unavailable to us. - Jim

Aldavis - Well said! Especially regarding "transcendence" but the potentially subjective nature of that experience is more fodder for discussion! If you "get it" and I don't...is it great art for you but not for me? Doesn't great art rise above the invidual experience? There must be some objective elements that allow great art to survive over time, changes in culture, modes of thinking etc. I'm not sure what role for the subjective expericence. I think it must play a part - but what weight to give it? I do agree economy can't be the only element defining great art or great music (I didn't intend to imply that). Look at architecture in a Rococco or Baroque style vs some modern minimalist construct. Each has something wonderful about it. Good point also to raise Miles' complaint to Coltrane. In a Coltrane bio I started reading, he's reported to have said, "...why do you have to play so long?" (or words to that effect). When I first read that, I thought it was an ego thing on Miles part about time in the spotlight...in this context now, I'm thinking Coltrane's approach violated (maybe too strong a word) Miles' own sensibility. One more thing I'll add about what defines great art is, "Time". The passage of time is like some erosive process...some stuff gets washed away. Other things remain like bedrock revealed. Setting aside the perhaps distoring effects of commercial interests, we want to listen to Bill Evans and many others decades and centuries after the fact because they tapped into something enduring. Transcendent? yes, I think so too.