Jazz for aficionados

Rok,

No offense intended but your version of history is unfortunately incomplete. To say the blues was about some people entertaining others is to ignore its genesis from slavery forward. Reconstruction for many was actually worse for a large portion of the populace. The delta changed very slowly following emancipation and so much of the blues was from juke joint to juke joint. To say it was about entertainment is to ignore the downtrodden, sharecropper who worked 6 hard days tending his crops and the outlet that a Saturday night at the crossroads was for his sanity.

Louis Armstong and King Oliver would tell you today that New Orleans wasnt all that much fun for the African American/Creole of south Louisiana....which is why when given the opportunity to make some money while cruising the riverboats northward they jumped at it. Arriving in South Chicago and east St Louis along the way was pretty important as well where a young Miles Davis may have been inspired. As far as Coltrane is concerned, please dont mistake my admiration for him with my commentary on Ascension....rarely has a week gone by when I havent listened to some Coltrane.

Again, your understanding of a proper music business model notwithstanding, the music business prior to 1980 was horrific for all but the biggest stars. Any smart minded musician today can control their own destiny, unlike in the good old days.

Mingus- New Tijuana Moods
Coltrane- Cresent
Garland- Groovy
Ellington / Hodges- Back to Back

I will add one more. At a time ,about 15 years ago, when I thought Jazz had said all it could, I heard Chicago Underground Duo's " 12 degree of freedom". For some reason this record opened, no, reopened my eyes to what Jazz can be and still is. I hope you all get your eyes and mind opened regularly.

"Reconstruction for many was actually worse for a large portion of the populace. The delta changed very slowly following emancipation and so much of the blues was from juke joint to juke joint. To say it was about entertainment is to ignore the downtrodden, sharecropper who worked 6 hard days tending his crops and the outlet that a Saturday night at the crossroads was for his sanity."

This may be true, but I am failing to see your point. Times were hard and people went out to juke joints to drink and try to get lucky and be ENTERTAINED. Other people during these same hard times, went to other places to be entertained. Maybe by country bands, bluegrass, fife and drum or to watch MGM musicals. People have always sought escapist entertainment. Even to this day. The blues was / is not protest music.

It is very disrepectful of the blues players talent and creativity, to say that some how he would not have been able to do it without slavery. That's absurd. Esp when it comes to African-Americans, who are some of the most creative folks on the planet.

I got off the Coltrane train after, A Love Supreme. Or there abouts. Miles left me after Bitches Brew.

I guess we can't like it all.
Great Post.

Cheers

Ok rok, you are taking some historical observations and trying to twist my words. Please dont. The history of the blues is easy to trace but difficult to categorize. There can be little objective doubt that the blues was a manifestation of the unique circumstances of the artists when combined with their environment. I certainly intended no offense to African Americans as you allude to, which was unwelcome amd unfair.

I was basically trying to point out that most important musical innovations were heavily influenced by the social environment of the times, positive or negative.