Jazz for aficionados

Frogman, as always, you make thought provoking comments. Since "all" music is subjective, I have no problem with someone's proclamation that this musician or that is superior. As someone stated, "My religion, is the only true religion"; fortunately no wars have been fought over disagreements about jazz.

An objective analysis of jazz can only occur when many aficionados concur. Currently, I don't know of any aficionados who concur with my opinion that the best jazz is no longer being made in America. Youn Sun Nah was made in Korea, and Sharmila Guha was made in India. I have no explanation for the reasons regarding this abnormality, but my ears seem to prefer jazz made in other parts of the world over domestic jazz. Don't blame me, blame my unpatriotic ears. Fortunately, there is so much jazz from the past that I have yet to hear, my unpatriotic ears wont be a problem.

Enjoy the music.

Rok, I thought the following comment you made was thought-provoking and very true:

"I am sure Miles et al. knew guys who deserved to be as great as they were, and I am sure they thought of them on their way to the bank. It's always been that way and it always will."

This is not mean as a criticism of Miles--he was a Jazz great. But there probably were other Jazz musicians of his time who might have been revered on the same level if they had just received the backing and freedom provided to them by a major record label like Miles was. A lot of these guys recorded for minor labels for peanuts and if they would have proposed projects like "Porgy and Bess" or "Sketches of Spain," the record companies would have laughed at them. Miles certainly deserves the praise he receives, but who knows who else might have similarly flourished with the resources he had.

I am mixed about the subject of the "unsung hero". I agree that there have been, and are, many examples of musicians deserving of greater recognition than they got (get); but, personally, I would be careful about attributing too much of the reason for this to forces outside of the musician himself. Musicians can be (and often are) complicated and difficult individuals who sometimes make choices that are not conducive to "success"; some don't even want it. In general, the best players get the attention. This conversation between jazz greats Billy Taylor and Frank Wess addresses some of this:

http://www.prx.org/pieces/20223-billy-taylor-unsung-jazz-players-1-of-2

This subject, with the focus on Miles Davis, is particularly interesting because it (inadvertently?) touches upon, and causes one to question, one of the running themes in this thread: the idea held by some of us that the best jazz has already been played, or that a particular period in jazz has the most merit. The two records cited (Porgy and Bess and Sketches of Spain) could not be better subjects for this particular discussion.

These two records, and especially the earlier "Birth Of The Cool" sessions (which were the first collaborations between Davis and Gil Evans) are records for which Miles Davis got top billing when it could easily be argued that Gil Evans was the primary force behind these projects. Yet, these are always considered Miles Davis sessions. When was the last time anyone of us heard any of those records referred to as "the Gil Evans record ....."? Davis was the higher profile individual (to the public) as the rising star of the jazz trumpet world.

But, the real interesting point (and irony) in all this, and how it relates to our reverence for Miles and certain specific periods in jazz is seen when we look at what it was that made Miles the success that he was. The collaboration between Miles and Evans was a direct result of their dissatisfaction with, and a concerted effort to move away from, what they perceived to be the dominance, and limitations of be-bop. As we all know, miles was one of the creators of be-bop.

That kind of constantly forward-looking attitude, with an openness to change, is what made Miles great. Is it not ironic that we revere an artist who achieved great success, in great part, by always moving away from his artistic past; yet, some of us resist a similar open-mindedness?

I don't think there's even an issue about jazz being dead, but by definition the best music is in the the past. For any mature artform that is always the case. For instance, a linear synopsis of jazz could be Armstrong, Ellington, Monk/Parker, Miles, Coltrane... and it's just not clear who comes after Coltrane. I think only time will tell. I'm most interested in who would get nominated.

"When was the last time anyone of us heard any of those records referred to as "the Gil Evans record ....."? Davis was the higher profile individual (to the public) as the rising star of the jazz trumpet world."

Why should they? Nothing new about this. The soloist always gets top billing. Miles did the playing. Evenas arranged and conducted the orchestra. He did not conduct Miles!

Think of Anne-Sophie Mutter playing with the Berliners. Who gets top billing? Not the conductor nor the orchestra. The person the public is paying to hear.

I have 25+ CDs by Miles, not counting his stuff on LP. Take away the Spain / birth of cool / Porgy Bess, CDs, and there is a LOT of stuff left. Before, during and after Evans.

And my little collection is puny compared to his total output. He was just great. Evans was just a minor stop on the way.

Cheers