Jazz for aficionados

Charles1dad:

Smart Jazz players and fans support Wynton and his efforts to expose new people to Jazz and increase the fan base of the music. And in order to do that, the music must be accessible. Not a job for the Ornette Coleman's of the world.

It's sort of like Tiger Woods. Although all golfers want to win and try to win, they know that if they can't win it, it's better for them all if Tiger does. The more he wins, the more money for them all.

I have never heard or read of a Jazz player bashing Wynton. I think they know better. Too bad the fans don't.

Thanks for the words of support.

Cheers.

BTW, lest there be any doubt. I do not consider The Frogman a basher. That type of thing would be beneath a person with his musical knowledge and background.

Frogman makes some very good points on Wynton and others. I would like to elaborate on one thing he said, about inconsistency, which I believe was in reference to Wynton in his post, but could be in reference to anyone, really, when we are talking about live performance. I am also aware, Frogman, that what I am about to say is not really the same point you were making, but more about inconsistency in general. None of us professional musicians are perfect in live performance. One thing that the recording age has done is to elevate the standards that people judge a live performance by, which is why many musicians were violently opposed to recordings when they first started, both in the jazz and classical worlds.

Recordings really can be "perfect" now - with the digital editing technology that exists now, it really is not exaggeration to say that recordings are really almost completely false now, often not resembling the actual playing done whatsoever. I have participated in opera recording sessions where all of the takes sounded like dogcrap. Every single one. Yet somehow, the engineer/editor put together a "recording" that sounds basically perfect. This is how it is done now, and the unfortunate thing about this is that it has raised unrealistic expectations for a live performance from people who don't know much about it, which is most people, including most audiophiles. This is one reason why so many audiophiles say they would rather sit at home and listen to their systems instead of going out to hear live music making. This is a very, very sad thing, IMO.

So I would say about many of these artists that we are discussing here - if you have only heard their recordings, you have not REALLY heard them. If we are talking about a living, presently working artist, you really need to hear them live to truly get a sense of what they can really do. And I want to make it clear that I am not just putting a negative spin on this - you will hear nuances in their live performances that the recordings just do not pick up, and you will slowly gain a greater appreciation for what it is they are actually doing, in the moment, making their music - the sort of things that have been under discussion in this thread, which I agree has been one of the best ever on this site. Yeah, you'll hear some flaws that are not on your recordings - but you will also hear (and feel) some magic that your recordings can never ever pick up, and which you are missing if you do not hear them live.

Ike Quebec is one of my favorite tenor sax men. "Heavy Soul" is my favorite cut from that album which has been in my collection for ages. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

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

Learsfool,
Well said.As much as I truly enjoy listening to jazz with my system, it won't ever replace the feel and vibe I experience at the jazz clubs I frequently attend. There's no substitute.
Regards,

Rok, thanks for "getting" where I am coming from. Too much great music out there to spend time bashing. Analysis and criticism is a different matter altogether, and serves to gain a deeper understanding of the music, IMO. No artist should be put on such a high pedestal that they are above it; and most of the great ones would be the first to admit it.