Jazz for aficionados

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.

Learsfool, great comments. I couldn't agree more with your comments re live performances vs. studio "performances"; that is precisely the reason that at least half of the links that I have posted here are live perfs. A while ago I made a comment in a thread (don't remember which) about the fact that some musicians (mostly older guys) feel that the advent of recording technology was "the beginning of the end". I was berated by some for that comment, which while overly pessimistic has truth in it; as you point out. Now, the beautiful thing about many of the classic recordings that we are talking about (classic Blue Notes, Prestige, etc.) is that digital editing was not part of the process back then, and in spite of some manipulation (balance, multiple takes etc.) they give us a much better representation of what the players could do than most of the recordings today. As you point out, many would be shocked at how, in some cases today, a solo is "composed" in the mixing room by taking the first four bars of the first take, the middle twelve from the third take, the bridge from the fourth take, and then back to the first take for the last sixteen; not to mention "fixing" fracks and squeaks. Even a singer's faulty pitch can be fixed in the booth with today's technology. Of course, the artists with the most integrity refuse to do much of this sort of thing, if at all.