Alex, I wrote my previous post before reading your most recent. Speaking for myself, I don't mind a debate about this or any other topic having to do with a great topic such as this. Having said that, let me remind you that it was you who asked for thoughts and commentary about your premise of the forgotten player and posted examples. While I have acknowledged that most of these players are good players, I don't agree with your premise that they were as good as the best. I simply don't agree. I do agree that some are worth getting to know better. I also agree that, in some ways and for the purpose of this discussion, it serves no purpose to always compare them to the best. But, it was you who wrote that they may have been as good as th best; like Rambrandt. Anyway, your point is taken. Yes, there are many players who were good players that should be explored by listeners; I agree. But, I consider them second and third tier players and in most cases I don't see any great crime committed because they are more "famous"; whatever that means in the context of the jazz world and it's aficionados. That seems to be the main sticking point here. Again, your "top tier" is broader than mine; that's ok.
BTW, you misrepresented what I said re the "music buiness". I don't believe that "the business" OFTEN has the last word a the expense of art. Sometimes, yes; often, not so sure. To suggest that is to suggest that the artists that shaped this great music were undeserving and that others were slighted; others who were more deserving of the fame (and influence). WHO? I want to know who could have had the impact of. Bird or Ellington or Trane or Miles and who was also overlooked. Please tell me.
The idea of the unrecognized genius is a quaint and attractive one. Usually overstated. The cream usually rises to the top. What i think we strongly agree with is the idea that it is a shame that the music has declined in poplarity to the extent that there isn't a broader appreciation for it in the general public. The end result of this is that the business will not support those who aren't at the very top.
As Rok says, cheers, and thanks for the thought provoking posts. |
The Frogman's comments on my list: i.e. (my latest test from The Lord)
Talent, and I mean extreme talent, will overcome almost anything. Bird was one of the creators of a new music. Had he the been 637th Be-bop player, instead one of the first, we may be having a different conversation. He would have been on a much shorter leash.
Ella had the perfect voice, according to my favorite Opera diva, Beverly Sills. Had there been another singer, just as good as Ella in all aspects(even the thought seems silly), and of the same era, but looked like Lena Horne, We would be saying Ella who?
Just how we humans are folks. That's the way it works. Good looks will also get an artist fame that their talent does not support. Mainly females.
Another factor was the 'escape' to Europe. Jazz could not be nurtured there. The players who did this lived a comfortable contented life. Got picked up on Tours and had a name locally. But, they gave up the chance to be Great and well known.
Drugs: some folks seem to be affected to a different degree by drug use. Some do it during a long and successful career, and others take one hit, and are immediately on skid row. And all degrees in between.
Cheers |
Well, Frogman, the answer is quite simple. Ask yourself how many people actually could afford to live beeing just a jazz musician? Imho opinion jazz survived despite music business, not because of it. Certainly, that has lot to do with other social factors as well, but if the 'business'saw the opportunity to make more money with jazz, I am sure that its development and history would have taken another direction. The 'business' will support the ones who will bring the biggest buck, and usually those ones will not be our favourite 'greats'. I guess there is no need to talk about music business, and its flaws or its wrongdoing in terms of culture and education
Regarding previous subject, I am not talking about narrow 'top trier,'. It is in fact my 'bottom trier' who is probbably broader than yours.(no offense) You have said that jazz society is a small circle, it may be so, but the opus left behind is absolutely huge, so much great music, I am afraid lifetime is not enough to hear it all.
Under those terms, I guess one should have open ears and perspective and than it will be rewarded with more great music. Quite often that happens to me, and if that was not the case, long time ago I could option to have couple hundred 'top' records and maybe great collection of stamps too, instead. |
Alex, I have no interest in arguing. I appreciate your perspective and I can only offer the perspective of someone who has been in the music "business" his entire working life (37 years) and done nothing but play music that entire time in order to earn a living; well, maybe a stock purchase or two :-). I don't disagree with all that you have written, but I think that we have strayed from the original issues and I think that in the future you may want to be more precise with what you pose. You first said that some of these players in question were as good as the best and asked if any of them were "the one". Now, a different standard is being used. Seems to me that anyone who is "the one" belongs in that top and narrow tier which you now say is not what you are talking about; and which Rok now calls "extreme talent". I am confused. I will finish with a couple of thoughts which every lover of the music should find reassuring and is certainly a positive:
The music is a far more powerful force than the business of music. Jazz would have done what it did no matter what the "business" does; it has to, just as creative musicians have to create. The ones that have a lot to say will say it; its the nature of the beast. And btw, the business has made a fair bit of change from all that talking :-)
Let's make this discussion interesting; if you are game. I am still waiting to hear the name of someone who was "the one" and then was forgotten. And, in addition, let's not just throw ideas out there and claim that there is "proof". Tell me in specific terms, not just "I like" or "I don't like", what it is about some of the players you have mentioned that merits their place as one of the best. I would be glad to back my comments with specifics. If you don't care to go there, and that's ok, I can only add that there is much recorded work by great trumpet players that I consider to be on a higher level than than, for instance, Dave Burns that I (nor my record collection) don't feel deprived in the least. Please don't misunderstand, I am glad that I have heard Dave Burns' work and I'm glad that his playing resonates with you. It doesn't with me.
Peace.
Btw, what is it about George Benson's playing that you don't like? Honest question and I don't refer to his Pop stuff. I assume you are familiar with his jazz playing. Thanks. |
Alex, a good local musician can make a good living, so I recently discovered. Nothing compared to a touring musician, but good never the less. They had to drag "Grant" out of St. Louis; they couldn't even drag Eddie Fisher out. There are other local musicians who got into drugs. Grant is the only "famous" musician from St. Louis I knew personally. My friend was not from St. Louis, and if I ever mentioned his name, I would be hounded down to fill in missing time and pieces, which I'm not going to do.
There is someone else on this forum who might have figured out his name, and we had a squabble about revealing personal stuff, so me friend's personal life will remain personal. I'll never attach a name to negative personal information I know; think about the guys heirs.
Wardell Grey died in May 1955, and I discovered him in June 1956; so he was dead when I discovered him. My cousin had a lot of his records, but those records are no longer available, and I don't like most of the records that are available; recording quality didn't matter as much back then. All in all, it doesn't seem to matter a lot; that's because the music we like is not for this generation.
Bird survived because not only was he good, but he kept evolving, and he was playing in so many different styles when he was alive; "Bird With Strings", is just as fresh today, as it was the day he made it, and the recording quality is good.
Not many people have a bottom tier of records as good as yours, and I want to thank you for sharing them with us.
Enjoy the music.
|
