Jazz for aficionados

Frogman, "I love Benny and that style of music in general. Personally, I don't understand how a truly comprehensive discussion on jazz can take place without substantial mention and discussion of players like Goodman, Artie Shaw, Harry James and others from that period. The level of artistry, within that style, is fabulous; not to mention their contribution to paving the way for the more modern players. I would like to see more of it on this thread."

Would you be so kind as to enlighten us, you have the floor.

Enjoy the music.

******* I don't understand how a truly comprehensive discussion on jazz can take place without substantial mention and discussion of players like Goodman, Artie Shaw, Harry James and others from that period.*****

That would be easy to do. There are not that many players that 'must be' mentioned in a history or comprehensivbe discussion of Jazz. A small percentage.

The Label, BLUE NOTE, for instance, is more important to Jazz than any of the people you mentioned. In fact, I am not sure they played Jazz at all. They all took solos, and displayed great skill on their instrument, but I am not sure that much 'improvisation' was going on.

*****The level of artistry, within that style, is fabulous; not to mention their contribution to paving the way for the more modern players.*********

Technically proficient? Without a doubt. But so was Maurice Andre, and any number of players in classical Orchestras. They just don't play Jazz.

To paraphrase a very popular bumper sticker down here in the Bible Belt:

No Blues, No Jazz
Know Blues, Know Jazz

Pretty much sums it up.

And Shaw's 'begin The Beguine' is one of my all time favorite tunes. All these guys made great music. Great Swing and big Band music.

In fact, I had heard a LOT of Harry James and Goodman, before I ever heard ANY Miles or Morgan or Hubbard et al. Maybe that's indicative of the problem. A lot of people were accepted as being things, that they were in fact, not!!

Cheers

O-10, thanks for the sentiment; the feeling is mutual.

While I completely agree with you that music is subjective (well, more accurately, one's reaction to music is subjective) I don't know on what you base the comment that jazz is more subjective than any other form of music or that a reaction to a particular player's ability that differs from yours means that there is, necessarily, anything but subjectivity at play (pun intended). There is as much variety of opinion and disagreement about the merits of, say, classical music players and performances than there is of jazz. We all have a tendency to consider our preferred style of music unique, and while every genre clearly has many subjective stylistic (subjective) traits, at their core, all genres share similar values; not every aspect of music and performance is subjective. We have set a very high bar by discussing the very best players of this music and I simply didn't hear anything special in Lytle's playing on the two clips posted. So, to paraphrase you: "what I hear disagrees with what I read about Lytle, so the records go back".

Jazz players and income: Clearly Wynton is an exception. My comments were a reaction to your statement: "When an artist is popular and makes a good living, he can't be playing jazz". As we all know, Bird lived a troubled life and squandered much of his earnings on booze and drugs, but the truth is that "popular" jazz artists did and do make very good livings. Of course, there are many players who scrape by; but, they are not "popular"; and isn't that true of any profession? Louis Armstrong made a good living, so did Coltrane, Rollins, Miles, Shorter, and Benny Goodman. Speaking of Benny, there is so much great stuff by him, these clips also feature the great Lionel Hampton; NOT the world's greatest vibist :-). I would be glad to "enlighten":

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ptPK7iNweI

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aeg1056UDck

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0U8a-s4bYfY

Rok, I can feel that this is going down a treacherous road (for an Internet discussion).

****That would be easy to do. There are not that many players that 'must be' mentioned in a history or comprehensivbe discussion of Jazz. A small percentage.****

Exactly!! The notion that a player like Lytle deserves to be mentioned more than Goodman is, with all due respect, somewhat absurd.

****In fact, I am not sure they played Jazz at all. They all took solos, and displayed great skill on their instrument, but I am not sure that much 'improvisation' was going on.****

THAT, my friend, is why it's not possible to "know too much"; and why knowing a little is a dangerous thing. It's fine to always fall back on the comfort of "subjectivity", but in the broad scheme there is, in fact, a nut-and -bolts way judging any music's merit.

All this music was part of the melting pot, and part of the "continuum"; and it it certainly is "jazz".

****A lot of people were accepted as being things, that they were in fact, not!!****

I could not have said it better myself.

Regards.

Frogman, this is not an intellectual course in jazz. To make a long story short, in regard to many musician's music who play what's called jazz, "ain't got none, and don't wont none"

Enjoy the music.