Jazz for aficionados

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.

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

Won't happen. I no longer do treacherous roads. I now rely on my irresistible logic!!

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

That would be absurd, but, that is not what I said. We were talking of Lytle's clips, and our comments or thoughts on those clips. Goodman was a different thing altogether. Came up in your response to my 'review' of Goodman's CD. If Lytle was a baseball player, he would be a journeyman at best.

*****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.*****

No one is falling back on anything. There may be a nuts and bolts way to judge music. I am sure they use this in all the major music schools. I am sure all the pros use this method to play and to judge their peers.. BUT, the PUBLIC / AUDIENCE decides who, and what is great. And all they, the public, has to know is, I like it, or, I don't like it. Exasperating, but true.

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

This may be the root cause of all our 'discussions'. I think you see Jazz as 6 lane super highway running in both directions, with many exit and entry points. I see it as a path being hacked thru an almost impenetrable jungle. The newbies entering at the beginning, and the greats, up front doing the hacking. You are on the path or you are lost.

*****I could not have said it better myself.*****

Then we really have no disagreement.

As always, your posts are informative, spoken from a position of knowledge, and greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Rok, we really have NO substantive disagreement, and I admire your passion for the music. Our main area of disagreement is in the absolutism of a comment that you have made several times to the effect that the "public decides who is great". If that were true then how do you explain the popularity of so much music that you, yourself, consider not worthy of respect; all the music's with a prefix? Ignorance may be bliss, but it certainly does not lead to insight. Additionally, there is no glory in ignorance and knowledge does not in any way detract from the emotional appreciation of the music. That is a mistake that those content to remain "ignorant" of the nuts and bolts routinely make; that ignoring the facts somehow leads to a better emotional connection with the music. It is precisely the opposite; it leads to a better appreciation. The irony here is that the players that we are talking about, themselves, were/are so steeped in the nuts and bolts of the music and discussions about what made a particular player great or not, that it makes any of our "discussions" seem sophomoric. Listeners tend to over-romanticize the process of music making (including jazz) as a spiritual "calling of the muse". Only after a very deep understanding of the nuts and bolts can a creative artist find his voice; wether the nuts and bolts was learned in a music school or the jam session. Why should it be any different for the listener?

I will give you a concrete example:

****I am not sure how much improvising they actually did****

If you understood a little more about the nuts and bolts it would be perfectly clear to you that they are improvising. How on earth would that be a negative? You may still not like the music but it would at least bring you one step closer to acknowledging that it is jazz. It may still not fit your definition of jazz, but remember it is only YOUR definition. And BTW, the great jazz players would be the first to admit that jazz really is like a "6 lane highway"; it ALL goes into the stew pot.

Leerfool, and Frogman, did you overlook the post on Stan Kenton; could you comment on the special brass horns especially, and his music in general.