Jazz for aficionados

Interesting conversation going on since I have looked in - I want to highlight some things that Frogman has said, starting with he is absolutely correct to say that one's reaction to music is subjective. There are many things about music that are not subjective. An analogy might be to food - many people love to eat things that aren't actually very good, and defend it by saying that taste is subjective.

This has to do also with this comment of Frogman's: "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."

And also this: "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?"

Rok stated a little later that " I should know that improvisation is taking place, without having to be an expert on nuts and bolts."

While this statement is actually true, nevertheless the fact that you were not able to tell quite frankly says more about your listening ability/general musical knowledge than it does about the performer and/or writer of what you are listening to. A very small amount of work would quickly remedy this, you just have to put in the effort, and if you do, the rewards in understanding and appreciation of the music you love are far greater than the small effort required. I'm not saying you need a theory degree or anything, you just need to learn to listen a little more attentively than you think you are (talking about how to do this will have to wait). Please do not take this personally, it is not at all meant that way - it's late and I am tired, and I tend to come off with a different tone than I intend, and I apologize for that.

First, let me apologize for misspelling "Learsfool", some days I misspell my own name.

Rok, my appreciation for these jams on "The 100 Best Tunes Of The 1950's" has grown tenfold since I first heard them. Our discussions about the very musicians we're listening to has heightened my awareness of their individual contributions to the whole of jazz.

Before, I didn't pay much attention to sidemen, but now I'm aware of each individual sideman and what he's contributing to the tune. Jackie McClean was chosen a lot as a sideman, and so was Pepper Adams; they both sound better as side men, than on their own albums that I have in my collection.

Ray Charles is one hell of jazz pianist, but we both knew that. "Milestones" was certainly ground breaking with his introduction of "modal jazz"; while I still don't quite know what that is, I can distinctly remember the first time I heard this tune; it struck me as not only being different, but I thought each individual sideman was as outstanding as Miles. His ability to select the very best sidemen for "his" music is one that he retained until the end.

This wont be my last post on "The 100 Best Tunes of The 1950's".

Enjoy the music.

Frogman, you're right in regard to musicians earning a good living, even those who aren't famous but work steady locally; while those with self destructive traits can't help themselves and become poverty stricken.

Enjoy the music.

O-10:

Just listened again to CD1 of the box set this morning. Speaking of sidemen? On these sets the sidemen are as accomplished as the leaders. It's like a who's who of Jazz.

The music on this disc seems to have less of an edge or attitude than that which would soon follow. I was surprised that Parker sounded so 'normal'? :)

I just love the fact that a very nice informative discussion of each number is included. Listing the members of the group and the LP the tune is taken from. This is a very good buy.

The only thing I don't like is that some of the pages of the booklet are difficult to read due to the background colors of some of the pages. They never seem to consider us old timers, or at least consider our eyes.

I noticed that Django/nuages, was followed by MJQ/Django. Cute. I also liked that the tunes were short. Except for Miles of course. His 'Walkin' was 5 times longer than the average tune. But, he be Miles!

Cheers

Rok, this is the best compilation I've ever acquired, although I got a headache from reading about it; consequently, I'm doing more listening and less reading.

On CD 2, Kenny Dorham's "Afrodesia" was new to me. He failed to get the recognition he deserved. After checking the sidemen, I realized why this tune was so fantastic. Carlos "Potato" Valdes is someone I had forgotten about. All the other sidemen are stars in their own right.

While all the cuts on this CD are outstanding, "The Champ" by Jimmy Smith is another tune that caught my attention, and it was one of the few without well known sidemen.

Although I wasn't too impressed with the tune Carmen sang, I really liked the sound of her voice; since that was in 56, I'm going to get everything she recorded in that year.

Enjoy the music.