Jazz for aficionados

Well!! I guess I know when I am not appreciated.

I will take my expertise elsewhere!!

Goodbye cruel thread!

Cheers

******** If nothing else, your posts help folks keep an open mind****

Thanks, Newbee. That's really my motivation, its not about ego or being right. There is so much more that can be learned about this great art form and music in general; the little that has been touched upon, arguments and all, is just scratching the surface. And the truth is that for musicians there is value in understanding and not losing sight of why certain music elicits passion in listeners no matter what it's technical merit may or may not be.

Rok, I truly admire your passion for this music. It's obvious that you connect with what matters most, the emotional side of it; that's a hell of a lot more than many on this site can claim. As O-10 likes to say: "Enjoy the music". This one's for you; gives me chills every time:

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=TRUjr8EVgBg

But, he should fire his piano tuner. Ah, shit! I did it again, that nuts and bolts thingy; I just can't help myself :^)

Hi guys - sorry to be again away from the discussion for so long. I must admit, reading through the recent posts here, that I am very dismayed and frustrated at some of what I am reading. Frogman has made a valiant effort - I do not feel there is any lack of clarity to his arguments here. He certainly writes much more clearly than I, and makes the arguments I would make better than I would. This perhaps makes it even more frustrating to me that some are not getting it. I will make another attempt myself. And please, Rok, I know you have said you are not taking this personally, so I trust that will continue to be the case.

I must quote Rok again here: "All your comments are right on target, IF, I said IF, this were a class at a music school. ... This entire thread is about what we like, or don't like. Musical expertise has nothing to do with it. It's all based on emotion. If it does not grab you, or connect with you, what difference does it make how well the player can play the instrument?"

These two statements sum up the attitude which boggles the mind of musicians. We do appreciate very much the love for music that you obviously have - trust me, we are very aware of the fact that people like you are keeping the music alive. You are our audience, and we couldn't make a living without you.

That said, it is also extremely distressing to realize that despite loving the music so much, you yet are amazingly ignorant (please understand I speak not of intelligence here, but knowledge) about the music you love, and can apparently only relate to it on what you call an emotional level.

Yes, music has emotion, and this is one reason why it is called a universal language. But this is only scratching the surface of what music is. You can listen to music just for the sheer beauty of the sound - this can be an escape, a consolation, just feeling good, whatever. But it is also brainless. You are not really thinking about the music. This aspect of music is extremely important, but it is not the whole story, and more importantly, it should not overwhelm the rest.

Now we get into expression. Most people believe that all music has some expressive power, even though some composers, like Stravinsky, insist that music is an object or thing with no other meaning than a purely musical one. Another composer, Aaron Copland, states the problem this way: "Is there a meaning to music? My answer to that would be yes. Can you state in so many words what the meaning is? My answer to that would be no. Therein lies the difficulty." You must not be afraid to not know what any piece of music is "about."

Music can express all sorts of different emotions or moods, much more than words could describe. This is why many musicians, like Stravinsky, say it only has a purely musical meaning. Another way of saying this, Copland says, is that they do not feel the need to find words for this meaning. Even if you are satisfied with your own description of what a piece of music means (or why you like it, which amounts to the same thing), there is no guarantee that anyone else will describe that same piece in the same way you do. And if it is a really great piece, it shouldn't be saying the same thing to you every time anyway.

What many non-musicians don't have enough awareness of is the purely musical. Besides the sound and the expression, music does exist in terms of the notes themselves and their manipulation by the composer or performers or both. I would be remiss if I did not add that us professionals are sometimes too conscious of this and tend to forget about the simpler yet deeper planes. That said, most people concentrate only on the melody, maybe the rhythm. Harmony and tone color they take for granted. And I haven't even talked about form. Copland makes an analogy to the theater. It would be like going to a play and only concentrating on the actors, costumes, sets, sounds, movements, and the emotions you feel, while totally ignoring plot and plot development. Now, in the theater, you are not consciously aware of all these separations, you take it all in at once without thinking about it. It is the same when listening to music. To quote Copland again: "the ideal listener is both inside and outside the music at the same moment, judging it and enjoying it, wishing it would go one way and watching it go another - almost like the composer at the moment he composes it; because in order to write his music, the composer must also be inside and outside his music, carried away by it and yet coldly critical of it. A subjective and objective attitude is implied in both creating AND LISTENING to music." (My bold.) I would also add that the performer is doing this as well, whether it is an orchestral musician, or a jazz soloist improving, or a rock musician jamming.

We want you to listen more actively - you WILL deepen your enjoyment and love for it by doing so. As Copland says, you want to be "not someone who is just listening, but someone who is listening FOR something."

The weirdest part to me about this discussion taking place on an audiophile website is that everyone here will say that they listen this way to their systems, and that is why they can detect minute differences between two pieces of equipment, etc. Why the hell wouldn't you do the same for the music you love? That's the reason your systems exist in the first place!!

The quotes and frankly much of the argument above is taken from Aaron Copland's book "What to listen for in Music." I have recommended it here many times, and can never do so enough, no matter what kind of music you like.

In no particular order:

Best of the Blue Note Vol 1

Best of the Blue Note Vol 2.

Best of Chet Baker Sings

Sarah Vaughan and Cliffford Brown

Kind of Blue

Big Joe Turner Greatest Hits

Cannonball Adderly - Somthin' ELSE

Charles Mingus - New Tijuana Moods

Louis Armstrong - Hot Fives & Sevens

Miles Davis - Sketches Of Spain

Honorable mention:

Dinah Jams - Dinah Washington

The Blue Note Jazz Profile Series - Various Artists - Promo disc.

Frogman, no one could have made a better comparison. I like both of them for the reasons you gave.

When I was a child, one of mothers cousins who became moderately wealthy, figured that since she had the money, she should acquire the image of a "cultured person", and that included opera. She decided my mother should accompany her to the opera, and since my mother couldn't find a baby sitter, I had to accompany the both of them to the opera.

Maybe that memory of people in strange costumes strutting around on a stage screeching in some unfathomable language scarred my appreciation for any thing "operatic"; Frogman, not everyone can appreciate caviar, and many of the other finer things in life; like "opera", for example.