Jazz for aficionados

Schubert-

can you tell us more about your incident?

Frogman, my beef is not with higher education, but with musicians who lean on higher education when they play jazz; believe me, it comes through. I do not have a short memory, it's you who are stirring the pot. Yes, it would have been much simpler if you had just rolled your eyes, but you didn't.

My statement was not "anti Juilliard", and you are doing a good job of clarifying it for me. "Juilliard is not considered a top jazz school"; there other schools better for musicians who intend to play jazz. Juilliard is "primarily a Classical music school" Many top and well known jazz players attended Juilliard, but they didn't necessarily attend the school to "learn to play jazz". They attended to learn things like advanced counterpoint, composition, orchestration and pedagogy in order to be better-rounded and more complete musicians. Of course, attending Juilliard does not guarantee that the student will become a great and individualistic jazz player; that's wonderful.To say that attending Juilliard will guarantee being a good jazz player with good "jazz soul" is no more absurd than to say that learning "in the street" without a more formal education will guarantee that the player will be a good jazz player. There are far more really rotten jazz players that never attended a music school than there are rotten jazz players that did. The main problem with your premise is the implication that NOT attending a school will be more likely to guarantee having "soul"; an absurd implication.

There is so much I don't have to write because you have written it for me; it must be the "straw man" that disagrees with you because I certainly don't. The second paragraph is mostly what you have written that I agree with. That's the "straw man's" premise that not attending a music school will more likely guarantee having "soul". That is a most absurd implication; but that's the "straw man's" implication, not mine. Leon Thomas studied music at Tennessee State University.

No I have not heard examples of my premise 101 times, but I have heard examples of musicians playing jazz "cliches" 101 times, and they sound "stereotypical" to my ears. Every last one of the jazz players who attended Juilliard that I know of are "good" jazz players; just not all of them are "great" jazz players. I will not provide any examples of anything because they would most certainly be "misinterpreted" the same way you misinterpreted almost every thing I say. I don't know any "street musicians", but I'm sure I would agree with whether you said they were good or bad.

"The Peacocks"; I didn't like the cut you presented, but since Getz is one of my favorite musicians, and I have many of his albums, I might have liked "Skylark" on that same LP. You and I can like the very same LP, but will prefer different cuts. I hope this answers every thing in your post.

Learsfool, I hope you're reading this, because it will save me from responding to your post.

O-10, who? Who?!  Examples please.  Since you can't provide any I will assume that you're making this stuff up.  I guess, then, that Phil Woods is not a great jazz player; news to me.  Sorry, O-10, no straw men; simply going by what you write.  I think that this business of the superiority of the "street player" is the worst cliche of all; and really, if one considers that literally only a handful of well known jazz players attended Juilliard, does this issue deserve for you to keep bringing it up in an attempt to somehow cast a negative light on an institution that does so much good work?  Talk about straw man!   

Sorry, O-10, when it comes to this stuff you simply don't know what you're talking about.  In the meantime, if you're interested in discussing Johnny Hodges' style and sound so you can identify him when you hear him I would be glad to; I have lots of examples.  Rolling my eyeballs now.

The Frogman / O-10:

Assuming my usual role as peacemaker, is it possible that you guys are at odds over what is Authentic / Authenticity, and what is not.

Think, Woody  Guthrie vs  Peter Paul & Mary. 

One came from a certain time and place, and spoke for the people who lived during that time and place.  He was one of them.   He, and his music, were Authentic.

I liked them both.   But I knew the real deal.

Cheers

BTW, I think  'Juilliard' is used in this discussion  to represent a certain school of thought.  We all know North Texas is the better place. :)

Honest question, O-10; and for the sake of, hopefully, interesting discussion.  What was it about "The Peacocks" that you didn't like? From my vantage point it is a beautifully evocative and impressionistic melody that showcases Getz's highly expressive abilities. And that sound!  To add to the expressiveness is Getz's brilliant use of the "clacking" of the keys of the saxophone to, in case anyone didn't catch it, mimick the fluttering of peacock wings.  No multiple choruses of improvisation and, in keeping with your premise of singers not butchering a tune, just "singing" the melody.  Was it detective Mike Hammer that used to say "the facts, mam; just the facts (of a melody)"? Pure artistry, imo.