Jazz for aficionados

O-10, I continue to feel that judgment by using only the subjective standard is a flawed concept and a ruse.  Using that approach I would feel justified in simply saying "O-10, you are simply wrong, THIS other music is better".  I see that as pointless and unproductive and choose to focus on that fact that you simply like a certain style of music more than others.

Honest judgment can only occur with a combination of the subjective and the objective and contrary to your assertion that "there is nothing objective about music", there is much about music that can be judged objectively.  You, yourself, in posting the KOB doc, admitted that there was much commentary about music in it that went over your head.  THOSE are the things that are primarily in the objective realm.  You choose to not concern yourself with those things; but, that doesn't mean that they are not there.  Simple example:  a jazz pianist's job (besides soloing) is to provide the harmonic underpinnings of the music.  If that piano player is prone to playing wrong notes in the chords that he plays and a given listener is able to recognize the fact that those are wrong notes then he is judging objectively.  A wrong note is a wrong note; a drummer losing time is losing time.  

I have previously commented that the truly smart music lover needs to never lose a certain amount of humility; humility about the inevitable fact that there is always much to learn about art, and I won't repeat my previous comments about the arrogance of describing some of the commentary about KOB as absurd.  I will say, however, that in my universe of musicians of all genres ((including jazz) and many very avid and passionate listeners, anyone who can rightfully be considered a "hardcore fan" does not dismiss "swing" (and earlier), "big band", "post bop" (Nefertiti) and other styles.  Jazz is not only "after Bird"; it's all valid and part of the big picture.  Some is good and some not so good regardless of style.  I have no issue with anyone wanting the label of "hardcore fan", but if it is used to somehow buttress one's point of view when there is disagreement, and suggest that the disagreeing person is not a "hardcore fan", then there's a problem.  Anyway, spirited discussion is a good thing; Rok, seems to think so.  

Jafant said it very succinctly ****All jazz is good jazz**** and then he goes on to state which styles he likes best.  Can't argue with that.

Frogman, I am subjective to the Nth degree when it comes to selecting and listening to jazz music. If I detect 1 objective hair on my body, I will pull it out.

My musician friend who lived with me that Summer, never practiced (that Summer). What was an improvising, performing jazz musician going to practice? He didn't just start playing jazz yesterday.

Although I had been a fan of his eight years before he moved into my apartment, I had never heard the music he was currently playing. I was truly mesmerized at each performance, never the same music. We never talked music before or after the performance. He enjoyed telling me about his life as a professional jazz musician, and I enjoyed listening.

That was 40 years ago. When I reflect back to that time, I know there was something intensely personal between him and his "new" music. When he was on stage, he went to that place where jazz musicians go; that's where it's at, either you got it or you don't; he just let his fingers fly trusting his inner muse, there was nothing "objective" about that.

I recall that he played center stage at that big 4th of July extravaganza we have under the arch every year here in St. Louis, and got rave reviews. I didn't attend, I can't stand being in the midst of a bazillion people.

The only thing I've got to personally compare, is when I went out on the tennis court and hit perfect backhands and forehands. I wasn't thinking about anything, I just kept my eye on the ball. Of course I had spent years playing and practicing before this occurred, but it would not have occurred if I had been "objectively" conscious of what I was doing.

I witnessed on TV, the best game Isaih Thomas (Detroit Pistons) ever played in his life. When he got so tired that he barely got across the half court line, he threw the ball up, and nothing but net; he couldn't miss.

After the game news people were all over him; he said everything was like in slow motion and he was in what they call, the zone.

Here is where I'm coming from, if you're going to be a star jazz musician, you have got to quit thinking "objectively" about what you're doing; either you got it or you don't, but you can not get it by practicing (when you're a performing musician) That might be just the thing for a "classical" musician, but not an improvising jazz musician.

Of course if you're not performing, you have to practice; but an improvising jazz musicians performance has to be instantaneous; otherwise it sounds "stilted", and that's not good in jazz.


Enjoy the music.

O-10, we've been down this road way too often and I don't know how or why you got on the subject of practicing; it has little to do with the subject of objectivity and would be applicable to musicians in any genre, not just jazz.  With all due respect you are simply mistaken in making connections that don't exist, and it demonstrates why some of these discussions become so strained.   I won't beat a dead horse and can only suggest that you not be so quick to pull those hairs out.  But, since you brought up the subject of practicing:

"If I don’t practice for a day, I know it. If I don’t practice for two days, the critics know it. And if I don’t practice for three days, the public knows it." - Louis Armstrong

Posting this for the benefit of the Great Unwashed,  so we can follow this 'ruckus'.


sub·jec·tive1/səbˈjektiv/ adjective

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.
synonyms:personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive

ob·jec·tive1/əbˈjektiv/ adjective

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.
synonyms:impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan;  More

Don't see why there should be any disagreement.   Each point of view is valid.

Cheers

Frogman, Improvise means to create and perform spontaneously or without preparation.  Improvise comes from the Latin word improvisus, meaning "unforeseen, unexpected." Think about when something unexpected happens to you — you have no choice but to react in the moment, or improvise.

I'm sure he, (meaning my musician friend), practiced so much that he could visualize his instrument in his sleep during his formative years. Why do so many musicians play with their eyes closed? That's because they don't need to even see the thing their playing, even when it's as complex as a "Koto". I saw June Kuramoto play the Koto most of the night with her eyes closed; she was playing improvisational jazz better than on any records I have of "Hiroshima"; with her eyes closed, I even have pictures.

You see classical musicians practicing morning noon and night; I'm sure it must be necessary; but if you are going to be improvising, playing new music that you have in your head, what are you going to practice? When improvising, each note you play, depends on the note someone else played before you; that's why good jazz musicians sound so good, because if you play a wrong note, someone else can play a note that will make it sound good, and it all comes out sounding beautiful.

Although you keep harping on the "fact" that my friend did not practice when he was performing at least three nights a week; the elephant here is "improvisation"; that's the ability to create "spontaneously"; either you got or you don't, but no amount of practice will enable you to do this.




Enjoy the music.