Jazz for aficionados

Music Lovers:

A Great song! All you folks from down home will surely appreciate it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPGDBZdXuk

We don't need no stinking philharmonic!! Some proper acoustics maybe. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTd3ZsvqDiQ

Cheers

I found the herbie hancock music lacking in dynamic range. Sounded 'muffled'. I think they are better examples of the this type music. Too long also. It has to have that dynamic contrast.

Just one member of the unwashed masses opinion. :)

Cheers

Rok, that bluegrass reminded me when I visited the Clampetts in the hills of Beverly, I'll tell you about it sometime.

****but a person has to be able to know it when they hear it. Think about it. ****

Only if the person cares about attaching a definition of genre to the music as opposed to caring mainly about wether the music speaks to him/her as being good music or bad; that was the whole point of my post. It is not the music's responsibility to scream at the listener what it is. Growth as a listener (if that is a goal to the particular listener) happens when there is a willingness to learn more and more about the art so as to become a more discerning listener.

I love Bluegrass! It is fun, and can groove and even swing. Thanks for the clip.

****I think this clip could meet your definition.****

Not at all. Good Bluegrass has only one of the ingredients in my definition (for whatever THAT is worth): improvisation. But, "a high level of interaction between the players, and a high level of rhythmic and harmonic sophistication in that interaction" ? No way! The rhythmic interplay is simplistic with a simple "1,2,3,4" feel, and harmonically very "inside" with very basic harmony. This is not a criticism; simply the nature of the music.

I agree that the recording quality of the Herbie Hancock clip leaves something to be desired; there is some audible distortion but I certainly wouldn't call it muffled. Regardless, I find it more than acceptable and I am not concerned with the quality of the recorded sound (as long as it is acceptable) as much as the quality of the music and in that regard it absolutely burns.

****I think they are better examples of the this type music.****

I would love to hear them. Please share.

Thanks for the comments.

You cannot state 'your' definition of Jazz, and then have a discussion with others, using 'your' definition as a given fact. What you found lacking in the bluegrass piece, even by 'your' definition, was a matter of degree, judgement or opinion.

The Herbie Hancock piece was not 'muffled' due to the quality of the recording. The music was muffled because it had no dynamic range. The difference between the highest and lowest notes. Booker T and the MG's come to mind. Maybe Herbie Mann? That type stuff. Memphis Soul. Not James Brown as you mentioned.

The music landscape is littered with musicians who possessed the following attitudes: 'understanding' their music or 'getting it' was solely the job and responsibilty of the listener. "take it or leave it". "You don't understand what I'm saying? Well that is just a reflection of your lack of musical understanding" etc......

I would name them, but they are unknown.:)

Bet you can find them on every street corner in NYC. If the artist does not connect with the audience, HE/SHE has a problem! Just a variation of 'the customer is always right'!

Whenever I see the name of a so-called genre with a hypen, I always ask, why is that needed?

Other than these small and insignificate differences, we are in total agreement.

Cheers