Jazz for aficionados

****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

Rok, I'm trying, really trying.

****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.****

Sigh! OK, here we go again. I'll explain point by point:

First of all, point out to me, please, where I used my definition "as a given fact?. Now, you posted a Bluegrass clip and stated:

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

YOU alluded to MY definition, and made an assumption based on YOUR interpretation of MY definition. I disagreed with the premise of that assumption; you misunderstood my definition or don't understand the relevance of it to the clip you posted. Moreover, I graciously qualified the use of my own definition in my comments about the clip by stating: "My definition (FOR WHATEVER THAT IS WORTH)". Again, kindly explain how any of this constitutes claiming that my definition is "a given fact".

****What you found lacking in the bluegrass piece.....****

OK, do I really need to spell this one out? Fine. Not only did I say that I love Bluegrass, I clearly stated:

++++This is not a criticism; simply the nature of the music.++++

I found nothing lacking in the Bluegrass piece, and made it clear. It is Bluegrass; it is not a rhythmically nor harmonically sophisticated music. It is not supposed to be, and to try to make it so would make it lose part of what makes it good; I hope you can understand that.

****even by 'your' definition, was a matter of degree, judgement or opinion.****

OK, I already pointed out that I found nothing lacking. Nonetheless, let's look at the points that I made in the comparisons of Bluegrass to more rhythmically and harmonically advanced musics. "A matter of judgement or opinion"? Nope, not so. Here is where the subjectivist's argument falls apart. If you understand harmony and rhythm (from more than just a rudimentary standpoint) it's easy to understand this distinction. This is not a matter of opinion. We've been here before, and why there is such an aversion to accepting this is beyond me.

OK, you thought that Herbie's music had no dynamic range. OK, fine. So what? Is that the only thing you can say about it? Do you honestly mean to tell me that the amazing grooves and fabulous solos (especially Herbie's) don't deserve acknowledgement?

****The music was muffled because it had no dynamic range. The difference between the highest and lowest notes.****

Huh?! Please explain what on earth the "difference between the highest and lowest notes" have to do with dynamic range.

Herbie Mann?!? I like Herbie Mann, but as a comparison to The Headhunters? I am speechless....

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

Why not? Isn't this talking-point getting a little old. Of course there are countless examples of music with hyphenated genre names; so what? There are plenty of examples of great music in these hyphenated genres; just as there are plenty of examples of lame music with non-hyphenated names (the steak analogy). I urge you to understand the irony in your insistence on this stance. You love a music that is, first and foremost, about spontaneity, change, forward-looking attitudes, open-mindedness, and much more. The real question should be: why does one need to be so protective of "the name". To quote O-10:

"Rok, I've got more than one concept.

Enjoy the music."

O-10, another group from the '70's that I was into is Oregon. Wonderful instrumentalists; particularly Paul McAndless on multiple reeds including oboe. If you are not familiar with their work here are some examples; I have a feeling you will like it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TGRwX5lh74E

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UMEgf9VGqUk

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=noCkc-0cY0c

The Frogman:

ahahahahahahah I have to laugh out loud. This is getting to be ridiculous.

I will try again.

We were having a conversation in which you offered a definition of Jazz. A definition that I have absolutely no problem with!!

Before you stated the definition, you made a comment about people saying things like, "I know it when I hear it", and Implied that that was too easy. Sort of like a cop-out.

In respoding to your post, I attempted to show that a piece of music could meet your written definition of Jazz, and NOT BE JAZZ! That's what I meant, when I stated that, hearing it being of the upmost importance. (know it when you hear it).

The point of the bluegrass piece was to show that this was an example of such a piece of music.

I play it often and have always felt it had a lot of Jazz elements in it. I said it COULD meet your definition.

You said it does have improvisation, but does not meet the definition due to the lack of complexity and sophistication of the music, and interaction between the players. I said that these qualities could be a matter of degree or opinion. i.e. maybe the bluegrass players consider their music fairly complex etc....

I did not say, or mean to imply that the bluegrass piece was Jazz, just to show, that a written definition, no matter how well constructed, cannot be the final answer.

The music must be HEARD! Or maybe in the case of a pro, looked at on paper.

The Hancock piece. I listened to it again. At least 12 minutes of it. 12 minutes I will never get back.

The dynamic range thingy. Don't stoop to 'gotcha' audiophile techniques. You knew what I meant.

I think I didn't like it because of the electronic keyboards and the electric bass. And that mind-numbing repetition of the rhythm section.

It does not sound muffled, bad word, it sounded like what I said, Booker T. No disrepect to Booker T. Memphis Soul. Stax. I love music, but I got tired of listening to it. Maybe it got better later on. I will concede that possibility. I am sure his shoes were appropiate to the music being played. Maybe some horns joined later.

Music genres with hypenated names is used to create new catagories or new genres of established music genres, so that the noise makers can play. And get awards. And make money.

We really have no disagreement.

I will now go into Chief Joseph Mode, and fight no more, forever.

Cheers