Jazz for aficionados

****Similarities: instrumental, electric instruments, Latin percussion, same era.*****

This is amazing! You nailed it! That's exactly what I thought. Big group, lots of percussion, no singing, and drenched in latin Flavor! 1970's written all over it.

****That's where the similarities end and says nothing about style, and overall vibe.*****

Left that part to you smart guys! :) Maybe I should have used Mongo Santa-Maria's 'Cloud Nine'. More Jazz?

I said it was better than the Hancock piece because, I had already put them in the same bag. Rightly or wrongly. And in the same bag, for me, Santana kicks butt.

****Santana's band was very exciting (dynamic range?) like few others, but was clearly coming, first and foremost, out of a rock bag with Latin and funk elements. Herbie's Headhunters were jazz players bringing that sensibility to a funk bag.*****

Even a pro like you used the word FUNK in a description of both groups. So you can readily see how a novoice like me could get confused and overlook the finer points of the performances. Of course when I hear the word FUNK. I think 'Parliament' or 'James brown and the JB's'. We don't wanna go there.:)

Ideals I carry in my head.

The 1970's were a low point for Jazz. Sterile. I spent most of my time and money on pop and classical. I spent the decade traveling between Germany - Huntsville, AL - El Paso - Huntsville Again - Korea - and Germany Again.

We used to go to our favorite Korean bar and listen to the Stone's 'Sympathy for the Devil', all night!! Slim Pickings, but Better than nothing.

Not exactly fertile grounds for Jazz, except for the record stores in Germany. The whole thing was like a blur, a lost decade for me.

O-10 was correct to mention that 'Bitches Brew' started the decade. A harbinger of things to come. A Jazz date that will live in infamy!:)

Cheers

****He is a great instrumentalist and a great ambassador for jazz; but he has added little to the evolution of jazz. His undeniable and great contribution is of the "museum" type. "Layla" with Clapton? Please, are you serious? I would respectfully suggest that you are letting your admiration for the man and everything that he represents influence your perception of his musical relevance.*****

you seem to be sayin that 'evolution' must mean improvement. I disagree. I think we could say that Philip Glass has had a hand in the 'evolution' of classical music. Along with a few more of the 20th century 'composers'. I think the masters, Mozart, LvB, Bach and those type people, are resting in their graves just fine. Feeling very secure. As are Armstrong, Ellington, Morgan, Mingus, Adderely et al. Evolution or not, the great stuff will be relevant forever. The Chaff will be blown away in due time.

Layla: Great arrangement? Yes!! Is it complex? Profound? Game changer? Probably not. Did / do I enjoy listening to it? Absolutely!! As I do 'just a closer walk with thee'. I was in Nawlins while they were playing that! :) The guy on clarinet!! Wow! I am somewhat surprised that you do see it. If I may respectfully suggest, sometimes maybe you are a little too analytical. Stop thinking about it, and just let it wash over you. Now I could try to be 'hip' and trash it, and profess my love of stuff like Bitches Brew or Late Coltrane. But I would be lying. As you know, You can find magic in music anywhere. Just a few notes that make you say, out loud, YES! There are quite a few of those moments on the Marsalis / Clapton CD. I will now order the DVD.

I will address your other points tomorrow.

Cheers

Glad you decided to hang in there.

****you seem to be sayin that 'evolution' must mean improvement.****

Absolutely not, and I would say that "improvement" in the "evolution" of any art is very rare!!! And not only is this at the core of our little cyber-soap opera it is one of the main issues that art lovers (any art) grapple with, consciously or not, especially in our time in history. I know some may think that I get "preachy" about this stuff, but this perspective is missing for many and it is KEY! :

One cannot judge art outside of its rightful historical context. Why? Because art always reflects the times; it is the RESULT of the time during which it was created. How good a job art does of reflecting the times is, ultimately, what determines wether it is good art or not. THIS, WETHER WE LIKE THAT PARTICULAR ART OR NOT!!!!! And chances are that if we don't like the art of a particular era, what we are saying is that we don't like the era. That is why there is always good art in any era; there will always be good artists (it is part of the human condition) expressing their reflection of the era. Wether we like what that era stands for, is a different matter.

THAT is why the music of ANY era, hyphenated name or not, IS relevant and important; and why Wynton's music, while good, will never be as good nor as relevant as Satchmo or Ellington. It is why late Trane and "Bitches Brew" (to use your examples) are great art; like it or not. So, for this listener, what is the point of listening to Wynton when I can listen to Loui and Ellington who created that music as an expression and reflection of THEIR time; a time that gave birth to that music. The current time does not inspire that music; that is what I meant when I alluded to Wynton's music as "museum". Wynton's music looks back to a different era, and for that reason it is not as good; and not in the theoretical sense either, it is simply not on the same high level of execution. Look, no one is saying that it is not good nor worth listening to, and kudos need to be given for keeping a certain flame alive and reminding those who are TOO willing to forget the past; but, again, when there's only so many hours in the day, what is the point when one can listen to Loui, Clifford, Morgan, Dizzy, Miles, and, and, and....? ITS BEEN DONE BETTER BEFORE. Or, Dave Douglas (thanks Acman3) who looks forward, not so much backwards. This takes us to the next point:

****The guy on clarinet!! Wow! I am somewhat surprised that you do see it. If I may respectfully suggest, sometimes maybe you are a little too analytical. Stop thinking about it, and just let it wash over you. ****

First of all, I think you meant to say "surprised you (DONT) see it". Of course I see it. Too analytical? I appreciate the respect, but no way; not analytical enough! Hang out with some musicians sometime and talk music; you think I am analytical.......!? You think your eyes glaze over NOW ?! Respectfully, it is you who don't see it. You always make the mistake of assuming that analysis precludes letting the music "wash over you"; that it has to be one or the other. Just the opposite is true, and you don't seem to want to get a handle on why being able to appreciate how, for instance, Santana is NOTHING like Headhunters, in the ways that matter: THE MUSIC, not just the instruments used. That's pretty sophomoric, if you don't mind my saying so. Sure, Victor Goines sounds terrific on the "Layla" clip, so what? Have you listened to Jimmy Hamilton or Narney Bigard lately? I guarantee you that if you ask Victor how he would compare his own playing to Hamilton's ot Bigard's he would tell you that he feels like an imposter. So.....

Look, most great musicians have one thing in common: humility. Humility about their own talents and place in music history; they are always willing to learn. Why should the listener be any different?

Let's put the Herbie Hancock thing to rest first. I didn't like the clip. No big deal. I have plenty of Hancock and a lot more on LP. I like the guy.

I think there is one element we have not mentioned in our discussion of the elvolution of Jazz, and that thing is MONEY!

It could be, that if Rockers, of limited talent, weren't making more money on one tour, than Miles made in his life, this Fusion thing might never have happened. Is it a natural elvolution, or one driven by money.

MONEY has come close to destorying many art forms and music genres. Look what happened to Country Music. No relation to the music I grew up on. Blues, has become almost laughable.. Gospel, with all this 'Mass Choir' non-sense and a bunch of over-weight women making folks motion sick. They just say the word Jesus, every now and then. Sterile!

So before we can evaluate change, we should decide if it's a natrual progression, or something that's market driven. That would make it an artificial change.

But Hancock is OK in my book. So is Corea.

The playing on Marsalis and Clapton Play the Blues:

The clarinet player may be average. Even Below aqverage. Maybe any player could have played what he played. You misssed my point. It was not the players, it was the music! The Tune, and esp the arrangement of that Tune. That moment! That's why I think you underestimate Marsalis. This guy is subtle and plays with taste. Just like he did on the Christmas thingy with Battle. BTW, no one has ever heard THAT Layla or THAT Walk With Thee!!

Cheers

*****One cannot judge art outside of its rightful historical context. Why? Because art always reflects the times; it is the RESULT of the time during which it was created. How good a job art does of reflecting the times is, ultimately, what determines wether it is good art or not. THIS, WETHER WE LIKE THAT PARTICULAR ART OR NOT!!!!! And chances are that if we don't like the art of a particular era, what we are saying is that we don't like the era. That is why there is always good art in any era; there will always be good artists (it is part of the human condition) expressing their reflection of the era. Wether we like what that era stands for, is a different matter.*****

I am not sure I agree. We have often judged art and artist outside of their era. And still do. How many artist thru history died poor and unknown, but are now considered among the greatest ever. And sometimes the reverse is true. And I am not sure the great masters in Europe for example, painters and musicians, represented their era. That era was pretty bleak for the vast majority of Europeans. I guess they played, wrote and painted for the poeple with the MONEY to pay. :)

The MOST IMPORTANT part of any argument is the premise upon which it is based. I think this is the source of all our disagreements. You say the art of any era is important, and can be considered great when evaluated in the era that produced it. I say great art is great art, regardless of era created or judged.

Sort of like saying the music of Philip Glass is great, unless of course, we are in 19th century Germany, then it's garbage!

Modern 20th century classical music is not the equal of Mozart and company. Period. It is not as important as Mozart, even to the listeners of this current era! The same goes for Fusion. Wynton: Not saying he is the greatest or any kind of god, just saying that, what he is doing is more important to the future of Jazz, than any Fusion players I am aware of.

To your point of, why pickup Marsalis, when you can pickup Ellington etc.... I made the same point to you a few life times ago.:) I said why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!

Cheers