Jazz for aficionados

****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?

*****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

******I remember a comment that you made early on in this thread that has always stuck with me; something to the effect that somehow it was inconceivable that someone with a different opinion from yours might "have some insight into music that you don't*******

I honestly do not remember ever saying this. Does not seem to be something I would say, because it does not make sense to me now. You may have me confused with some Audiophile. :) In the early days there were some of them on this thread.. But send it if you have it. I would love to see the context.

Cheers