Jazz for aficionados

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

******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

Aargh! I can try Spanish, but I don't think it would matter. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't understand what is unclear about what I am saying.

I did not say that we cannot judge art at a time other than the era when it was created. I said that we cannot remove the historical context or backdrop of the era during which it was created when judging it at a later time and that it is that backdrop that allows a superior example of that art. And of course the great artists represented their respective eras; that's the whole point, they always do. If we understand what was going in historically, socially and in other respects of life in a particular era, THEN we can judge wether the artist is doing a good job of reflecting that or not. That is, assuming we understand some basic things about music in general; if we are able to appreciate why Santana is nothing like Headhunters. It is a different social and political climate today, it is inspiring a different message. Anyway, look, you fight the message every step of the way, especially for someone who "considers himself the least informed on this thread". Or was that sarcasm or lip-service? if you still have to ask:

****why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!****

then you really don't understand MY premise. A premise that, as much as I don't like to pull the "I am a musician" card, is shared by the vast majority of musicians; perhaps that may have some significance for you. So, I have tried every which way to explain that the point is that there are good examples of every genre; just as there are bad in every genre. If you really can't understand why I may want to, on any given day, listen to a good example of "fusion" as opposed to Mingus; or why regurgitated backwards-looking jazz may not be as appealing as Mingus on any given day then I don't think there is anywhere further to go with this discussion; for now....