Jazz for aficionados

****This is the ONLY thing you have ever said, ever, that I just don't get****

Wow, high praise indeed! But, I think you are quoting someone else; although I do feel that Stravinsky is one of the great composers and Mozart certainly is also.

****You want to compare him in a manner to show he has weakness, let's try Hubbard, Morgan, Miles. Not Lester Bowie!****

I did; reread my post.

****He may have broken every 'rule' in classical composition, but, its's a nice piece of music.****

Within a very narrow scope perhaps, but not even close to breaking every rule; that wouldn't happen for about 200 years. With all due respect, when you understand that you will understand Stravinsky.

****I meant his peers, not you personally****

Of course that is what I meant. I referred to his peers; I have no personal stake in this.

****Why is Jazz the only genre where the music has to undergo constant change or so-called 'progress'. Folks have no problem listening to Bach, Mozart etc... for centuries!!****

Who says jazz is the only genre that undergoes constant change? A better question would be: when one considers how much jazz changed from its beginning to its "end according to Rok", why would it stop changing? Additionally, are you also saying that Stravinsky is a figment of our imagination? IOW, who says Classical hasn't changed. That is the point; art changes and evolves. Without Mozart (and others) there would not have been a Beethoven, and on and on to, yes, Stravinsky and beyond.

****Listening to Cab Calloway do 'minnie the moochie' on pbs as I type. It don't get any better. How you gonna 'improve' it?****

Well, to quote you, I could simply say "You can't be serious!". But, I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head; I think this is where you get hung up. You seem to always think in terms of "improvement". Evolution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "improvement". You also seem to prefer the term "progress" to simply evolution. Improvement and progress are very personal definitions and don't reflect what art naturally does regardless of one's personal preferences.

"Music is the sole domain in which man realizes the present.”
― Igor Stravinsky

“To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also.”
― Igor Stravinsky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXRsRo6inTM

I do like me some Taco's!

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

I love Lester Bowie!

Lester said of Wynton, " With his chops and my brain, I could have been one of the greatest".

I have just spent a very interesting hour reading the posts from yesterday and today and listening to the clips of Bowie, and thinking about all of it. I had never heard of Bowie, believe it or not, and quite frankly, don't care to ever again. As Frogman said, comparison of the actual trumpet playing is pointless - he is not in the class of Davis, Hubbard, Morgan, etc., let alone Marsalis. This is an aesthetic thing, but I personally have a big problem, no matter what the genre of music, with performers who just cannot produce a truly good sound. And yes, I fully realize that he is playing bad on purpose in that first clip - BUT he doesn't really ever produce anything resembling a pure tone in any of those clips - I personally found them almost unlistenable. Based on these posted clips, I must agree with Marsalis that Bowie is just "another guy who could never REALLY play." My emphasis, though I would suspect it was Wynton's as well.

Frogman's posts are as usual excellent; I pretty much agree with almost everything thing in them in general. I do want to ask, however, if you are arguing that Bowie as a musician (as opposed to as a trumpet player) is "original" or if he is really "pushing the boundaries of the art forward." And if so, how?