Now things are getting interesting! Now, we are getting into some of the more elusive and fascinating aspects of music and it's appreciation. Firstly, and for the sake of clarity, let's have context (and forgive me for quoting myself):
****Now, I would rather listen to Lee Morgan's brand of story telling, but that's not the point. ****
I am not about to run out and buy Lester Bowie records that I don't already have (only a couple). My point was simply that I respect what he is doing, and that in at least one essential element (story telling) he, subjectively, strikes a chord in me while Wynton strikes a different kind of chord; a chord that, at the end of the day, is just not as interesting for me. What do I mean by that?:
Learsfool, thank you for your kind words; the feeling is mutual. Now, I don't like to frame my comments with my professional experiences, but sometimes it is unavoidable. One of the most important lessons that I have learned having spent a career (forty years; yikes!) living a rather schizophrenic professional life of vacillation between the classical and the commercial/jazz music worlds is the simple fact that in spite of the obvious common threads, the stereotypes of the judgmental attitudes that one side (genre) sometimes holds toward the other are simply that: stereotypes that are easily shot down by the simple fact that, when all is said and done, it is the feeling of the music (not the tone and not the technical skill) that matters most. Obviously, in some genres fully developed and beautiful tone and a CERTAIN TYPE of precision is necessary; while in others, looseness and even a certain kind of irreverence towards the more traditional elements of the craft is the order of the day. Still, even in our classical music world, the feeling of what we play is of paramount importance even if has to occur within fairly controlled parameters. Personally, I admire jazz players who are able to abandon all decorum and simply and convincingly express emotion or tell a story, wether it be via humor, theatricality or intellectuality. I think Bowie does that. Did he "push the boundaries of jazz" as you ask? I think so. His sense of humor and unpredictability were undeniable and there was a certain theatricality to his music which, ironically, was a throwback to an era when jazz (as Rok likes to point out) was expected to entertain; as opposed to the character that much of it has taken on currently, as that of a kind of museum piece.
Rhythmic feeling is THE most important aspect of music; especially jazz. Personally, I don't think the point can be argued. At its most basic and simplistic level, the obvious proof of that assertion is that the first musical instrument was the drum. How deeply "in the pocket" a player plays is (I think) what separates the men from the boys. Of course, that can also mean a player's use of space (silence) and his overall timing (as in the case of Bowie) of the seemingly nonsensical vocalizing and bastardization of the usual trumpetisms.
Another irony of this discussion is in Wynton's reverence for Louis Armstrong's music. If anyone has to ask why that is, simply listen for just how deeply in the pocket he played; it was incredibly rhythmically grounded. I am not sure it can be explained much beyond that, but it is there to hear and feel. Bowie's playing has been compared to Armstrong's in that regard; hence the irony.
This is interesting commentary by Bill Cosby about Bowie. But, most importantly, listen to Bowie's playing as the clip ends and fades out. The guy could play; by any standard, traditional or otherwise. To be able to hide that fact so effectively for the sake of his musical message is art by any standard; if, arguably, bizarre.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G0JF05quIJA
