Jazz for aficionados

On the Lyle Mays record:

I've had a copy of this for many years and for a two or three month period, the Alaskan Suite was my go to music. 

Whether or not it's jazz is a good question.  When I bought my copy it was in the jazz section where it probably belonged.  But it could have been equally at home in the modern classical section. 

I always sort of found the album to be jazz musicians playing a classically arranged piece on jazz instruments. 

In other words I don't really know.  What I do know is that I like the music quite a bit. 

Alex and Frogman on Alex: " I believe that 'taste' of music shows more about one's essence of personal existence than it can be simply described with few words.Somehow expirience teach me that often one's estechical choice determine his ethical.( there are exceptions, of course, on both sides)"

I once heard someone describe music as a "ladder for the soul."  Over the years I've thought about that comment many times and find myself agreeing with it more and more.  A ladder goes both up and down. (insert big grin here)

Bob

Frogman, will explain what I meant, I just need to catch a little time, after the weekend. In meantime, another sax player whose tone I like. Album is recorded in 1956. Al Cohn ’Cohn on the Saxaphone’...

https://youtu.be/w9v4k7nhvy8

https://youtu.be/zmao_Br3li4

****A ladder goes up and down****

A simple observation and comment, yet extremely significant, I think.  Inherent in the implied meaning of the dual purpose of a ladder is the suggestion that it is meant for movement in both directions and not meant for standing still.  It goes to the questions of what is jazz and to the issue of aesthetics and even ethics; they are a moving target.  

Those who have followed and/or participated in this thread know all too well how much discord there has been over the issue of what jazz is (and also political issues that have to do with ethics).  I personally feel that to try to define what jazz is in a narrow way is pointless.  Not because it can't be done (it can't), but because one has to ask oneself the question "why?"; what purpose, really, does it serve?  The idea that somehow the integrity of "Jazz" is degraded by not defining it narrowly is silly and ultimately self-serving.  I also find it curious that when even our most revered jazz artists proclaim that "there are only two kinds of music...good music and bad ("the other kind"), this simple "rule" is often ignored.  I prefer to think of it in terms of the "traditional" and the "non-traditional".

Very good and interesting comments on these topics recently and I think that the Lyle Mays recording is a perfect platform for looking at the issue of what jazz is or isn't.  I think that jzzmusician's description is a good one.  For me, while it is definitely a kind of "fusion", it is ultimately jazz.  Why?  Because it meets my requirements for what jazz is: improvisation is a key element within a compositional and harmonic framework that is sophisticated in a way that makes it an obvious extension of traditional jazz.  We can analyze it further for the sake of more clarity, but ironically it may only serve to make matters even more vague and confusing.  For many, "jazz" has to have the typical swing feel and have an obvious "bluesiness" to it.  If one looks at how jazz has evolved all the way from Dixieland, to swing, to bebop, hard bop, and onward, one hears a continued move to a less obvious rhythmic "swing", and to a more "straight" rhythmic feel (like in rock).  Harmonically, jazz became more and more sophisticated and "extended" from simpler core harmonies while still having roots in the blues.  Mays' recording is a great example of this.  Yeah, it's "fusion", but it is also "jazz".  Most importantly, it's good music.  

I'm still trying to get a handle on how the issue of ethics relates to aesthetic choices (tone?).  THAT should be an interesting discussion.  I suspect that, as always, there will be no clear answers.  

I heard the most recent recording from Etienne Charles yesterday; not available on YouTube yet.  This is earlier material.  Love the relaxed feel of this guy's music and playing; a "fusion" of jazz and his roots in Caribbean Island music (Trinidad):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e6rfAnQ9DDA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YmhajnlB9Og

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad3uG7-2tVs

Frogman:

You said, "  I also find it curious that when even our most revered jazz artists proclaim that "there are only two kinds of music...good music and bad"

I laughed out loud when I read that!  I watched a short documentary on Branford Marsalis some years ago.  On one segment he was on the telephone trying to get a gig and the person on the other line was a bit confused on what kind of music he would be playing.  After a couple of attempts, Brandford blurted out, "Look, there's only two kinds of music.   "Good music and shit."

And I believe him.  Your comments about defining jazz are right on.  Think of dogs.  There are a zillion kind of dogs and mutts.  But when a dog sees another dog he starts barking saying, "Hey!  You!  I'm a dog too!"  And the tails start wagging.

Sort of like jazz, or country or classical or whatever.  There are a boatload of different types but while difficult to define in words are easily recognizable by ear.

Just got off work and gonna fire up some of that Afro Cuban jazz with the big fat horn section. 

Bob