Jazz for aficionados

Sonny Rollins

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in the previous two posts, a perfect example of the "Mars and Venus" concept.

The irony is that Shorter and Morton are saying the exact same thing. The truth is that the "style" of jazz that Morton knew and played was a far cry from what Horace Silver, or Coltrane, or....would play decades later. So, Silver and Coltrane didn’t play "jazz"....I get it now. Unfortunately, as usual, some tend to see what they want to see in order to buttress a personal point of view. Generally speaking, points of view which can be summarized as 1. Inclusive, open minded, true to the spirit of boundless creativity in the music , or 2. Non-inclusive, closed minded, dogmatic, restrictive of that creative spirit. We can debate the relative merits of each viewpoint till we’re blue in the face; however, let’s take a look at some facts related to this thread:

Over the last several days there has been spirited and appreciative discussion and posting of jazz spanning a wide range of styles from the traditional to the non-traditional, including fusion Some has been liked by others (mostly) and some not so much.  Importantly, there has been respect and appreciation shown towards others’ preferences and opinions. It is obvious that many here like and value "fusion" or whatever some of these styles anyone of us chooses to call certain music. My question is simple:

What positive purpose is served by calling the music that some of us clearly appreciate "noise"? None, I think; and, probably, negative ones. We are all free to be passionate about our preferences and express it any way we want, but by going down that road the chances of productive dialogue about a pretty deep topic are pretty slim. I would respectfully point out that in overlooking your own musical bias and trying to be profound yourself, you are missing the profundity in Shorter’s comment (and Morton’s, for that matter).

I was hoping that The Frogman would soon run out of straw.  A very eloquent post that  has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.


***** The irony is that Shorter and Morton are saying the exact same thing  *****
Jelly roll did not say all Jazz players had to play like he did, he said, Jazz is a style of playing music, and that any kind of music can be played in the Jazz style.  This would include Silver and Coltrane and everyone else.
Boy you are death on straw men.

So, Please explain how,

"Jazz does not have to sound like Jazz"

And

"Jazz is a style of playing music"

Are saying the same thing.


Cheers

Nah! This argument is as tired as stories about Grant Green; sorry.  No straw man at all and I'm not looking for arguments.  How's about we try a different approach?  You can dismiss what I'm suggesting as pure bs, or you can consider everything that (I think) you know about me and other posters and give the matter some thought.  

Alex, as usual, a thoughtful post which raises some interesting questions.

****often what is considerd beautiful was at the same time considered as 'Good'.****

That may be true; often, but not always.  Beautiful as far as what? is the question that needs to be asked.  We have looked at players with beautiful tones, but tone is only one component of what may constitute good, or beautiful music.  For me personally, while I very much appreciate beautiful tone, it is not necessary for me to consider music "good".  Moreover, sometimes music which is beautiful in tonality can be not so beautiful and even ugly in other ways; sometimes the music calls for and needs tonality that is abrasive, even ugly to serve the musical intent or personality of the compiser or performer. Tone, by itself, says little about the music.  Expression in music (the most important component) has much more to do with things that happen in the areas of rhythm. 

****concept of beauty can not be separated from context of time, historical periods and cultures.****

Excellent comment and very true, and shows why, for any one listener, what determines whether music is "good" often has much to do with that listener's biases.  The other key determinant is judgment of the level of craft of the composer or performer.  While this judgment still has a subjective component, there are objective criteria that need to be met if music making can be considered "good".  Just one example: How can the music of a player who possesses a great tone be considered "good" if his sense of rhythm is poor?  

****am wondering are we trying to distinguish what exactly is jazz music, or what is Beautiful music****

Personally, I don't see much value in trying to distinguish what exactly jazz is.  What, exactly, is that going to accomplish? I think that given the wide range of styles that have evolved from ROOTS in traditional jazz it is much more productive to distinguish what is beautiful music (not just in tonality).  It is obvious that each "aficionado" draws a line for himself at which some evolved style stops being jazz.  So why not, instead, focus on distinguishing good (beautiful) music from bad?  Most of what is posted on this thread is unquestionably Jazz; some of it is not jazz for some.  How anyone can claim to have that magic line for everyone else is beyond me; unless the aim is simply to prove everyone else "wrong", a pretty shallow objective, imo.  

****Does that means that all jazz music is 'Good' music?****

No way!  

****next time when somebody writes a critic thought, would be nice to say why somebody likes or dislikes something****

Precisely!  

Thanks for a great post.