Jazz for aficionados
Rok, things are a changing; those out of print LP's that you had to pay an arm and two legs for, if you could find them, are now on CD's for $13. bucks. Just go shopping on "you tube", and get back to me on Wardell, and Stitt to see if you like anything. The last time we checked there was a problem with recording quality; they can clean that up. Wardell Gray had something special on slow ballads, while his "hooting and tooting" in the style of Bird was the most popular. Enjoy the music. |
The first time I heard "Bernie's Tune" was in the Summer of 56 by Wardell Gray; therefore it is "The" Bernie's Tune. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs2IBIc_9DM Note how "authentic" this music is. And "Cherokee" by Sonny Stitt, the alternative to "Bird." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2W5F_071Ig Enjoy the music. |
Beautiful Sonny Stitt! Love Sonny Stitt. For me, perhaps the most fascinating and interestig mystery story in all of jazz history and lore: Much (actually, not enough) has been discussed, postulated on and argued here about the issue of the evolution of jazz and, at the micro level, the influence of prominent players on younger players and on the direction of the music. It was Sonny Stitt’s contention that up until the time that he was "discovered", recorded and finally met Parker, that he had never previously heard Charlie Parker play; live or recorded. Yet, their styles were remarkably similar and given the firestorm that Bird was causing on the scene (not to mention that everyone was incorporating Bird’s style into their own; well, almost everyone) it would be assumed that the reason that Stitt sounded so much like Bird was, in fact, Bird’s influence on his playing style. There really is no verifiable reason to doubt Stitt’s claim, eventhough the matter has been looked into. This begs the question: how did this happen since the lineage of influence is easily traced in the majority of important players’ playing styles? To my way of thinking this points to the "inevitability" of the evolution of the music and how it’s like a force set in motion that can’t be stopped; it will always keep evolving whether we like it or not. Just some hopefully remotely interesting food for thought. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vK_29ka1lc |
Sonny Stitt: If Bird's influence was as pervasive as everyone says it was, it would have been impossible not to be influenced by him, even if it came through third parties. I have this CD. I always thought Oscar should have added drums and a couple of horns to his group. Esp since he seemed to go out of his way to play with every horn player in Jazz. ***** To my way of thinking this points to the "inevitability" of the evolution of the music and how it’s like a force set in motion that can’t be stopped; it will always keep evolving whether we like it or not.***** The questions become, is the evolution an improvement? Is it artistically superior to what it is supposed to have evolved from? Is it a small incremental step in evolution, or a drastic mutation into something entirely different? Is it an logical and easily recognizable upward continuation or a lateral evolutionary branch that resulted in a dead end? Evolution is a response to enviroment. Guys trying to be different on purpose does not count as natrual The unwashed need answers. Let's all remember, the Ford Edsel evolved from something. Nice Jazz post. Cheers |
