Jazz for aficionados

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

natural

****The unwashed need answers.****

Why? Imo, some WANT answers; two different things.

****The questions become, is the evolution an improvement?****

Why does it have to be, or is expected to be, an "improvement"? Is Joe Henderson playing a ballad an "improvement" over Lester Young playing a ballad? Different and each a reflection of its time (****Evolution is a response to environment****). As always, whether any one of us likes one particular style better than another is a reflection of ourselves and our sensibilities relative to the world around us. The only thing that is a "dead end" is the need to put those qualifications on art. Now, if you really want to use criteria that gives a measure of excellence (or not) with something resembling an objective standard you have to look at the level of CRAFT and criteria used to judge that; and, no, those criteria are not purely subjective. You know.....that phrase that rhymes with "putz and dolts". It is, of course, not only about the craft; but, that road inevitably leads back to us (dead end).

****Guys trying to be different on purpose does not count as natrual****

Do you think, for one minute, that Bird and Trane didn’t "cultivate" their individuality? Every player sets out to find his/her voice and does so through a combination of inspiration and the hard work of trying new things; everything from developing harmonic concepts in their playing to trying fifty different saxophone mouthpieces to get the tone that they hear for themselves in their head. Bottom line:

You like the more traditional music (no problem) and seem to have a need to deem it "superior" to more contemporary music for some reason that is your very own. I don’t have that need and find it very limiting. I appreciate the excellence in the new and the old as long as certain other criteria are met. However, you don’t love or appreciate the traditional any more than I do. Excluding the non-traditional does not enhance our appreciation of the traditional; in fact, it limits it. You like the traditional and dislike the modern (I am generalizing, of course). There’s no problem with that. So, either you are correct and there are no worthy modern trends in music; or, I’m an idiot for thinking that there are.  Importantly, it should be pointed out, again, which side of the coin does the bashing of the other.  

Do you think, for one minute, that Bird and Trane didn’t "cultivate" their individuality? Every player sets out to find his/her voice and does so through a combination of inspiration and the hard work of trying new things; everything from developing harmonic concepts in their playing to trying fifty different saxophone mouthpieces to get the tone that they hear for themselves in their head. Bottom line:

Although the above is true, it contains in it, the inherent belief that any musician who did these things could be as good as "Trane" Miles or "Bird"; that's not true. Regardless what you do, if you were not given at birth, whatever differentiates those musicians from the rest of us, you can only be a good sideman, or mediocre leader.

"You can be what you want to be"; that's true only to a certain extent; we are talking about famous jazz musicians who were the best; you can only be the best if you were given something at birth, that for lack of a better word is called "talent".

Within them, the very best jazz musicians know that they have something that's so exclusive, that very few will be able to duplicate what they can do, and are doing; they know this even if they are at the bottom financially. While that doesn't suffice for "In God We Trust" in the pockets, it's what keeps those musicians who are not financially successful, going on another day. Read what Miles had to say about "Bird" to verify that.

In regard to "individuality"; that is something musicians "discover" while in the process of becoming a good musician.


Enjoy the music.

****Although the above is true, it contains in it, the inherent belief that any musician who did these things could be as good as "Trane" Miles or "Bird";****

Not so, and I'm not suggesting any such thing.  That's quite a leap and don't see how or why you made that leap based on what I wrote.  Otherwise, I'm pretty much in agreement.