Jazz for aficionados
Hello Gents. I thought Frogman had a good suggestion with respect to the "drama" issue....find examples of the same tune, with and without it. AND I’m not trying to be a provocateur on that point whatsoever. I think Orpheus brought up a meaningful issue such that whatever word you use for the performance characteristic he "hears" and is calling "drama" it might be a distinguisher for great vs mediocre performances. I’m very interested to hear more on the topic. I watched the clip Frogman posted of that Coltrance Quartet doing Impressions. I tend to agree with O that there’s late work by JC that I do not care for (though the Impressions performance did not qualify as that for me). I also suspect Frogman might be right about that work being a logical progression in JC’s development. I’d say we can sometimes confuse personal preference and taste with Objective Truth and need to avoid this. On the other hand, if JC’s development took his music to a technically valid place but left behind emotion, I think that IS an objective reason for parting company. As O once wrote, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I’ve got 20/20 vision." THAT is a GREAT quote. By the way, I readily admit I have so much to be exposed to and learn about jazz...certainly don’t consider myself an "aficionado" so, off topic, but I will comment McCoy Tyner is killer in that Impression performance. Thanks Frogman. O - I still do fully intend to check out those clips you posted after the Sonny Clark/Speak Low and the Lee Morgan/Search. |
He could create a mood with one held note, could swing with the best of them and could make music that was just plain fun. Amazing musician. Toots: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dzYLLetk6-I https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d5U3LN_MpIM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_AUMhRPcxWU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yh4su_xGJ84 |
Good comments Ghosthouse. ****On the other hand, if JC’s development took his music to a technically valid place but left behind emotion, I think that IS an objective reason for parting company.**** I have a different take on JC's development, and this is not meant to invalidate your excellent comments. JC's development didn't leave behind emotion; it took him to a place where it was PURE EMOTION. Whether we as individual listeners can relate to or understand his message (emotion) is not what determines the ultimate validity of it. The key point, I think, is that we can all agree that he was a musical giant. So, it seems to me that until we as listeners can rightfully claim to be as artistically advanced as a John Coltrane, it is more honest and fair to the artist in question, and productive for the growth of our own musical awareness, to keep the door just slightly open to the possibility that it is we who don't understand the message; not that the message is no good. We can debate whether "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"; but, we KNOW a falling tree makes a sound. |
"...it is more honest and fair to the artist in question, and productive for the growth of our own musical awareness, to keep the door just slightly open to the possibility that it is we who don't understand the message; not that the message is no good." @frogman - I am in absolute agreement with this. Well said. I'm also very willing to consider your premise that JC's development led him to a place of expressing pure emotion. I would counter, however, with a couple of questions as in... Or did it lead him to develop a new language for expressing emotion. Or did lead to expressing a new "kind" of emotion; almost like a painter "inventing" a new color (and sub-question: Is it then a "human emotion"?). We can get all kinds of philosophical on these points but they certainly touch on what is the meaning and purpose of art. Is it primarily a form of self-expression, a means of (emotional) communication, a mix of both? what % of each?? Believe me when i say, I'm suspicious of how superficial my questions are...but they're the best I got at the moment. OR (another 'or') is it just about the entertainment value and answering the age old question, "Can you dance to it?". If there's a burden of communicative responsibility on the artist, is the artist then to be limited by the "language skills" of his audience? I certainly don't think so. Art history says, "NO!" [BTW - one can make a case here for the good that critics can do acting as "translators" and "guides" for those of us willing to "keep that door open".] I realize I muddled things up in my earlier post by talking objective with a capital O and then reusing 'objective' in reference to Orpheus (and me) not liking some of Coltrane's later stuff. Instead of "objective reason for parting company" I should have written, "valid reason for parting company" since I think it is absolutely okay to make a negative subjective assessment based on answering "Does it communicate anything worthwhile to me?" [Worthwhile?! - what the heck is THAT!) As you urge, however, I do recognize this judgement might only be temporary pending further "growth of our own musical awareness". Thanks for your comments and ideas. I enjoy this discussion very much. |
