Jazz for aficionados

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.

"To thine own ears be true", quote the great philosopher Orpheus. You don't have to be a philosopher or musician to know what you like and don't like. If JC decided to communicate with the angels when he was nearing his last breath, that was his decision, not my ears; but how could I be expected to understand music meant for the angels.

He made so much fantastic music throughout his productive life, that I am still enjoying frequently, I can overlook that. Miles also communicated with the angels through his music near the end.

Nevertheless, we shall trod on, enjoying the incredible music they made before they decided to communicate with the angels through their music.


Ghosthouse, I very much appreciate your Toots contributions. I'll continue to see what I can find by him and Bobby Hutcherson. Both men made such incredible contributions as sidemen that there is no need to overlook that.


Enjoy the music.

I wondered into this, and couldn't quit looking and listening.


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNbATOp4fbk


That Jackie Mac is just too much, and that chick is tearing up some drums; I just can't quit looking and listening. It's almost impossible for me to tell how this music that sounds similar to so much music I've heard is different; that's the nature of great artists, it's hidden in the recipe.


Enjoy the music.

I personally always felt it was up to the listener to work harder to understand what the musician was trying to say. Most the time I was rewarded by my persistence, but sometimes I still don't get it. Still feel it was my lack of knowledge or effort or both which didn't allow me to understand the music.

Unless, of course, it was Crap!   :)



Most of the time we look for beauty or music that has a high level of skill. J. Coltrane's pure emotion is just to much to take, especially as we get older and lose our testosterone, But there is great beauty in the raw fierceness in which he plays, and as far as skill, I don't believe he had an equal.

I remember a critic saying Coltrane sounded like a big man in a small box, when he played with Miles. He finally got where he wanted to go, or at least start the journey, I guess.