Jazz for aficionados

Rok, here's one you might like;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSkqfm73HxQ

Enjoy the music.

Some thoughts about recent commentary:

I could not agree more with the comment that the thread loses focus and is not as enjoyable if the commentary jumps around too much; I think the reasons why are obvious. However, I think that this distinction needs to be made:

I don't think that the act of jumping around, unto itself, is a bad thing or a distraction. It is possible and potentially interesting to touch upon and show examples of, for instance, a player from the '40's who influenced a player active in the '60's. The "influence lineage" is something that has been missing here IMO; and, there has been active resistance to it as well as active resistance to the music of certain eras such as 20's, 30's and even early 40's; specifically early swing, swing and big-band eras. The issue that I have with that approach is that not enough time is spent on any one topic (or artist) to really do it justice. I have felt this way almost from the beginning of the thread. A recent example is, in fact, the recent "new Cuban music" topic.

O-10, I must say that I was surprised that after you proposed the topic and mentioned The Afro-Cuban All-Stars, that you did not post a single example of either that group or any other group; and, there was scant commentary about any of the postings until the subject was deemed exhausted a short time later. That is a great example of a topic that is abandoned way too soon (and I said so), especially given the huge numbers of musical examples available of that very rich musical heritage.

I think that it's going to be a worthwhile challenge (but certainly not impossible, and certainly potentially rewarding) to take a more pedagogical approach to the discussions as opposed to the one that was the stated one at the thread's inception: that of discussing simply one's favorite artists. I certainly welcome (should not be surprising) a more comprehensive look at the various subjects and a more in-depth analysis (yup, that IS what is being proposed; like it or not). One can't have it both ways. In order to dig deeper into any one subject we have to (to a degree) put aside our dislike of certain genres and certain styles of playing for the sake of gaining a deeper understanding of how it all ties together; and it all certainly does.

Another issue worth noting, and one that would become much more clear if the above approach is taken, is that I don't think enough distinction is made between great artists and important artists. This is not to suggest that the "merely great" artists should not be covered; obviously they deserve to be and "ties it all together". What I mean is that artists like Previn, Snow and Scott are great artists; however, IMO they are not important artists in the sense that they were not particularly influential artists. Determining wether they are important or "merely great", and the reasons why, can be one of the most enjoyable aspects of a thread such as this; personal "like" is a different matter. What makes an artist an important artist?

Scott was an important artist from the standpoint of her contributions to civil rights (and what a beauty she was!), but as far a her contribution to music one has to be pragmatic and acknowledge that she was great, but she was no Art Tatum; her mentor and a truly important artist. IMO, the notion of the either undiscovered or under-appreciated artist is overly-romanticized and generally exaggerated. Of course there have been artists that for whatever personal (or otherwise) reason did not get his/her due; but, the art world has a way of "separating the wheat from the chaff". The truly important artists will (almost without exception) be noticed; sometimes in spite of themselves. Again, we're not talking about merely good/great artists, but the important ones. I think that this perspective can be a very good and useful backdrop for these discussions.

*****The "soundtrack" is as shallow as a sidewalk puddle compared to "Brazil" on the LP, and that's what I meant.****

I get what you mean, but you are out of context. You cannot seperate the soundtrack from the movie. Jobim's version would have been a total flop as the soundtrack. You have to see the movie. As one reviewer said, the movie is like '1984' minus Big Brother. Instead we have a regime of deadly buffoons.

This soundtrack is in the same class as the soundtrack of 'The Third Man'.

Cheers

*****What makes an artist an important artist?*****

Well?

Cheers

Liked Sanchez. But as a French speaker, I didn't understand a word she said. :) This is sometimes more important than at other times. Not important at all in Opera. The awesome music overcomes language. Not so with Sanchez.

Turrentine: Always glad to see Jazz guys pay their respects to the good Lord. This is him with his wife, Shirley Scott, on organ. I have this CD. He seems to be more 'Jazzy' than 'Jazz'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM1h4_gPkBE&list=RDAM1h4_gPkBE#t=27

Cheers