Jazz for aficionados

O-10, personally, I don’t see the need to personalize a comment like that. I, and I’m sure strateahed as well, were not implying that you are narrow minded. However, it is relevant to the overall comment that I think he was making and to my recent one. I also think that since you were the person suggesting these comparisons, it’s relevance also has to do with a comment that you have made many times to the effect that your frame of reference is pretty much exclusive to what you consider the beginning of "modern jazz": bebop (Bird) and then hardbop. As always, if any discussion is to have any real meaning then I think we should strive for the most clarity possible; otherwise, there will be a sense that we are always guessing about what the writer is saying. Example:

In your comparison of Dizzy and Miles you seem to be suggesting that the fact that Miles "strayed away" from jazz as it was accepted until then and into his electric projects (non-jazz?) somehow lowers his standing relative to others simply by virtue of that fact. What about his work up until then, relative to what others like Dizzy were doing? Furthermore, Miles was doing stuff in the 60s (what many consider the best band ever in jazz) that was unlike anything Dizzy ever did and was not like his electric stuff at all; stuff generally considered "post-bop". So, what does the fact that he went on to venture into what some may not call jazz have to do with anything relative to Dizzy or anyone else? Personally, I don’t care whether it’s considered jazz by some or not; some of it is interesting music and that’s all that matters. You stated that the "exercise" of the comparison could be interesting. I think it could be...with a little more focus and clarity. Just some potential food for thought. Regards.

Frogman, you said, quote ' He had A LOT of technique and speed; probably more than Miles. But he never sounded like he could play softly and controlled like Miles could.'

I am well aware that you are professional, but to my untrained ears Dizzy always sounded like he has full and utmost control of his instrument, his tone has perfect and fine edge,so would you consider a thought that he could play, but perhaps, for whatever reason, choosed not to play many softly or lyrical stuff in a way like Miles played, or even better, Chet?

By the way, how is this for 'softly and controlled playing? ''Olinga' from 'Portrait of Jenny' album, from 1970.
https://youtu.be/BsYafl7o98M

the above mentioned album, that I really like
https://youtu.be/PHd1vCIOCUU

or, what about  this classic tune, at least for the part untill they decide to speed things up?
'Dark eyes', from 'For Musicians only'

https://youtu.be/pPbT-96qHZc

But,I could never called him uncapable of playing anything he wish, if he wishes to.

Alex, sorry but I simply don't agree with your take on Dizzy's instrumental playing compared to Miles or others'.  First of all, keep in mind that a comparison of the two players was asked for; I stand by my comments even though I would not necessarily have wanted to make the comparison.  I did not say that Dizzy could not play the trumpet well or that he could not play it softly.  I made the point that compared to Miles' finesse in those areas he was not on the same level.  Your clips highlight what I described.  What can I say?  His tone sounds pinched to me; even without the mute.  You like the "edge"; edge is only one part of a great tone.  I much prefer a fuller tone a la Morgan or Hubbard.  Miles' tone wasn't particularly full sounding either; but, not as thin as Dizzy's.  His intonation is erratic compared to Miles' and he "flubs" over notes too often for my taste.   I don't hear the absolute control of other players.  Lastly, as I said previously, his improvisations often sound like bebop solos superimposed on a different style.  Please keep in mind that all of this is relative.  Again, I am not saying that he couldn't  play the trumpet; that would be silly.  Yes, I think he was playing the way he wanted to play; but, that does not mean that he could play a different way.  Regards.

Alex, for whatever it may be worth, I am not alone in my assessment of Dizzy’s tone and intonation. Again, it’s always relative to the best:

http://www.jazz-music-history.com/Dizzy-Gillespie.html

"Dizzy Gillespie was not highly regarded by most established trumpet stars at this time. The established swing trumpet players focused on good tone and intonation. He was focusing on harmonic evolution and had a rather thin tone. His tone got better later on."

https://bahai-library.com/kernfeld_anb_dizzy_gillespie

"A long-standing feature of Gillespie’s playing was evident even then, as a teenage companion, trombonist Norman Powe, recalled: "It was a very fast style. . . . He didn’t have a tone. He doesn’t have a good tone now, but his execution outweighs all that."

"Gillespie brought to trumpet playing an unprecedented ability to play fast-moving melodies, both written and improvised, above complex chord progressions. In the classic recordings with Parker, a succession of nearly perfect unison statements of extremely difficult themes testifies to his uncanny knack for matching his trumpet to Parker’s alto saxophone. He coupled this facility with an audacious imagination that made his improvisations a musical revelation, rather than merely a technical exercise, as it would become in the hands of disciples such as Jon Faddis and Arturo Sandoval. Gillespie achieved this aim at the expense of timbral nuance, and in this regard he was surpassed by Miles Davis and by a chain of stylistically related trumpeters stretching from Fats Navarro, Clifford Brown, Donald Byrd, Lee Morgan, Freddie Hubbard, Woody Shaw, and Wynton Marsalis onward, although all of these players (Davis excepted) owed their basic improvisational approach to Gillespie’s innovations.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4jkDAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=dizzy+gillespie’s+ton...

Frogman, for sure, when I wish to listen some gentle or subtle trumpet playing Dizzy is not my first (or second) pick and I agree with you on that matter. All the players you have mentioned had more to say on that subject.
.
 But it seems to me that article you posted proves my thoughts about it...
...'his amazingly sophisticated harmonic insight...his stunning ability to improvise brilliantly at any tempo...instead the limelight was thrown on the one aspect of his playing in which he placed little importance....he always regarded tone as comparatively minor consideration....he had no choice, but to give priority to sound he made'

It  certainly would be interesting to hear more recordings where he 'had no choice' but to give 'priority to the sound', but it seems that he did not cared for that aspect of his playing,for whatever reason.
That was my thought and I simply said that I believe that, by judging on his displayed technique, he could achived that aspect as well, if he only wanted.