Jazz for aficionados

Whatever you choose to call it (vocal or instrumental), or to like it better or not, it does not matter, because it is excepted in existing form.

Again, I find the words quite suiting, but its just my hubmle opinion.

Frogman, we all have our ways of expression.
Op is sometimes passionate, but its not something new, its his core belifs that he is speaking about.
Personally, I always tend to focus more on ’what the poet ment to say’, rather than on how he said it.
You, on the other hand,should certainly possess the wider perspective since your education and work had gave you the possibility to learn, practice and understand music on scale which is unknown for us,the simple ’aficionados’.
But, as they say, with knowledge comes the responsibility and in this case that (imho) sometimes means excepting the role of enlightener,
which often was and is very ungreateful task.
But, for whatever reasons, you have took it some time ago.
So, I fully understand your reactions, hope that you will be patient and that you will endure doing what you have done for some time, educating us all and trying to show us bigger perspective.
Of course, you should not count on us beeing overly grateful for that (jk)
Simply said,if for nothing else, than for the sake of the knowledge itself, you are not ’allowed’ to respond in a way that you feel that you are adressed, but to always try to speak with arguments first.
It is an interesting subject and if we all keep it civil enough, we all might learn something

o-10, I'm a little surprised by your "rigid" response. Jazz is suppose to be a fluid expression and I assume that means the listener as well as the performer.

"Miles was Miles".  Absolutely!  Miles was always Miles, his own man, from everything I've read about him.  But he continuously moved forward with his music.  Not all of us followed him.  I'm guilty of that too as I mostly appreciate what I suspect we commonly enjoy the most.  But how can we say he was no longer Miles once he plugged in?  I consider him a true individual who was true Miles right up to the end.  The fact that you or I didn't follow or appreciate all that he produced doesn't matter.  We are fortunate that we can select the particular era of Miles we love and revisit it as often as we like through our recordings.

But that is one of the pleasures of the history of an art form like jazz.  It is enormously varied and we are free to pick what pleases us most as individuals.

Pryso, the subject of Miles is ancient history; "Round Midnight" is the new subject.

Even Miles accepted the fact that few of the people he loved, and who loved him would like his new music, but that didn't change anything one iota in regard to him. They (a handful of people) no longer bought his new music, but each one that didn't was replaced by 100 who did. All of those people he knew who quit buying his music were still welcome to his home.

The subject of Miles new music was sort of moot before he died. People who like chocolate ice cream, still like chocolate, and those who like vanilla, still like vanilla.

Alex, thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with your premise. Only thing I would add is that “passion” is not an excuse for lack of fair mindedness. I agree with your stance on lyrics. On that very subject:

I don’t suppose it has crossed the minds of those vehemently opposed to added lyrics that by that (questionable, at best) standard possibly as much as half of the most popular tunes in instrumental Jazz would then be deemed “invalid” since those tunes were conceived as songs with lyrics (“vocals”). The Great American Songbook is just one canon.

**** Vocals are vocals, instrumentals are instrumentals; let them be separate and never the twain shall meet; unless on a temporary basis. ****

An entirely different approach to the song.  Warning: It’s a vocal version 😊

https://youtu.be/gTmVgIYwd3k