Jazz listening: Is it about the music? Or is it about the sound?


The thread title says it all. I can listen to jazz recordings for hours on end but can scarcely name a dozen tunes.  My jazz collection is small but still growing.  Most recordings sound great.  On the other hand, I have a substantial rock, pop and country collection and like most of us, have a near encyclopedic knowledge of it.  Yet sound quality is all over the map to the point that many titles have become nearly unlistenable on my best system.  Which leads me back to my question: Is it the sound or the music?  Maybe it’s both. You’ve just got to have one or the other!
jdmccall56
Both!

I'm also a Bill Evans Trio fan. Big Time. Mitchel's "Song for Sharron" is on now and that's utterly moving to me. 

Isn't that the whole point of all of this; getting an evocative experience over and over or as Ben Sidran said "it's copacetic man" Heck yah. "Jesus Just Left Chicago" or "Blue Rondo a La Turk" (the live at Carnegie Hall version) both thrill.

Recordings of the likes of "Mingus Plays Piano", Teddy Wilson, Red Garland and Django Reinhardt are not amazing recordings but the music shines through.

Jarrett, Peacock and Dejonette on "Whisper Not" playing "Poinciana" is another one that sends me and the recording is good too.






Is sex about the sensations and release? Or about the communication, intimacy, closeness?
Is food about the interesting textures and flavors and how they're put together? Or is it about the emotional and physical satisfaction that results?
Are movies about the pacing, plot, and character development? Or about the immersion, excitement, and adrenaline burst?
To answer one or the other or both or neither is a good Rorschach test for members. It answers a question, "How should one live?" (Those who claim "both" are just as subjective as those who say one or the other, by the way. What they mean is, "For me, both!")

My MRI of the question reveals a philosophical question (as well as a personal and practical one). (And it's not "truly" a philosophical question -- that's just how I take it.)

Kierkegaard wrote a book about this basic question, entitled "Either/Or" in which he portrays two life views. From good ol' Wikipedia:

"The aesthetic is the personal, subjective realm of existence, where an individual lives and extracts pleasure from life only for their own sake. In this realm, one has the possibility of the highest as well as the lowest. The ethical, on the other hand, is the civic realm of existence, where one's value and identity are judged and at times superseded by the objective world.'
I too also am listening to a lot of jazz.  The thing about a jazz trio or quartet is that there is a lot of space between the players...and the music. the sound is in the space. And that space is much different then an orchestra or rock and roll band. the music is in the space.....

hilde45, sound quality and the music itself are both examples of the aesthetic and become purely a matter of taste. There is no ethical component. Ethics have always been a problem for humans. There are painfully few examples of ethics trumping survival. Survival for humans is now financial. Money trumps all. With the secularization of society ethics have flown out the window. Sodom and Gomora all over again.
’’Not So Special Keepers" (any genre)

That’s why I went from two arms (MC Stereo; Mono) to 3 arms ( added MM Stereo). Luckily I chose a vintage SUT with 3 inputs and MM pass.

I realized, I was wearing my non-replaceable stylus on LP’s that are keepers, because, like OP said, they are quite memorable, could name the tune, artist, get the year right most times, BUT not audibly special i.e. just ok (or none) musical talent, early poor equipment, poor engineering, but BIG HITS nonetheless.

I now play them with MM replaceable stylus. If I own these in CD format I will sell the LP or toss it if beat up as many are.

Meanwhile, if sonically great, I replace favorites with new LP, toss the old. Our advanced systems can easily reveal ’much better’ playing a new Eurythmics, (any frequently played favorite)
......................

Jazz, I agree, most often I could not give you the name of a tune if you had me on a firing wall.

I go by primary instrument, then artist(s), then superior engineering resulting importantly in individual distinction of particular players which naturally creates appreciable imaging.

When young and poor (redundant?), not knowing anything about Jazz, I was given about 50 Jazz LP’s that were in a flood. I washed em let em dry in dishwasher rack, played em on my decent low-budget system, and learned: I like Trombone; Trumpet; Sax; Piano, not electronic keyboards, yes trios, quartets, not large groups so much, not Jazz mixed with strings. Special voices, particularly female.

Back then, I had a weekly budget, CD’s were blowing LP’s out of the stores at low prices, and every payday I began refining which saxophone player, found Stan Getz ..., which piano found Earl Hines, Red Garland, Oscar Peterson, Ray Brown, Terrance Blanchard ... i.e. refined what I liked and didn’t like as well.

Next: superior recording, superior versions, then moved into R2R tapes, technically nosiest, yet my best sounding format, limited by content that stopped due to CD’s.
.............................

One thing I learned to do, if not special, or Mono, is not to listen from my centered listening position, but go back to my corner sofa spot, then your mind does not seek imaging which detracts mightily from non-special or Mono recordings.