Jazz for aficionados

Ok, last one for today, dont want to bore any accidental visitors with so out of fashion music, aldo often I wonder why there are so many views of these pages and yet so few posters? But, anyway...

Bobby Troup 'Bobby swings tenderly' from 1957.

@alexatpos

What is "frogman’s rule" ?

Check out Penguin Jazz Guide as well.

@stuartk , well, since I have started posting here, I have tryed to introduce fellow members to some long forgotten artists and hopefully I menaged to do so.In the same time I have always wondered why some of them never made it, in terms of recognition, at least, even to their contemporaries, nevermind the enthusiasts from the present. Now, there comes the Frogman, who basically said (not in so few words and no so blunt) that reason being so is that those guys were never so ’good’ to be ’recognised’ at first place. So, there were some questions and discussions raised about it, but between the ’old’ posters that remained as colloquial expression (often with mild irony) when some of the artists of that ’type’ were mentioned...

I am aware of Penguin guide, but ’All music’ seemed to be more complete, back than when I got it and later I have just continued to use it....

@alexatpos 

I'd say both Guides have their strengths and weaknesses.Without question, the All Music is more complete. 

Thanks for explaining the Frogman rule. 

If we only listened to the best of the best we'd grow bored, eventually, no? 

I like clarity, especially when my comments are being (mis)represented. So, to be clear:

The term “The Frogman’s rule” was coined by Rok2id in response (in part) to an ongoing “debate” here about the possible reasons that some musicians are not as well known as others. I would not be so self centered as to make a “rule” for anyone else but myself. As further background, there was a suggestion made AT THE TIME that it was usually some sort of injustice at play. The “starving genius artist” myth. I disagreed and wrote that the reason was OFTEN (not always) that the artistry of the musician in question was usually not on the level of better known artists and that when one considers the reality of the music business (and it is precisely that), that lesser artists will not receive as much attention via bookings, recordings contracts and record sales. I stand by that assertion. However, and I said it then, there have been examples of artists deserving of wider recognition who did not receive that recognition for a variety of reasons, usually personal: drug use, difficult to work with, etc.

Alex has often posted obscure artists and, FOR ME, several (not all, and I said it at the time) simply weren’t on a level that interested me when one considers the vast number of recordings available by truly great players. Personally, I can’t imagine ever being “bored” with the existing supply of great recordings by great players. And I’m not talking about the greatest of the great either. Not every really good tenor player, for instance, is on the level of a Coltrane, or Rollins, but still rewarding to listen to….obviously. However, there are many levels below that and it gets to the point when one (I) says “what’s the point?”. Just to have something different? Even if it’s mediocre? Worse yet, NOT different, but totally derivative. No thanks .

Lastly, as time marched on many of the supposedly “obscure” players posted weren’t that obscure at all. For instance, look at recent posts. Howard McGhee and Eddie Harris, obscure?! I don’t think so.

Anyway, this subject would arise in discussion one way or another over the years and the term “Frogman’s rule” stuck, somehow. I’ve never used it myself. I hope this clarifies things somewhat and Happy Holidays to all.