Dave Brubeck

Sabai:
"they all liked what I was doing. Charlie Mingus, Miles Davis, almost all of the guys that really had made it and were experimental people, experimenting, liked what I was doing. So what do I care if some critic doesn't like it? I'd care if Duke Ellington didn't like it."

Experimenting is great. It moves the music forward. Parker and Dizzy and others tried and created Be Bop, and when they looked around the entire genre was following them. Who followed brubeck and his experiments with time. That's the difference, between being a good player and being a Jazz Giant!

Sabai:
"The group played in jazz clubs in every major city and toured in package shows with such artists as Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzerald, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie and Stan Getz. The Dave Brubeck Quartet repeatedly won top honors in trade magazines and critic’s and reader’s polls. In 1954 Dave Brubeck’s portrait appeared on the cover of Time Magazine with a story about the jazz renaissance and Brubeck’s phenomenal ascendancy."

Back in the late 30's or 40's when all the greats were alive and well and in their prime, Benny Goodman was declared the KING OF JAZZ!! Nuff said!

Rok2id,
Thanks you for your kind comments.When people are in my listening room they all notice and comment on the Miles Davis picture.Thay feel he`s starring at them.
Regards,

Rok2id,
"Sameness" is a matter of perspective. When you live overseas what sounded all the same starts to get differentiated after a while.

It seems that you are determined to win the argument about "greatness" -- whatever it takes. But this is an argument you can never win -- no matter how many rabbits you pull out of the hat -- because what are really saying is "I am not crazy about his music so he cannot have been great", which is silly, of course. We all have our preferences but most of us will leave it at that.

As I pointed out earlier, which you have not replied to, is that while it is true that greatness is in the eye of the public, it is also true that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. It is like beauty. Saying that a work of art is not beautiful backs you into a corner because there are inevitably those who will disagree with you. Ergo, you cannot win the argument.

Now -- after two failed attempts -- you have a third argument to bolster your feelings that Brubeck was not great -- since your assertion that he did not play in clubs -- but he did -- and since your assertion that the critics did not like him -- but many did -- have fallen a bit flat. I note that you have not responded after I clearly showed that your first two assertions were false.

Your third and most recent assertion is that no one followed Brubeck so he cannot have been great. Your argument is specious. There have been many great artists and many geniuses in all walks of life throughout history who were never followed. In the world of music, my question to you is "Who followed Art Tatum?" No one that I know of. Certainly not Oscar Peterson who quit playing piano for a number of months after he first heard Art Tatum play, so overwhelmed was he by what he had heard.

Art Tatum and Dave Brubeck were originals. They both broke the mold. No one could follow them without being derivative. In that sense, if one wished to be negative about this, all followers could be branded as unoriginal, imitators and mere copyists -- which would be an equally specious assertion.