Jazz for aficionados
Need input from Aficionados. John Coltrane -- Giant Steps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU Michael Brecker -- Giant Steps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhkb-_SEtxQ Cheers |
These guys try to copy Coltrane note for note. All in vain. John Coltrane -- Impressions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03juO5oS2gg Liebman, Brecker & Lovano -- Impressions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2trXF_ba0k Cheers |
Rok, do you even know what it means to "copy note for note"? Obviously not. You have no idea what you are talking about because they clearly are not. I dont enjoy calling you out on on this stuff, but frankly you come across as a jerk with comments pretending to be substantive. I know, I know, but comes a time when things need to be said. What is the point of your ridiculous comparisons? Look, are you interested in learning about this stuff, this decade and its music and players or not? Did you listen to the McCoy/Brecker, or to the recordings in the article that you yourself posted? You are so predisposed to believing that nothing besides what you like is of value that you lose sight of what the thrust of the discussion is. Notice that no one else is, likewise, saying that their favorite music is the only one of value. It's simply too difficult to deal with your idiotic an sophomoric stances. So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots. There. If you change your mind and decide that you want to move beyond your very narrow sphere of understanding, let me know. As I pointed out before and to paraphrase Acman3, it's those that pretend to want to save it that end up destroying it. Cheers (I think) |
The point of my 'ridiculous' comparisons is to highlight and demonstrate the differences between Traditional Jazz Players, and the so-called 'Fusion' crowd. Playing the same music, so as to easier ID the differences, if any. I noticed you didn't comment of any of them. Which is your modus operandi, when your position is untendable. Then of course, comes the name calling. But you still didn't comment. This has nothing to do with my favorite music. It has to do with the insistent effort on this thread to equate all this "Fusion" nonsense, with Jazz. I was giving everyone an easy oppourtunity to hear for themselves. To make their own judgements. If you think the Parker and Pastorious performances were about equal, or Pastorious' was better, then say so. *****So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots.***** Well, I would not say ALL, are idiots.. Because Acman3 and the OP have not weighed in yet. BTW, the 'thrust' of this discussion is 'Fusion', and the people who play it. And how it is not real Jazz. And since the 70's was full of this stuff, it's right on topic. I also noticed you declined to give your definition of 'Fusion'. Cheers |
Acman, I enjoyed all of your posts, even the ones I didn't understand; like Cecil Taylor. Maybe I'm wrong, but Rok seemed to want to know what artists made the 70's so different, and that would include all artists associated with fusion and there was every kind of Fusion under the sun. Frogman, since Acman is doing such a good job "instinctively", I suggest he continue on the same way. I'm going to go through that decade the same way I went through it in life at that time; since I was bored with "classic jazz", I welcomed fusion, and I went all over the place, that's the way I'm going to proceed. Frogman, the direction you're going to take according to your last post sounds good to me. Enjoy the music. |
