Jazz for aficionados

Here's a nice album by David Sanborn and Bob James.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAylaBiYsG0

Billy Bang was a "Nam vet" who never freed himself of the demons left by that war.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJMOpIHBgc

Oregonpapa, I'm quite familiar with all the musicians you mentioned. Harold Land "A lazy Afternoon" is my latest CD by him.

Enjoy the music.

****Until Cannonball takes the third solo on that album, it was, in my opinion, just another studio recording by guys who came to work that day to make a buck. Adderley showed them the way....****

Wow! That's the kind of bold comment that makes for an interesting thread. Welcome to the thread Oregonpapa. But, disagree with your comment; or, at least, in degree. I love Cannonball and that third solo is a great solo. But, Miles and Trane sounding like they are just there to make a buck? Yikes! First of all, Miles undoubtedly picked Trane and Cannonball because of their contrasting styles; so, from that standpoint, it's a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Moreover, I think a case can be made for Cannonball's style being somewhat ill suited for that record. To my ears, Cannonball's more traditional bebop style and overall exuberant and almost "perky" style is less suited to the very introspective and laid back vibe of that modal tune. But a great solo nonetheless. Again, welcome.

During the 80's I just collected good sounding music, that was classified as jazz although it didn't fit the classical definition of jazz; meaning to sound similar to the jazz of the 50's and 60's, but it was original.

After that, the latest music out called "jazz" took on a similarity that was too much for me to take; it forsook all originality in order to be "jazz". It wasn't till quite recently, meaning since I started this thread that I began going back in time. Unlike Frogman and Acman, I absolutely do not like current music that sounds like 50's and 60's jazz; it sounds like someone trying to imitate the music of that era.

Now, thanks to "you tube", I can go back in time and still get music that I've never heard before; that's because the giants of that era recorded so much more music besides what was most popular at that time. Although soon I will have all of the music recorded by the giants of that era, I won't run out because jazz is popular all around the globe; consequently it will be Burmese jazz, or Japanese jazz, but it'll still be new.

Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can.

While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective; for example, I say no one communicated abstract emotions through their music better than "Bobby Timmons", and this is what jazz is about; "communicating abstract emotions". Of course it's about a lot more than that, but that's at the top. Frogman says there is such a thing as "objective reality" involved in jazz, and I disagree, but if he and others that think like him could give an example of "objective reality" in regard to jazz, I could be persuaded to change.

Enjoy the music.