Jazz for aficionados

Frogman, english is not my mothers tongue, that prevents me of a more complex explanations of my thoughts. Of course that music in time has a constant flow, and we can say that it has evolved, even more so if you have point of view from musicians stand point, like you do. But, imagine, if someone would look at society in general, in lets say late 50's,in some place where jazz was created, and than returned to the same place one decade later, I think one hardly could recognaise it. My points is that changes to music came with 'outer' factor,social and economic, which than impacted its protagonists on different ways and led them to create music that some express as their own artistic creative feeling, others maybe had the ability of craftmanship that allowed them to follow the 'fashion' of the moment. Maybe it is just my thoght, but 'older'jazz music seems to me to be more genuine, with clear thought and feeling behind it,
like it had less influence from 'outside' but came from 'within', more it was 'musicians thing', rather than later music, which seems 'corrupted' by fashion, music industry, faster way of life, and other numerous soc.and econ.things. Also, if I may add something to your conversation with Orpheus, you two are looking things from two very different points. I admire your education, and your ability to articulate your thoghts and feelings into words, but sometimes your understanding of craftmanship that stands behind music creation, it just might you prevent to enjoy some more simple pieces of music, that are not necessary 'fake'. In that sense, O-10
seems to rely more on emotional receptors.

Some music, Dizzy's session 1970

https://youtu.be/JjvbZEPmHdE

O-10, I would have much preferred to engage in dialogue about Wayne Shorter and his music, but.....

I THINK I understand what you are saying. Some thoughts:

I have never sat an "average person" down in front of my system who didn't, at least, say "Wow, that sounds great"; that was after my asking them to choose the music.

My system, while of a fairly high pedigree, is far from "perfectly" set up (by the standards of what is possible); I would rather put my energies elsewhere. It does sound pretty good, with the goal being for it to sound as much as possible like the way live music sounds with priorities being rhythm and timbre. Actually, soundstaging is probably it's main shortcoming with "space" that is actually smaller than real; but I get your point (dig). As far as the "subjective audiophile reality" goes: you are absolutely correct, but I have to say: so what and who cares? Most audiophile systems that I have heard don't sound the way that live music sounds to me; most, not even close; and many audiophiles don't have that as a goal, wanting their system to simply sound good to them. I have no problem with that. However, when an audiophile wants to make a case for why his system sounds "like live" or "accurate" or more "accurate" (like live music) than mine, AND can also tell me that he is a regular and frequent concert goer; THEN we can talk.

Btw, what did you think of the Brecker/Ogerman "City Scapes" clip? Thought it might be right up your alley.

Regards.

Alex, nothing is more important than communicating the truth as you perceive it, and you do that quite well. Your perceptions are correct. From what I can gather about audiophiles since I've been here, is that they are very much unaware of things outside of that arena.

"Cataclysmic" changes have occurred in the economy of this country since I was on the south side of Chicago in 56. Those changes have affected everything, including music. You are correct in your perceptions about the changes in society that are reflected by music.

Once upon a time there were many places of entertainment that hired musicians, now there are relatively few when compared to times past, this means it's much harder for a musician to make a living; that and other factors account for radical changes in music over time. For whatever reasons, we are both in harmony in regard to the "jazz" of the 50's and 60's.

Enjoy the music.

Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn. For example, Michael Brecker blows a beautiful horn, but I didn't care for the composition. In the case of Wayne Shorter, I don't like short clipped phrases (Miles liked short clipped phrases in his last music) While the Wayne Shorter clip was of the "definitive jazz" type, I've gone past that; now I'm more into music without classification, like this Santana for example;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bJouVEzr0k

Enjoy the music.

Hello all - I have been away from this board for several days, and may be for several more. I have read the conversation going on between O-10 and Frogman with great fascination. O-10, your latest statement, "Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn."; is incorrect. In fact, it is quite backwards - it is Frogman who is talking much more about what you are calling "composition," in other words, the music itself. You have been referring throughout to your subjective reality of your emotional response to the music. What Frogman's objective reality is about is the actual music itself - how it is put together, and how it works - much, much more than simply how the musicians are playing their instruments, though this is indeed one aspect of it.

The problem here, as someone else besides Frogman has alluded to (sorry don't remember who off the top of my head to give proper credit) is that unfortunately, you do not have some of the fundamental knowledge of music that is required to get into some of the deeper discussions that could be had about it. There are things about this objective reality that simply cannot be understood without this knowledge (this is why some of the things Frogman says seem subjective to you, when in fact they are not). This is precisely why I have urged you, O-10, in particular to educate yourself some more about the music you love so much - until you do, discussion is much more limited than it could be. It would open up whole new worlds of understanding and appreciation of everything that you already love about your music. Unfortunately, apparently not only do you not believe this, but even further, you seem to believe acquiring more knowledge to be totally incompatible with gaining more love; and this is by miles the single most frustrating thing for us musicians when we are trying to help you deepen your understanding, and therefore your love of music.

I'm a very mediocre writer compared to Frogman, but I hope the point comes across. I may be away from this board for a while again, but this is always the very first thread I check (in fact, pretty much the only one I check on this site anymore). It has been great, and I am sure will continue to be so.