Jazz for aficionados

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.

Alex, you express your thoughts very well; and I appreciate them. What we are talking about is a recurring theme on this thread. The appreciation of music is no different than just about any endeavor in as much as there are many many levels that a person can reach in the understanding of it. The choice to do that or not is obviously a very personal one. My feeling has always been that to learn as much as possible about it is a good thing which helps the appreciation and enjoyment of it. With all due respect, what I think you confuse, and is often confused in these "talks", is the distinction between quality of the performance and quality of the music as a style. Contrary to what you suggest, I like "simple" music as much as more complex music; the issue is wether it is played well or not. It is not that I dislike some of the clips that have been posted because they are "simple", I disliked them because they were not played well. Just this morning I was having a conversation with an orchestrator who was commenting how difficult it is to keep things (music) simple and good; sometimes complexity hides poor quality. Anyway, I think that this kind of critical thought is sorely missing on this thread, and the ability to be critical that way in no way detracts from the emotional enjoyment of it. There is much talk about favorite styles and there is much posturing about which era produced the best music; a futile exercise. IMO, the key to becoming a better listener is to learn about the musical values that separate a great performance from a mediocre one; regardless of style. This will, in turn, help the listener understand and appreciate different styles of music. That may or may not be what some listeners want. The problem as I see it is the declarations about the superiority of this player or that player, or this style or that style without substantive justification for those assertions other than it is what we prefer.

Bottom line: there is great music from all eras. To declare one superior to the other says more about the person making the declaration than about the music itself. IMO.