Jazz for aficionados

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.

Have any of you heard Shorter's latest, 'Without A Net'? Astounding!! It's a live set featuring his over-10-yr-old band featuring Danilo Perez, John Pattitucci, & Brian Blade. This band is a Jazz supergroup! Highly recommended.

Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion.

Subjective reality and how is it different from objective reality? Objective reality refers to the reality outside your mind (in the physical world) – the objects and events that make up the “raw data.” Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. It is the meaning you assign to things and events.

People see different things even if they are looking at the same object.All objects, dreams ideas and “truths” are different for each person. I’ve put “truths” in quotes because as you’ll see, “truth” is subjective! Essentially we all live in different worlds; we may have things in common with other people, but because of our background and our subjective interpretation of the world – our unique perspective – our world can be polar opposite from the person sitting next to us.

The Perception Game

Where you

Imagine yourself and thirty of your friends and neighbors standing in a row, each person an arm’s length from the next and facing in the same direction. In front of everyone is an object, say a huge marble rectangle – a modern sculpture rising thirty feet into the sky. Everybody sees the rectangle. But they see it from a different perspective. One person may see a monolith because they are facing the broad side of the rectangle; to them, the sculpture is imposing and intimidating. The person next to them sees the same monolith but it is exciting because he is a mountain climber. Another, down the line, will see the corner between the broad side and the narrow side; to them, the sculpture may appear very interesting since the quality of light is different on each side of the sculpture. Another person sees only the narrow side of the rectangle and sees something absurdly tall, something that looks like it will topple easily. Tall people see the rectangle from a different angle than short people.

Subjective reality: beauty or danger?Each person is 100% correct in what they perceive. But they don’t necessarily understand the points of view of anyone else in the line of people because NO ONE CAN SEE PRECISELY WHAT OTHERS SEE.

Can you see how mind-blowing this is?

The gray area between objective and subjective realities occurs when you assign a meaning to something that exists in your mind – such labeling your house as “beautiful.” When you start talking to other people about it you bring your subjective reality into the realm of the objective.

If you believe something is beautiful, you will experience it as something beautiful. If someone believes your house is the ugliest thing ever built, their experience when seeing your home will not be pleasant. Each person’s experience depends on the meaning they assign to objective reality.

This is how misunderstandings and differences of opinion occur. You may think “this house is beautiful” while another believes it’s the ugliest. In each person’s reality, the house is perceived differently. Some people will agree with you. In their experience, the house is beautiful. Other people won’t care one way or the other – in their subjective world, your house isn’t important enough to label.

This is what’s meant by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder!” Beauty is a purely subjective concept.

Enjoy the music.