Jazz for aficionados

You think Jazz is a was, when Jazz is an is! 

That is why we seem to always be at this point, no matter how many times I think we have worked past it.

Sometimes things go so well together that you can't have one without the other: peanut butter and jelly; ham and eggs; beans and cornbread; well anyway you get my drift. There are jazz musicians who go together in this fashion: Donald Byrd and Pepper Adams; Jimmy Smith and Kenny Burrell.

Now I'm going to give you "Motorin Along" with Mr. Smith and Kenny Burrell;




                      [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUVDk0BCYxs[/url]






Enjoy the music.

Acman, you're absolutely correct; I know because I is listening to it right now; therefore it is an is, just like you say.

***** You think Jazz is a was, when Jazz is an is! ******


Just barely, once you take away the recordings of the players that are dead.

If you are a Jazz lover, just like the Classical lover, be prepared to listen to music by players / composers long dead.

Cheers

O-10, I will not be accepting your "challenge"; sorry. Allow me explain why (although Acman3 pretty much summed it up):

This thread is going on three years and after countless posts of "new music" that the various posters obviously feel are also good music, for you make that challenge can only mean one of three things: 1. The challenge is gratuitous provocation. 2. You have not been paying close enough attention to the posts in your own thread. 3. Your musical palette is so entrenched in the music of the past that nothing will sway you. Ergo, and as I said before: futility.

Please don’t misunderstand, we are all, obviously, free to like or dislike any particular style of music, but this all points to the important backdrop to this "dispute" (as Alexatpos describes it). I will try and describe it once more:

There exist two different mindsets:. One mindset uses one’s favorite style of music as a type of comfort zone. This is music or a genre that is deemed "the best" by a particular listener because he simply likes it or can relate to it for any of a variety of reasons. The other mindset believes in the adage "there are only two kinds of music, good and bad". This adage is genre blind and points out, as moto_man pointed out recently, that we all like certain styles of jazz, that no one style is better than the other, and that the only consideration that is subject to intellectual analysis is the skill level of the performer; THAT is what determines what is good music or bad. My only point of disagreement with moto_man’s excellent observation is in the assumption that everyone can discern skill level. For that there needs to be, at least, an openness of mind to the reality that in order to discern skill level one has to rely on a little more than simply visceral reaction. I am not talking about taking music theory courses, for instance, but simply an openness to the aforementioned idea. Rok recently commented: "the visceral always trumps the intellectual". That is simply not true, and as usual, we want simple answers. Perfect example: Kenny G; wildly successful instrumentalist that evokes a very strong visceral reaction in unsophisticated listeners for doing things like being able to sustain a high note for a long time. The unsophisticated listener thinks that this bit of instrumental trickery must mean that he is a great musician. Obviously, all the participants in this thread are more sophisticated than that, but there are many levels of this sophomoric syndrome.

Personally, I find it ironic, and more than a little pathetic, just how much resistance there is to the idea that at ANY point in time there is, in fact, good music being made; that what determines whether it is good or bad is how well the music reflects the time of its creation along with the skill level of the performer. We should be able to separate our personal generational or social biases and be more open to this idea. No one is saying that we should not have a favorite era in this music, but to be so rigid with our merit-hierarchy is a disservice to the music. I say this is ironic because I don’t know a single musician in any genre that does not feel this same way or is not of the more open-minded attitude.

Rok asked the question: "I don’t understand why you guys think that jazz always has to change". Again, ironic. Ironic that someone who leans so much on the "history" of the music doesn’t see the obvious: Jazz has been evolving since its birth and it will continue to do so whether we like it or not (I think that was what Acman3 meant with his comment about jazz being what is not what was). Again, not to suggest that anyone person should not have a favorite era or even believe that there were high points in the music’s evolution; but, to be blunt, a listener that is not even aware (there’s that intellectual thing again) that the overwhelming majority of music that he refers to or posts as examples is simply twelve bar blues has no basis for making grandiose comments about the superiority of one era over another.

Along with the close minded mindset we often find a tacit implication that the listener who appreciates music that some perceive as leaning toward the "intellectual" (sometimes described as "noisemakers") are not as capable of appreciating music that is more obviously, or more traditionally, "soulful" or visceral. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the close minded individual who is missing the boat. Alexatpos addresses this issue in his recent, and interesting, post. Rok, in his search for affirmation, missed the thrust of Alex’s comment. As I interpret Alex’s post:

First of all, those were not Alex’s words. He was quoting someone else’s comments and then proceeded to make the point that even music that AT ONE TIME was considered "soulless" can be experienced differently at a later time and that he, himself, enjoys music that was considered "soulless" at one time. Alex, please correct me if I misinterpret your post.

Personally, I think that this thread would be far more interesting and positive if there was more openmindedness and more willingness to explore ways to assess skill level. I also find it ironic (more irony 😳) and more than a little silly that some posters feel free to deem this or that music as unworthy because of stylistic considerations and comment that it is "soulless" or not "boss" ("boss"? really?); but, yet, when someone points out that the skill level is not up to par all hell breaks loose. I hope we can do better going forward. Actually, I think we ARE doing better. Who would have thought, three years ago, after all the rants about what a noise maker Stravinsky was, that Rok would refer to "L’Histoire" in one of his comments? There’s hope yet 😊

O-10, re Ray Charles/Bags. Great record. Have had that record since college.  I know that you have a monopoly on being able to recognize soul, but that record bit me in the ass many years ago 😉. And, BTW, I will be posting some "new" music soon, but please don’t take that as a response to your challenge. Or, go ahead and do.

Best to all.