Jazz for aficionados

O-10, I don't understand what your constant beef against higher education is?  Considering that only recently there was a heated disagreement about this very subject, and one that snowballed and ultimately led to Rok "leaving" the thread, I can only assume that you either have an extremely short memory or are simply interested in being provocative and stirring the pot.  I suppose it would be simpler (not easier) to just roll my eyeballs and say "there he goes again with his anti-Juilliard cliche", but as I have said before, I think that a thread like this has a responsibility to be factual and not mislead.  Your premise is in error; or, at the very least, very incomplete and shows a lack of understanding of the place and role of an institution like Juilliard in the music world as a whole.   We are all entitled to our opinions, but some explanations are in order.   For anyone interested here are some facts:

First of all, Juilliard is not considered a top jazz school like Berklee, North Texas, U of M and others.  While Juilliard has a fine jazz program, it is a very young program and the school continues to be primarily a Classical music school.  Many top and well known jazz players attended Juilliard, but they didn't necessarily attend the school to "learn to play jazz".  They attended to learn things like advanced counterpoint, composition, orchestration and pedagogy in order to be better-rounded and more complete musicians.  Of course, attending Juilliard does not guarantee that the student will become a great and individualistic jazz player; and, of course there are many great players that never attended Juilliard or any other music school.  To say that attending Juilliard will guarantee being a good jazz player with good "jazz soul" is no more absurd than to say that learning "in the street" without a more formal education will guarantee that the player will be a good jazz player.  There are far more really rotten jazz players that never attended a music school than there are rotten jazz players that did.  The main problem with your premise is the implication that NOT attending a school will be more likely to guarantee having "soul"; an absurd implication.

So, you have heard examples of your premise "101" times.   How about some examples of players that you have heard that have attended Juilliard that you don't consider to be good jazz players?  Who are you referring to?  Otherwise, how do you know?  And when you provide a couple of examples I would be glad to provide some examples of "street" jazz  musicians who are simply not very good; and I will detail my reasons for feeling that way.  

Thanks for the Leon Thomas clip.  Greta stuff; been a fan for a long time.  What did you think of "The Peacocks"? 

Schubert-

can you tell us more about your incident?

Frogman, my beef is not with higher education, but with musicians who lean on higher education when they play jazz; believe me, it comes through. I do not have a short memory, it's you who are stirring the pot. Yes, it would have been much simpler if you had just rolled your eyes, but you didn't.

My statement was not "anti Juilliard", and you are doing a good job of clarifying it for me. "Juilliard is not considered a top jazz school"; there other schools better for musicians who intend to play jazz. Juilliard is "primarily a Classical music school" Many top and well known jazz players attended Juilliard, but they didn't necessarily attend the school to "learn to play jazz". They attended to learn things like advanced counterpoint, composition, orchestration and pedagogy in order to be better-rounded and more complete musicians. Of course, attending Juilliard does not guarantee that the student will become a great and individualistic jazz player; that's wonderful.To say that attending Juilliard will guarantee being a good jazz player with good "jazz soul" is no more absurd than to say that learning "in the street" without a more formal education will guarantee that the player will be a good jazz player. There are far more really rotten jazz players that never attended a music school than there are rotten jazz players that did. The main problem with your premise is the implication that NOT attending a school will be more likely to guarantee having "soul"; an absurd implication.

There is so much I don't have to write because you have written it for me; it must be the "straw man" that disagrees with you because I certainly don't. The second paragraph is mostly what you have written that I agree with. That's the "straw man's" premise that not attending a music school will more likely guarantee having "soul". That is a most absurd implication; but that's the "straw man's" implication, not mine. Leon Thomas studied music at Tennessee State University.

No I have not heard examples of my premise 101 times, but I have heard examples of musicians playing jazz "cliches" 101 times, and they sound "stereotypical" to my ears. Every last one of the jazz players who attended Juilliard that I know of are "good" jazz players; just not all of them are "great" jazz players. I will not provide any examples of anything because they would most certainly be "misinterpreted" the same way you misinterpreted almost every thing I say. I don't know any "street musicians", but I'm sure I would agree with whether you said they were good or bad.

"The Peacocks"; I didn't like the cut you presented, but since Getz is one of my favorite musicians, and I have many of his albums, I might have liked "Skylark" on that same LP. You and I can like the very same LP, but will prefer different cuts. I hope this answers every thing in your post.

Learsfool, I hope you're reading this, because it will save me from responding to your post.

O-10, who? Who?!  Examples please.  Since you can't provide any I will assume that you're making this stuff up.  I guess, then, that Phil Woods is not a great jazz player; news to me.  Sorry, O-10, no straw men; simply going by what you write.  I think that this business of the superiority of the "street player" is the worst cliche of all; and really, if one considers that literally only a handful of well known jazz players attended Juilliard, does this issue deserve for you to keep bringing it up in an attempt to somehow cast a negative light on an institution that does so much good work?  Talk about straw man!   

Sorry, O-10, when it comes to this stuff you simply don't know what you're talking about.  In the meantime, if you're interested in discussing Johnny Hodges' style and sound so you can identify him when you hear him I would be glad to; I have lots of examples.  Rolling my eyeballs now.