Jazz for aficionados

O-10, other than they are playing a Bill Evan's tune, and Bill Evan's bass player is on bass, I don't think they sound much alike.

 Mr. Evans has a soft touch and quite a different way of playing from Mr. Werner. Werner actually strikes his keys when they are bad. Evans always tries to spoil his keys with timeouts.

I do think they both would agree, less is more.

Acman, in your first post you stated this was a bassist that had attracted your attention, and I was primarily comparing the two bassist. As you noted, the two piano players are quite different. You said that was Bill Evans bass player, when Scott Lafaro was Bill Evans bass player. Was that Bill Evans bass player at another time?

Was there anything in particular that I missed about that bassist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn0LYrbQc_0

Sorry I was comparing the trio's as a whole, and mainly Evans to Werner. My bad! Forgot the initial point was the bass player.

 Marc Johnson played with Bill Evans from 1978 until his death.

Rok, answer to your first question.
 I used Jarret Evans comparation as metaphore. Sometimes I meet people who 'listen jazz' and have lots of Ecm records, which is ok. But its been known to happen that those same people often have very strong opinions about  artistic value of some performer, or about that music and its aesthetcs (which again is nothing wrong per se) but when I discover that their knowledge is limited to a very narrow time frame (usually the more recent one) I cant consider their opinion as a worthy, but just as expression of their taste.
I guess that one cant play (or listen) jazz if does not know 'Body and soul'.
Again, I used that line because here some 'new' music has been under heavy criticism, but the person (Frogman) who posted some of it, knows very well even the 'old' stuff and we cant play that card (limited knowledge)  when he is keen to open some new windows.
Its funny that I am acting as advocate to that 'new stuff' when in fact I am on constant search for long forgotten music and performers, but I am curios and I belleive that role of individual is to choose a dialectic method if we want to 'discover the truth'.
Speaking of curiosty, I noticed that everyone likes Miles and Coltrane, up to a point. (Miles, for me, Prestige years and couple albums after)
What if they would try to pursue some of you (us) that their later music has 'soul and beauty' as equal to their earlier work?
Or that perhaps, they could not be tied to that simpler form of expressions?
IMHO  there are lot of intersting questions that jazz afc.could or should ask if they want to have better perspective on the subject, and we should welcome discussions, and not insist on uniform opinion or taste.

As for your second question, I cant open those you tube clips. Maybe you could find some another? I will gladly share my thoughts .
In the meantime here is one european artist (belgian, as inspector Poirot)

Francy Boland (born 1929.)  'Playing with trio'  from 1967.

https://youtu.be/QyrARKhzsPg
https://youtu.be/ctL6coRgW8A
https://youtu.be/C4oCnGqZKg8

Hi O-10 - thanks for the response, which again is quite good, as far as it goes.  The problem is, as Alex tried to point out, it doesn't really go far enough.  As he says, you have dismissed many things without explanation that others have written on this board, because they don't fit in with your perceptions.  Sometimes, this is perfectly fine, as when we are speaking of personal taste, something truly subjective.  But other times, what is being discussed is something objective, but which you do not understand - so you say that it must really be subjective.  That's where the problem is, in a nutshell.  You do not really know the subject, so you sometimes cannot tell whether something is objective or subjective.  It is clearly incorrect to dismiss anything you do not understand and label it subjective, which is basically what you have done.  Those who are knowledgeable on the particular subject see this immediately, but you do not and cannot.  For instance, take your "nuts and bolts" comment in one of your later posts.  You said "In regard to the nuts and bolts, those who regard such in their "jazz" music, make it quite clear, because some of their preferences sound like it."  This makes absolutely no real sense - you know nothing of the "nuts and bolts", and do not want to.  Fine - this much you understand.  Problem is, what you do not understand is that your perception of the "nuts and bolts" is false - it is obvious to anyone who does know even a little about the "nuts and bolts" that you have absolutely no idea of what effect they have (or have had) on anyone's playing, or the music they make, or the sound they make; yet you speak as if you can tell how someone's preferences sound in reference to that.  This is just one example.