Jazz for aficionados

Acman3, well done!  And in more ways than one; I believe you know what I mean but that.  Fantastic posts and excellent example of contrasting styles of jazz piano +2.  If your series of clips do not dispel any doubt about the influence of Classical composers on jazz players, I dont know what would.  Art Tatum's take on D'vorak's "Humoresque", Bud Powell who also recorded "Bud On Bach", John Lewis' "Abstractions",  and Mingus' "Epitaph" which owes so much to Charles Ives; all great.  For substance and timeliness, I nominate your series of posts as a contender for "best" post of this thread.  Wait!....too dangerous; "best" has never taken us anywhere positive.  Still, well done!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HVk9xFLHAWY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=viVQEYVsCC4

And each and every clip a Jazz Classic.   
If those clips prove anything, it's that Jazz and Classical are not compatible.  Of course MJQ proved that eons ago.  They gave up.

Cheers

Frogman, would you care to explain why and how, Mingus's "Epitaph" owes so much to Charles Ives?

Hi guys - Rok has provided over the last day or so a perfect example of what I was talking about with O-10....sigh, indeed.   Frogman, this is reminding me of a certain John Cleese video from about a year ago.    

O-10, I generally visit this site once a day, usually late in the evening after I get home from work.  Sometimes two or three days will go by, but I have been an avid follower of everything on this thread even when not posting.  The reason I hadn't responded to all these posts today is that I hadn't seen them until late this evening.  All I have to say about this:  "Rok, no matter what you say they will never get it." is that I think it is abundantly clear from all of the posts from others on this thread is that it is you and Rok that will not ever get it.  Like I said, I will give up on my appeals for you guys to actually study music a little, but I will not stop correcting things that are just flat out wrong.   

Though I will add in response to Rok's post that there are plenty of great music history books out there that will answer all of his questions.  There is a very popular one by Joseph Kerman called Listen, that comes with a big record set, though it is probably on CDs nowadays.  It is a very basic overview of the entire history of music all the way up to jazz and the Beatles, and may have had subsequent updates from when it was my Intro to Music Lit text my freshman year, in the mid 80s.  Very readable, with great musical examples.  

The only specific I will answer here is that I do not see how one can truly separate the structure of music from the artistic part of it -  form is part of the artistry, part of the craft.  This is true, by the way, of improvising as well - improvisation must have structure to be understandable.  Something that must be PRACTICED.  :)  

O-10 and Rok, perhaps it has not been obvious to you or to anyone else but me,  but I believe I have proven my willingness to, in spite of all the disagreement and nonsense, to try and be amicable and, at least, try to keep these discussions on a positive track.  I have even suggested some guidelines for what I feel is more positive and less contentious interaction.  Most of these efforts have been met with, at best, negative reaction and, at worst, ridicule.  O-10, no one thinks or has suggested that you are a moron, but you continue to interact in a way that is provocative and simply not very nice nor inclusive.  What is being discussed is obvious to me and, I think, others here.  So, if you want to take the discussions in a certain direction I suggest that you simply do so and try to keep the negative innuendo out of it.

Rok, we have been here before.  I have no need nor desire to "strut my stuff".  I would prefer to share and interact in discussions about music and discuss topics as they come up.  What you ask in your most recent post can be mostly answered by simply going back over previous discussions and doing simple internet searches and perhaps reconsidering your reaction to much of what was presented to you.  I am not about to make up for your "laziness" when previous efforts were dismissed and/or ridiculed.  Moreover, I don't believe the problem is any laziness on your part, but that of a very rigid and self-serving attitude about much of what we try to discuss.  This reaction on my part is not due to spite or anger, but simply the believe that the only way to have a chance at a real change in how we interact here is by frankness and then let the chips fall where they may.  You ask some interesting questions and, as I said, the answers are easily found in the readily available reading on the net.  Your last question is particularly interesting and I will take a stab at it when I have some time next.

****Should we separate the structure of music, from the artistic part of music, when speaking of influence?****

As I have said more times than I can remember: I hope we can do better going forward.