Jazz for aficionados

Hi guys - I would like your opinions on this, especially Frogman's. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is definitely food for thought.

http://dyske.com/paper/778

.
Lears...very interesting piece. Thank you for sharing. I'm a jazz lover, but I was guilty as hell regarding the Rothko-Monet example...excellent analogy.

Amazingly, I don't listen to very much vocal music because it gets in the way of, or distracts from the instrumental content. Easily 95% of my jazz collection is instrumental.

The next time I see a piece of abstract art, I won't be so dismissive of it. I will be more open and try to look a little deeper. However, It's going to take me another two or three decades to try to figure out Cecil Taylor and Jackson Pollock.
.

Learsfool, that was a very thought provoking article. Most people prefer words with their music, we're the ones who are different; however, in the case of jazz, musicians feed off of other musicians, there were many more jazz musicians in the 50's and 60's than now. I'll give you an example; I just picked out two of my favorite albums: Benny Green, "Soul Stirring", consisting of highly prominent sidemen who are stars in their own right: Gene Ammons, Sonny Clark, and Alvin Jones were jazz stars who also led groups. Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers consisted of so many stars down through the years to even include Wynton Marsalis, that the jazz had to be top quality. The album "Moanin", consisted of Lee Morgan, trumpet; Benny Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; and of course Art Blakey on drums. When just two LP's are loaded with so many greats, the music couldn't go wrong. Back then, people who were into popular vocal music, had a few jazz LP's because they liked the music.

Although these tunes came into my collection without vocals, here are some with vocals on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA81pRYtEXc

Here's the same tune by Andre Previn;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZKzTMr1M5E

Now for Horace Silver, "Senor Blues";

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdlvzIEz-g

This is a vocal version;

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

While I enjoy both versions of my favorite jazz tunes, the bottom line is the original as it was first composed.

Enjoy the music.

Learsfool, interesting and thought-provoking piece; but, with some real problems.

First of all, I don't subscribe to the, unfortunately typical, negative doom-and-gloom view of the health of Jazz and what many feel its place in popular culture is or should be. But, first, some "technical" problems with the article:

The author reveals lack of depth in his perspective right off the bat by putting Kenny G alongside Coltrane as examples of terrible and great Jazz, without understanding (or, at least, acknowledging) that Kenny G is not a Jazz artist at all. That many today may consider him a Jazz musician is both irrelevant to the important issue here and also indicative of the futility of approaching the issue that he attempts to tackle from this perspective. He then goes on to use the example of Sinatra's "My Way". Huh?! Jazz?! His points about Americans' attraction to vocal music and lyrics are well taken. However, more than anything, they point to a key issue in the "problem"; if one insists on calling it a problem. I don't, necessarily. To me, as with many trends in the arts, it is an inevitability.

The "problem" goes back to the issue that Rok brought up (with a little prodding :-) ) recently: that art, inevitably, reflects the times; and, also, to our mistaken insistence on relating Jazz to popular culture. Yes, Jazz was the pop music at one point in time. So what? That was then, and today is a completely different time. It is important to point out that every popular music has its time and then fades into relative obscurity. Ragtime did, swing did, big-band did, bebop did, folk did, etc. It is also important for us to individually acknowledge that, at least in part, our personal affinity for Jazz from certain periods of time is a reflection of our personal affinity for all that the particular period of time stands for in our lives and should not necessarily be the ultimate test of that music's quality or value in the scheme of things. None of this is to say that we cannot regret how the music has changed, and how that change relates to our personal aesthetic. However, to indulge in that kind of outlook is to dismiss the positives in where things really stand.

I have to respectfully disagree with our esteemed OP by pointing out that young musicians are studying Jazz in record numbers. There are vibrant Jazz scenes all over the world; created by these young players who are breaking musical boundaries and making some great music. Sure, I, like many of us, pine for the '50's or '60's Blue Note sound; but, to think that there isn't a lot of great Jazz being made today is not only short-sighted, but does a disservice to the art form. The problem is that we want Jazz to be popular the way that it once was; it ain't gonna happen! That Jazz continues to transform itself (wether any one of us likes it or not) and to thrive (even if not "popular" to the masses) is a testament to its power and timelessnes (unlike many other popular genres). So, what is it that the author of the article is really concerned about? Is he concerned about about American culture as a whole, and it's diminished interest in Jazz? Or, is he concerned about the health and viability of the art?

I think that Jazz is alive and well, and the doomsayers in positions of power (critics, press) are, in some ways, doing it a disservice with their proclamations of its demise. BTW, think about how many Jazz mags exist today (in print and on-line) compared to the past. If this, along with the ever-increasing number of young Jazz players, is not an indication of the health of the music, I don't know what is. American culture, as a whole is a different matter.

It may be a different matter; but, as with the health of Jazz, I am more optimistic than not. Of course, we can point to the easy and obvious stuff: our obsession with materialism, the impact of social-media and gadgetry and their impact on the development (or demise) of social skills, the negative effects of the incredible wealth that this country offers even the "poor" which leads to sense of entitlement and distortion of healthy values. All of this relates in many ways to what I think the author is trying to say. However, one of the things that is usually overlooked when comparing ours to other cultures and those other cultures' apparently deeper appreciation for art is the simple and obvious fact that our culture is in its infancy in comparison to most of the cultures usually cited; cultures which have a many-centuries old tradition in the arts.

American culture is still taking shape and establishing roots, and Jazz is one of its main roots. One of the most provocative comments I have ever read on the subject was by one of our favorite topics of discussion: Wynton Marsalis. Wynton points out that Jazz is about us as a culture and that listening to Jazz is like looking at ourselves in a mirror. I would propose that all of the things mentioned previously which are indications and the causes of young Americans' inability and reluctance to be introspective are a reason why they are reluctant to "look in the mirror". However, I think this will change as our culture matures. On a personal level, being the father of a young (23) visual artist with a deep appreciation for all music, and getting to know his circle of friends, has reinforced what I believe are reasons for being optimistic.

Today's Listen:

Bud Powell -- THE AMAZING BUD POWELL VOLs ONE & TWO

Yes Indeed!!

Cheers