Jazz for aficionados

Acman3, that was about as abstract as you can get.

Enjoy the music.

Yes, and I particularly appreciated, in a brilliant stroke of orchestration genius, the addition (at 3:45) of the distinctive and subtle tone of the bassoon :-)

I wonder how that guy sounds on the opening of "Rite Of Spring"?

Learsfool:

http://www.greatbigcanvas.com/category/abstract-art/?gclid=CM6Dpuj4q74CFU8Q7AodqmcACw&utm_expid=771419-1.-OChkEM_T6G01IS00kMx2g.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.aol.com%2Faol%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dabstract%2520art%26s_it%3Dkeyword_rollover%26ie%3DUTF-8%26VR%3D3430

Are you saying I have to understand this in order to like Oscar Peterson, Ellington etc...?

Cheers

After some thought about what's wrong with Jazz today, I have concluded that the problem is:

The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society.

Jazz in New Orleans
Jazz in New York
Kansas City
Even LA (cool)

Country Music centered around Nashville and the Grand ole Opry. Again a commuinty, almost family.

Blues, most of the players from the Mississippi delta knew each other. Came from similiar backgrounds and experiences. Look at a map of MS with the birtplaces of all the blues greats. They were all born and raised in very close proximity. Most people today don't even understand the meaning of a lot of the words in blues songs.

Detroit and the stable of artists at Motown. Urban and Close knit. They sang to what is best about being young.

I will not say money was not important, it always is. It just seemed like making great art was more important back then.

Sadly, all these nurseries of creativity have all but dried up. As the creative players begin to die off, there were no replacements of equal talent. Mainly because the conditions that created and nourished the talent changed or disappeared.

Today, it's foremost about money and fame. All individual. Hit and miss. Hope I get lucky. And the idea that "I can be anything I want to be", lack of talent notwithstanding.

And this stuff can't be learned or taught in school.

Classical music is foreign born and therefore not related to this. We will have to ask the Germans why there are no more Beethovens. :)

Today's Gramophone has a great article on David Zinman. He is retiring from the job at Zurich. Great insight into the job of conducting and the relationship with the players. Talked about the importance of the first-desk players.

Cheers

We can't have it both ways! We can't acknowledge that the arts reflect the times and then judge the quality of the art according to what it is reflecting, instead of, simply, how well it reflects it or not; wether we like what it is reflecting or not. These are two entirely different things. There will always be good jazz, just like there will always be good art in any genre.

****The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society.****

That is exactly what is going on today. On what do you base the notion that it is not? Young jazz musicians are part of "collectives" on a level never seen before and very much form a community with very clear and serious creative goals. To think otherwise is to shortchange, not only these young players, but jazz itself which has always stood for pushing forward and evolving. These guys (and ladies) are not "into it for money and fame", and to say that making great art is less important to this younger generation of creative musicians is grossly inaccurate and unfair.

That we may each like jazz in a certain style more than another style is an entirely different matter. We keep coming back to this debate which ultimately proves to be pointless and very limiting. Yes, it is true that there is no substitute for actual real-world playing experience, but the learning done in school is producing a great number of young players with the kind of well-rounded understanding of the basics and a technical skill that never seen before. And, they don't want to play like the players before them, they want to find new voices. We might do well to listen to more of these players, they deserve our support.

Just one example; in support of a local group.

http://brooklynjazz.org/index.php