Jazz for aficionados

When the Bird/Lee Morgan analogy was made several posts ago, part of the reason I didn’t understand the comparison was that, if that kind of comparison to Bird had to be made, Dizzy was, for me, the obvious choice. He was right there with Bird as one of the creators and shapers of be-bop and, as a trumpet player, opened the door to a way of playing the instrument in jazz that was new; like Bird, he brought a level of sheer technicality (speed) and range not heard before. Personally, I never much liked Dizzy’s tone since it usually sounded pinched and like it was being squeezed out of the instrument. Just my personal taste and his playing was always exciting and very harmonically interesting. My own feeling about his contribution to shaping be-bop is that it is somewhat underacknowledged since Bird is always the one given the overwhelming amount of credit and everyone else, even Dizz, is a bit of an afterthought. I have to wonder how it would have changed jazz had Dizzy not lived. He had a long career and tremendous discography, but he was and remained a bebopper and the later projects in which he played funky or in other non-bebop styles weren’t quite as convincing as his bebop stuff was for me. To me he always sounded like a bebopper playing a different style. And, of course, there is the tremendous contribution he made by bringing Cuban music into the mix and as an embassador of jazz with that great very affable stage persona. One of the greats without a doubt.

But, compare to Miles? We will come up against the same issues as the other comparison and why I don’t quite get what this kind of comparison shows without putting it all in strict historical (evolution) context. As great and influential as Dizzy was, technically (no pun) he stopped being relevant (aside from his great bebop legacy) in the evolution of the music from the time hardbop came along. He was a bebopper and arguably the best. Where are his hardbop or post-bop recordings like what Miles was doing in the 60’s and beyond? Or, where is Dizzy’s "KOB"? We can compare Dizzy to bebop era Miles; that would be meaningful. And actually, I have always preferred Dizzy’s bebop playing over Miles’; certainly while they were each with Bird. But, Dizzy’s playing and vocabulary stayed there while Miles’ moved on; big time.

As instrumentalists... apples and oranges. Reason I never cared for Dizzy’s tone is that in order to play as squeaky high as he did some players take the "squeeze the note out" approach as opposed to the more relaxed approach which yields a fuller richer tone. He had A LOT of technique and speed; probably more than Miles. But he never sounded like he could play softly and controlled like Miles could.

I think that strateahed’s comment is very appropriate here:

**** ....when we look at jazz, unless we accept the premise that it encompasses more than bebop and hard bop, then there is no need for further discussion. ****

Dizzy was a giant who made tremendous contributions to the music. Miles remains a giant among giants, imo.

While perusing the vinyl for new looking records, I discovered one by Herby Hancock that may surprise everyone;


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0OGHVjnu9M

**** ....when we look at jazz, unless we accept the premise that it encompasses more than bebop and hard bop, then there is no need for further discussion. ****

I refuse to acknowledge that comment for reasons that should be quite apparent.


Frogman, there were two Dizzy Gillespie's; one was a sort of musical ambassador who presented what that audience expected; a "bebop" entertainer. There was also another musician who was more serious about "his" music, meaning music he was creating as time went by. I have much more of "Dizzy" than just the beginning, he never quit being serious about creating new music that was linear with modern jazz, but not completely off the track; try this as one example;


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1j4mN7OT0


He reworks this tune in numerous boss ways, the same as "Night In Tunisia" is reworked.


Here he is on the ambassador track doing what he was famous for doing.



          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tRGMHfKrE





Miles went completely out of the bounds of what could be called jazz, but since it was Miles doing it, his new fans called it jazz, but his original fans didn't agree. I can't corroborate this because I talked to some of his original fans who were mentioned in his book. What we laughed and talked about personally, they would not admit publicly, but Miles trolley jumped the jazz track.

We have too many fundamental disagreements in regard to the music to begin a comparison of those two; consequently we'll have to debate something else.


Enjoy the music.


PS I never heard Lee Morgan on "Blue Train" before now, it was all just part of the music, but now Lee Morgan is all I hear.

**** I refuse to acknowledge that comment for reasons that should be quite apparent.****

Not apparent to me, so please explain. So, what are you saying? That jazz does not encompass more than bebop and hard bop? I hope not.

O-10, your clips, as good as they are, make my point perfectly. There is really nothing new in that music beyond what was common in jazz through, I would say, the 50’s. Again, absolutely nothing wrong with that; it is what it is, but it is certainly not breaking any new ground. That reworking of Manteca is nothing new except that it has been arranged for big band in a fairly traditional way.

Are you also suggesting that nothing of what Miles did from the 60’s forward can be definitively called jazz? Again, I hope not. 60’s Miles is much more advanced conceptually than anything Dizzy did. Not jazz? Really? This is not a criticism of Dizzy at all; he stayed in his comfort zone like most musicians, even many of the greats, did. If you do agree that 60’s Miles IS jazz, please post something by Dizzy that shows that kind of harmonic and/or rhythmic sophistication and forward looking attitude.

**** We have too many fundamental disagreements in regard to the music to begin a comparison of those two; consequently we’ll have to debate something else.****

With all due respect, then why do you propose such comparisons to begin with if you are not willing to, at least, give the discussion a shot? 

**** ....when we look at jazz, unless we accept the premise that it encompasses more than bebop and hard bop, then there is no need for further discussion. ****


That statement implies that I'm so narrow minded, I can only accept "bebop" and "hard bop" as jazz. If that was the case, there would be no need for further discussion.