Jazz for aficionados

To paraphrase an old expression, opinions are like noses, everybody has one.

So one of my opinions is that the word "best" should be banned from discussions of music or audio gear.  To proclaim anything as best is to suggest that ALL other contenders have been compared.  In most cases that is simply not reasonable.

Now, one can state that "in my experience" or "among what I own" I like example X best, nothing wrong with that.

Regarding SV's "Misty" with Quincy, I can only state that it is a very rare jazz recoding that I enjoy when it is backed by strings.  For my taste and my experience that removes a basic element of jazz since it must be composed and played so carefully.  So that rather handicaps that particular version from the get-go for me.  But so what?  That shouldn't influence anyone else's enjoyment.

Again in my view, the best function of this entire post is for any aficionado to post or comment with a specific musical example and say "I enjoy this and would like to share it in the event someone else might feel the same."  The value is in hearing something not known before or learning more about the personal or technical background in a given piece of music.  Speaking for myself, that's why I'm here.  Not to judge or criticize anyone else's taste, even when it doesn't align with my own.

As a footnote, I happen to be a fan of Zappa as well pjw, and I find some of his music to suggest strong jazz elements.  That in spite of his comment that "jazz is not dead, it just smells funny."  ;^)   

Unintentionally, I presume, we touched on the subject of after the war Paris jazz scene, and general culture. I understand, that was an interesting and somewhat wild time there. Black American musicians were invited and welcome, treated very differently compared to the US. Speaking of Miles specifically, I think he is in fact more popular in Europe and Japan than in America, especially his late sixties and later music. He left classical jazz in an effort to put slavery behind him, and he might've succeeded. Orpheus10, we can be slaves of our own memories and even enjoy it, in a way.

Generations of music lovers have already determined what is and what is not, not me; that's why all of a sudden I feel foolish engaging in this foolish debate.

Excellent post, pryso. Of course, I agree as I said previously with what you wrote about the folly in deeming any one performance “the best”. A couple of additional points and why I sometimes find it so frustrating to try and discuss some of this. At the heart of my position is what you correctly point out: to deem something ”the best” presumes that EVERY other example of same has been experienced. Highly unlikely and usually not the case. Even more importantly, the unfortunate byproduct of this kind of grandstanding is that in taking this kind of inflexible position and personalizing it, truly interesting discussion of the details around the merits of the performances being compared don’t happen. Not only does it not happen, in trying to justify one’s position sometimes silly things get said. For instance:

**** It’s absolutely impossible for a trio to compete with that musical lineup. ****

That is such a nonsensical and silly comment. So, all those great trio and quartet performances that we have discussed here and revere are, by definition, inferior to heavily produced and orchestrated versions. Really? It’s like saying that a solo piano performance cannot possibly be better than a trio performance. Huh? This is what I wrote in response to O-10’s assertion that my choice for a good example of singer with acoustic ensemble version of “Misty” was not the best choice. Let’s remember, my comment was in response to Rok’s post of Dee Dee’s likewise acoustic version which I felt was “over the top”:

**** Don’t get me wrong, she can practically do no wrong in my book, but those two renditions are practically apples/oranges. The live one is jazz trio only, and far more relaxed and evocative; much more in the spirit of jazz. The studio version...just that. Studio produced; faster, with A LOT of “sweetening”, less intimate. A bit Muzak(ish); what some refer to as elevator music. ****

As I’ve said already, I like that recording a lot, strings sweetening and all. Simply not as much as the trio version that I posted and others like it. Apples and oranges. Moreover, not only do I generally prefer Sarah (and most jazz singers) in a trio setting, but this was a very young Sarah and I feel she became a better and more interesting singer as she matured. And incredibly (more silliness), the assertion about it being Sarah’s “best” is in comparison to a live performance that isn’t even on a record. So, with as long a career as Sarah had and the probably hundreds of times that she sang that song, THAT 1958 recording in a studio was “THE BEST” she ever sang the song. I kind of doubt it. Ironically, my favorite version of “Misty” by Sarah is on the “Live In Japan” record. I didn’t post that because it is not available on the Tube. Most music lovers have never even heard most versions besides the Vaughn/Strings, so what exactly does any of this prove?

I stand by what I wrote as shown above. No joke.