Jazz for aficionados

Frogman, Yes, tolerated is a better word.

I ran across this tonight. I was always a big Lockjaw fan!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaMZvZApIP8

Frogman, that is one of the best posts I have ever seen on this site, where you explain differences between jazz and classical musicians to the layman. I was very tempted to chime in first when I read that question, but refrained, as I knew you would give a much better written reply. Kudos!

I want to emphasize one point Frogman makes - he states that in jazz, individuality is paramount, and that this is one reason why jazz players are not so great at playing classical. This hits the nail on the head. What I want to elaborate is that, for instance, as a section horn player, my job is to blend my sound as much as possible with my principal, articulate exactly the same way he/she does, play exactly together rhythmically with him/her, play exactly in tune with him/her, so much that we sound like one player. This is actually my greatest strength as a player/musician, my ability to match others in this way, hence why I have the job I do as opposed to a principal job - I make the principal's job much easier. It is seldom that I have a solo of my own, where I can express some individuality appropriately, though I do get the occasional opportunity. I get to actually play principal probably only once or twice a season.

Classical players are much better at this sort of blending/matching than jazz players are - this is one thing Frogman is referring to when he speaks of ultimate command of the instrument, especially in respect to tonal nuance and finesse. You wouldn't want to hear Miles Davis play the Haydn Concerto, or John Coltrane play the transcription of the Hindemith Alto Horn Sonata (which, believe it or not, is actually performed much more by classical saxophonists than it is by horn players).

The Minnesota Orch. could use you Learsfool, only a horn player or two away from former glory.

Nicer place to live as well.

IMO Frog's post was best ever on A'gon and yours added greatly to it

I am fond of This One.

The gurus make good points, and they should know. However, it seems as if the overall tone is that (1) 'Jazz players aren't GOOD ENOUGH to play classical, and (2) Classical music is somehow SUPERIOR to Jazz.

I beg to disagree.

I think players like Wynton and Ellington have demonstrated Jazz players can play anything at the highest level.. As far as playing together as a group or section, check out some Ellington, Goodman and Miller. They play together as well as any Classical group. They ARE playing Jazz, so the music calls for different things, but to say they CAN'T play classical? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Can the Berlin Philharmonic play "Hog Calling Blues"? They could if it was written down. But what would it sound like? Ever hear the German Radio Bands try their hand at Jazz?

Of the two, Jazz musicians are better musicians. Because what they do is harder, and they don't get any help from a written score and / or Conductors. They are out there alone.

As the OP pointed out, you either got it or you don't. A person can learn to do all required of Classical players, by hard work and practice. In Jazz it takes hard work, practice AND that certain something within the person

Jazz is Jazz, and Classical is Classical, and Never The Twain Shall Meet. The efforts of MJQ and others, Notwithstanding. And as I said before, Thank God for both, and for the differences.

Cheers

BTW, my post of the Berlin Cellists, which demonstates certain points of this disccussion was completely ignored.

OP, how long will I have to suffer these indignities???

Cheers