O-10, a lot to comment re your latest post. I don't understand what you mean by the recent posts by Acman3 and I sounding like music from the 50s and 60s; especially Acman3's. Take the recent Woody Shaw clips that I don't think received any commentary (perhaps that is an example of what you mean). Shaw was a player whose style sounds nothing like the players from the 50s and 60s. Please clarify.
****Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can.****
I am afraid that is a gross mischaracterization of what I have said about the matter. I have never said anything about about new players "exceeding" the greats of from the 50s and 60s. My stance is and has always been that there are players today that have BUILT UPON the musical legacy of greats. Recent comments by me related to (I believe) Dave Liebman and Michael Brecker who built upon Coltrane's legacy and, yes, in some ways I guess one could say "exceeded" what was considered possible in improvisation during the 50s and 60s. There is nothing novel about this idea. It is the nature of the music (constant evolution) and not understanding this points to what Chazro pointed out: the misunderstanding, or, more accurately, lack of understanding of modern jazz; and, I would add, music in general. Re "schools":
This subject keeps coming up. I believe the issue is not that I have ever said that recent players who have attended schools are superior jazz players BECAUSE they have attended schools; it would absurd to suggest that, and again, a mischaracterization as I never suggested that. What I have pointed out is there are some great players who happen to have attended schools and are worth listening to. There is a vibrant jazz education system that is producing some really great players. The real issue re this subject is the apparent bias in your and others' comments against players who HAVE attended schools. IOW, BECAUSE they have attended schools they are somehow necessarily inferior to the "street schooled" players; an absurd and ill informed idea. Re "objective reality":
This one's a tough one. I am not sure how to address this one except that you yourself, and perhaps ironically, made the case for me. First with your comment:
****While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective;****
Precisely. Well, at least you are allowing room for an objective reality, which was really what I was trying to say. Yes, at the end of the day, if a given listener likes something that another one does not, there's not much that can be said. However, there is actually a well known relationship between mathematics and its "preciseness" and music; and that's a fact. As concerns this discussion what I mean is this:
Your recent Billy Bang post. Apparently you like it. I think that, at best, it's pleasant with a reasonably idiomatic feeling for an ethnic tune such as that. Ask most Cubans how they feel about that rendition of "Chan Chan" and they will tell you that it's barely mediocre. Is that not a reality of sorts? Now, Billy Bang's playing. I realize there may be something in his playing that resonates with you. I hear improvisation that is almost embarrassing with extremely rudimentary violin playing which is horribly out of tune. I assure you that as far as the violin playing goes that would be the reaction of the vast majority of violin players. Is that not also a reality of sorts? A person can insist that 2+2=5 till he's blue in the face, but that does not make it right.
Regards.
****Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can.****
I am afraid that is a gross mischaracterization of what I have said about the matter. I have never said anything about about new players "exceeding" the greats of from the 50s and 60s. My stance is and has always been that there are players today that have BUILT UPON the musical legacy of greats. Recent comments by me related to (I believe) Dave Liebman and Michael Brecker who built upon Coltrane's legacy and, yes, in some ways I guess one could say "exceeded" what was considered possible in improvisation during the 50s and 60s. There is nothing novel about this idea. It is the nature of the music (constant evolution) and not understanding this points to what Chazro pointed out: the misunderstanding, or, more accurately, lack of understanding of modern jazz; and, I would add, music in general. Re "schools":
This subject keeps coming up. I believe the issue is not that I have ever said that recent players who have attended schools are superior jazz players BECAUSE they have attended schools; it would absurd to suggest that, and again, a mischaracterization as I never suggested that. What I have pointed out is there are some great players who happen to have attended schools and are worth listening to. There is a vibrant jazz education system that is producing some really great players. The real issue re this subject is the apparent bias in your and others' comments against players who HAVE attended schools. IOW, BECAUSE they have attended schools they are somehow necessarily inferior to the "street schooled" players; an absurd and ill informed idea. Re "objective reality":
This one's a tough one. I am not sure how to address this one except that you yourself, and perhaps ironically, made the case for me. First with your comment:
****While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective;****
Precisely. Well, at least you are allowing room for an objective reality, which was really what I was trying to say. Yes, at the end of the day, if a given listener likes something that another one does not, there's not much that can be said. However, there is actually a well known relationship between mathematics and its "preciseness" and music; and that's a fact. As concerns this discussion what I mean is this:
Your recent Billy Bang post. Apparently you like it. I think that, at best, it's pleasant with a reasonably idiomatic feeling for an ethnic tune such as that. Ask most Cubans how they feel about that rendition of "Chan Chan" and they will tell you that it's barely mediocre. Is that not a reality of sorts? Now, Billy Bang's playing. I realize there may be something in his playing that resonates with you. I hear improvisation that is almost embarrassing with extremely rudimentary violin playing which is horribly out of tune. I assure you that as far as the violin playing goes that would be the reaction of the vast majority of violin players. Is that not also a reality of sorts? A person can insist that 2+2=5 till he's blue in the face, but that does not make it right.
Regards.