Jazz for aficionados

Acman, Threadgill was original, and very good; he had non of the "stereotypical" trappings of jazz, nor does he like the word "jazz" to describe his music.

Enjoy the music.

Alex, I agree with you entirely in that music reflects the time of its creation; the same can be said of any art. That is a very important point, and one to keep in mind when judging any music and it's value. We may not like a certain music, but what we are saying is often that we don't like what it is saying about the time. How well it reflects the time is what determines whether it is good or bad. What I don't agree with, if I understand your comments correctly, is the idea that music (art) does not evolve. Music evolves the same way as people and society evolves and good art reflects it. Had not been a Charlie Parker it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Coltrane. Nice post.

O-10, these conversations are obviously limited by the nature of an on-line forum. Sometimes comments can come across as overly opinionated or even judgmental. To my way of thinking, participation in a forum like this presumes confidence on the part of participants in their own reality. You demonstrate that and I respect that fact. But, what does a dissenting voice do with the conflict created by their own and different reality? I hope we can all agree that as long as respect is shown, the voicing of that different opinion is appropriate.

I must say, that the posture that a different reality is irrelevant to any given participant creates, imo, the kind of conflict that renders participation itself moot and irrelevant. To my way of thinking, if dialogue is not the goal, then what is.... aside from learning what others' like? Iow, I don't think that the goal should be for each of us to just show what good taste in music we each have, or to be told what good taste in music we all have. If we are not all prepared to hear about others' different reality or opinion what then is the point of all this. Your goal in starting this thread as stated in your OP was to "review" recordings, and presumably offer opinions of agreement and disagreement. My main issue with the discussions is when I express a point of view about a player (positive or negative) and offer precise reasons why I feel the way I do, and the disagreeing voice simply says "you're wrong" or "I disagree" or something along the lines of "well, it's just how I feel" and nothing more. I don't call that a discussion or dialogue.

On the issue of objective/subjective reality we will simply have to agree to disagree. There are, in fact, many objective aspects of music making that determine for me and many others wether the music or the playing is good or not. Of course subjectivity plays a major role, but it is not the only factor. There is nothing "wrong" with not wanting objectivity to enter into our sphere of knowledge, but just as the other approach may render those opinions irrelevant to you, the subjective approach renders those opinions irrelevant; an unfortunate reality all the way around.

Acman3, great clip of Woods and Harrell. As I know you are aware, Tom Harrell is one of the (relatively) unsung heroes of the modern jazz trumpet scene. I am particularly fond of his flugelhorn playing. Beautifully warm sound with fantastic time feel and harmonic creativity in both horns.

For anyone who wants to get "geeky": since we have been talking about "fusion" and David Sanborn, it should be noted that John Purcell, the alto player in the Jack DeJohnette clip was Dave Sanborn's "sound consultant" for many years. If there is any interest, I can relate some pretty wild stories about that relationship.