Jazz for aficionados

Who is/was great, and who is/was not great, and why, is an almost impossible question to answer. Too many variables.

Some few Possibles:
They could not play as well as the greats
didn't work well with others
They were drug addicts
They were not very attractive people
did not kiss the right ass
pissed the wrong people off
did not want to pay the personal price it takes to be great
were one hit wonders, But really didn't have anything to say(brubeck)
spent long periods of time in jail.
had mental problems. Quite a few musicians were nuts.
were satisfied to just make a living. no drive or ambition.
played for themselves and not their audience
where ripped off my the sharks in the business, quit in disgust.
lived in the wrong place/time.

Three things that will allow you to understand the universe. Including the Jazz/Music business. Notice the word 'business'.

(1) Numbers Count.--- How many times something happens, will determine our attitude towards it, and how we react to it, or perceive it.

(2) Facts Matter. Facts cannot be ignored. Reasons can be argued and emphasis placed here and there, even excuses, but, Facts cannot be changed.

(3) The unwashed Decide. --- In any capitalist system, the tastes of the masses(the folks with the most money collectively) will decide what is for sale. Which is another way of saying, who/what is successful.

The answer is in there somewhere.

Alex: The subject is not boring, it's fascinating. Instead of the usual, i.e, the Rich and the Famous, we are discussing the Poor and the unknown.

Cheers

Frogman, point I am trying to prove is quite simple. I'll do my best to futher clear my thougts in a hope that we can stop the 'debate' and continue to recommmend good music to each other. So, hope that everyone will forgive me, here it is, one more time...
'I think the idea of the "forgotten player" or the player that "didn't get his due" is mainly overstated and often a myth'
'If we look at players' careers in the context of an evolving art form and changing times it's not difficult to understand why soem players become famous and some do not'
'the BUSINESS of music was making it much more difficult for anyone (and their recordings) other than the very best to stay in the limelight.'

With a part of last sentence I would agree, that business is often the factor that has the final word, usually on expanse of art.
What I wanted to say, with those few random examples, is that in history of jazz were much,much more players
who were 'quite good' or beter, or even 'one of three' like in case of P.Newborn J.R. that actually never made it, and who were recognised late or by too few people.
Jazz music of the past, in general, is fading into oblivion, and hardly we can talk about fame or recognition in some wider sense of those words.
Comparing the very best (the 'Rembrandts') and known figures to others does not put things into right perspective, because than the book of jazz would have just a couple of pages. Someone might say that Hubbard is good, but not in a same league as Dizzy?
That is not the point of 'discussion' that I am trying to make, just the opposite. Like Rok said, lets talk about those less fortunate, who left their mark, no matter how insignificant it seems to be. They were in majority, after all, and I am sure that we shall discover some very fine music indeed.However, one may have a different opinion, and standards, of course, like you said. For sure that will lead to a much smaller collection of music,but like you said, we all have our choices and I certainly respect yours.
That's all, folks
https://youtu.be/Q3bbsDJWlXQ

P.S. Frogman, I cant open your clips, it just leads to you tube...

P.P.S. Griffin's 'Studio Jazz party',with D.Burns on trumpet, and Norman Simmons on piano. I have mentioned him on this pages, again, not a well known name

https://youtu.be/Wu0qnePU3Os

I would add a couple of things and emphasize a couple of things that have already been pointed out:

The jazz music scene is a small world. Musicians during any era know who the best players are from reputation and seek them out and give them exposure when they tour and this enables those musicians to make contacts, meet producers etc. It is at that point that many of the factors that Rok points out kick in. However, it should also be pointed out that the better a player is (the more he/she has to say), the more that he can overcome his limitations in the social graces department. IOW, if you're good enough, almost short of going around causing bodily harm, you can get away with a lot of bullshit.

****Some few Possibles:
They could not play as well as the greats****(ALMOST always the case)
didn't work well with others****(Bird would fall sleep on the bandstand and they still wanted him)
They were drug addicts****(Coltrane, Pepper and countless others?)
They were not very attractive people****( Ella Fitzgerald?)
did not kiss the right ass****(If you're good enough you don't have to kiss ass)
pissed the wrong people off****(see above)
did not want to pay the personal price it takes to be great***(Agree)
were one hit wonders, But really didn't have anything to say(brubeck)****(not sure of the relevance)
spent long periods of time in jail****(Art Pepper for one)
had mental problems. Quite a few musicians were nuts.****(Tom Harrell is a schizophrenic)
were satisfied to just make a living. no drive or ambition.****(Agree, but then, what does that say about what they have to say musically?)
played for themselves and not their audience****(Miles always turned his back to the audience)
where ripped off my the sharks in the business, quit in disgust.****(Agree)
lived in the wrong place/time****(Sort of agree)

I think there is a danger in being too lose with the term GREAT. If we can all agree that dynamos like Mingus, Trane etc. were great, and if all these others are also great; then what, exactly, is it that distinguishes a Mingus or Ellington? What should we call them instead? If it ia true that, as Rok says, the unwashed decide, well it's pretty obvious who the greats are. As far as who COULD HAVE BEEN great goes, once
you take the romance and personal tendencies to make excuses out of the equation, there aren't too many who didn't get what they deserved.... IF THEY HAD WHAT IT TAKES TO BE GREAT TO BEGIN WITH.

Alex, I wrote my previous post before reading your most recent. Speaking for myself, I don't mind a debate about this or any other topic having to do with a great topic such as this. Having said that, let me remind you that it was you who asked for thoughts and commentary about your premise of the forgotten player and posted examples. While I have acknowledged that most of these players are good players, I don't agree with your premise that they were as good as the best. I simply don't agree. I do agree that some are worth getting to know better. I also agree that, in some ways and for the purpose of this discussion, it serves no purpose to always compare them to the best. But, it was you who wrote that they may have been as good as th best; like Rambrandt. Anyway, your point is taken. Yes, there are many players who were good players that should be explored by listeners; I agree. But, I consider them second and third tier players and in most cases I don't see any great crime committed because they are more "famous"; whatever that means in the context of the jazz world and it's aficionados. That seems to be the main sticking point here. Again, your "top tier" is broader than mine; that's ok.

BTW, you misrepresented what I said re the "music buiness". I don't believe that "the business" OFTEN has the last word a the expense of art. Sometimes, yes; often, not so sure. To suggest that is to suggest that the artists that shaped this great music were undeserving and that others were slighted; others who were more deserving of the fame (and influence). WHO? I want to know who could have had the impact of. Bird or Ellington or Trane or Miles and who was also overlooked. Please tell me.

The idea of the unrecognized genius is a quaint and attractive one. Usually overstated. The cream usually rises to the top. What i think we strongly agree with is the idea that it is a shame that the music has declined in poplarity to the extent that there isn't a broader appreciation for it in the general public. The end result of this is that the business will not support those who aren't at the very top.

As Rok says, cheers, and thanks for the thought provoking posts.

The Frogman's comments on my list: i.e. (my latest test from The Lord)

Talent, and I mean extreme talent, will overcome almost anything. Bird was one of the creators of a new music. Had he the been 637th Be-bop player, instead one of the first, we may be having a different conversation. He would have been on a much shorter leash.

Ella had the perfect voice, according to my favorite Opera diva, Beverly Sills. Had there been another singer, just as good as Ella in all aspects(even the thought seems silly), and of the same era, but looked like Lena Horne, We would be saying Ella who?

Just how we humans are folks. That's the way it works. Good looks will also get an artist fame that their talent does not support. Mainly females.

Another factor was the 'escape' to Europe. Jazz could not be nurtured there. The players who did this lived a comfortable contented life. Got picked up on Tours and had a name locally. But, they gave up the chance to be Great and well known.

Drugs: some folks seem to be affected to a different degree by drug use. Some do it during a long and successful career, and others take one hit, and are immediately on skid row. And all degrees in between.

Cheers