Jazz for aficionados

Wow.  First, to Newbee - I'm sure that you probably perceive me as being more condescending than Frogman, and I would totally understand that.  His justification that we are teachers by nature and therefore cannot stand by in the face of misinformation could not be better stated.  

O-10 - first, I agree with you 100% that Clark Terry's Color Changes is a really great album.  Julius Watkins was an amazing guy.  Not your typical horn sound, but he could play.  There are a couple of albums he made as a leader, believe it or not, but unfortunately they are very hard to find on LP because they happen to be Blue Notes, so the Japanese collectors go nuts and drive the prices up to outrageous amounts.  The group is called the Julius Watkins Sextet on those albums, I'm sorry I don't remember the titles.  Too tired to type more about Julius Watkins at the moment, but if you like, I have MUCH more to say about him - very interesting life he led.  I also have a discography of his somewhere, so I could look up those album titles on it, now that I think about it.  One of the most hilarious albums he made, by the way, is called French Horns For My Lady - if you ever see that in a record store, buy it (Philips label)!  More about that another time, if wanted, too.  

OK, there was one comment that I cannot let pass.  "Since he was performing three nights a week, there was absolutely no need for some kind of ritualistic practicing."  No, no, no, no, no.  This is dead wrong.  As Frogman and I have both explained, one MUST maintain one's chops to keep one's playing level to a certain standard.  So if your friend was not practicing that summer, that doesn't mean he couldn't play/perform - but it does mean that he was nowhere near his top playing level.  There is absolutely no way on earth he could have been, simply because the muscles must be kept in top shape.  Just like an athlete's, believe it or not, except we use much weaker muscle groups that have to last for much longer careers - you have to put in your daily routine, we call it, though it is not necessarily ritualistic, most of us vary it quite a bit.  There are definitely about 20 minutes worth of "warm-up" type exercises that I do in exactly the same way every day, but beyond that there would be another 20 minutes worth of exercises that would be varied depending on what type of playing I am doing at work, or have coming  up in the near future, or even distant future sometimes.  And if we don't practice, that is the same thing as an athlete not working out - they get out of shape VERY quickly, and so do we.  Again, I am not saying this means you can't play  (though for a professional brass player, you would never take an entire summer off, it would take a too long to get back to where you were - the most I have ever taken is one month off, and it took about three weeks after that to get back to top shape) - you are nowhere near your top level.  You have mentioned that your friend was very close to the end of a long life and career, too, which means that his playing was almost certainly  not at his peak anyway.  Just like with the athletes, this is one very unfortunate thing about being a musician - your mind and your musicianship are more highly developed than ever, but you can't do some of the stuff you used to do anymore.  I am just young enough to not quite be at that point in my career yet, but I am fast nearing it.  I'm at least several years behind Frogman in age, possibly even a decade.  I hope to have another twenty years in me, though it may end up being more like fifteen - as a brass player in particular, you never know for sure.....

Well, now that our so-called, 'condescending teachers', have had their say, lets let the 'students' speak.

First I would like for our OP to list all, or at least some of the things he has learned from The Frogman and Learsfool.  Learned about music.

I will do the same.   I'll go first.  Acman3 feel free to weigh in also.

(1)  I learned about the functions / duties of a section leader / Principal in a Symphony Orchestra from Learsfool.

(2)  From Learsfool, I also learned a bit about the financial side of Symphony Orchestras.

(3)  From Learsfool, I learned a bit about the World of Orchestra Conductors.  How they are hired, how does a person train to be one etc.....

From The Frogman, I was 'taught' That Stravinsky ranks right up there with Mozart as a Composer.  This went in one ear and out the other.

The Frogman also informed me that a certain clip of the Trumpet player, Tom Harrell, that I called 'noise', was actually the 'perfect' bebop solo.
I have never in my life ever heard or read of any performance by anyone being called 'perfect'.  I took that for what it was worth.


That's about it for me.  Not a lot after three years.  Looking forward to hearing what all the other 'students' learned from these self-appointed, 'teachers'.

I think they are both  full of themselves.   But that could be just one man's opinion.

Newbee did make a wonderful suggestion to The Frogman.   Why not start your own thread, then you can teach all of the 'pedestrian' Jazz Lovers of Audiogon.

BTW, If you have a few moments, could you list some of that 'misinformation' that O-10 and I put out?      Thanks.

Cheers

Learsfool , somewhere during our discussions, I determined that our mystery jazzman was a organist. I can't remember when or where, and I never was able to be 100 percent sure, but somewhere through the years I decided he was an organist. Does it change your opinion of the possibilities of O-10's magic summer? 

O-10, am I hot or cold?

There is expression that says that all art was modern, in one point in time. Process of reception of a 'new art' was always hard and history of any art is full of examples when some, at first scorned, art form has become recognised and valued. There is no surprise to me that same discussion is held here, the principal question beeing to define  what  is 'jazz jazz' music , in opposition to music that was created couple decades later and by opinions of some, does not deserve to be called by the same name. Setting or recognising  the standards who could enable us to understand music better proved to be much harder, because the discussion became somehow irrational and its emphasis  was never about the principles of music, neither about social or cutural era  that influenced or shaped some particular form, instead the 'arguments' were drawn on basis of personal feelings and experiences. Even if one (or many) wants to declare that  'having soul' is the most important factor which will determine which music has a right to be called 'jazz jazz', I belleive that he owes us an explanation what 'soul' is, in music anyway. So far I have not read any such attempts.
If this 'discussion' is going to continue I would certainly like that any attempt in 'proving' any point is concentrated on confronting the thoughts instead of persons.
As for my opinion,on this subject, or better, I should say taste, if anyone cares, is that I prefer music that was created up untill lets say 1965. Later, maybe only if the style hasnt changed much, usually made by same protagonists.
In the same time I am very curios to understand what someone very knowledgabe ( like Frg.and Leafr.) prefer about new expressions and why they value the idea behind the music more than its aestetchics (correct me if I am wrong)
Also, I think, by learning and later perhaps knowing or recognising 'their point' can open the whole new world in appreciating the music that now stays beyond our understanding.

https://youtu.be/Q3bbsDJWlXQ