Jazz for aficionados

Schubert, I love Sonny Stitt; and you're right, he was one of the greatest improvisers with a wonderful ease in how the ideas flowed out of him. When he played there was never a sense that he would run out of ideas and seemed like an endless font. A great tenor player as well as alto; he was, nonetheless, an alto player at heart and it could be heard in his sound and concept when playing tenor. He started playing tenor as a way to combat the idea that he was trying to sound like Parker on alto. This is a piece of one of my favorite stories in all of jazz lore. When Stitt and Parker first met they realized that even though they had never heard each other play, they sounded a lot alike. I think the says some interesting things about the natural and inevitable evolution of an art form.

Re Ron Carter: well, can one say about Miles" own choice for one of the greatest (perhaps greatest) rhythm sections ever. Carter, Herbie Hancock and Tony Williams. Fantastic player!

Acman, although that post was short, it communicated very well; I do remember Chauncy Gardner. However, I believe you are denying us your vast storehouse of knowledge.

Enjoy the music.

We're going round and round like a dog chasing his tail in regard to new music VS old music, and new musicians VS old musicians. The reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the music or musicians; I'll explain.

The primary reasons are economic; back then, there were many more "Juke Joints". While the term "juke joint" is normally used exclusively for "blues joints", I'm using it in reference to all small clubs that hire live entertainment. For example: I saw Phyllis Diller and Richard Pryor at such a small club before they became famous. Not together or on the same night, but at the same club.

Albert King, Ike and Tina Turner, worked the same juke joints in St. Louis. I saw them many times before they became famous; the same for Grant Green. I saw more dynamite jazz groups than I can shake a stick at. My point for bringing this up is that musicians, and all other entertainers have to have a place to work while honing their craft. The number of "juke joints" have shrunk by at least a "gozillian"; now you get my drift.

Since you can't resurrect the dead, when it comes to live music we don't have a choice; but that's no problem for me, because live music is usually better than recorded music, and new musicians have more formal training than yesterday's musicians from what I can gather. (If you kant git what you wont, like what you can git) That's what Rok told me, and I know he knows.

Enjoy the music.

Thanks, Frogman. I'm going to trot over to the U of MN's gigantic bookstore and buy a theory text, though that will never tell me how Cater must be able to play the front and back of his string at the same time.
I have done several compare and contrast sessions between Stitt and Parker. Great as Parker was, I prefer Stitt because his sliding in and out of dissonance reminds of how Bach and Brahms maintained the forever forward sound in their music I love so much.

*****I said all of this to say that as fans we don't seem to realize how special a good jazz musician is; they're born, not made. No amount of study or practice will enable a person to improvise at the level of a good jazz musician, and no matter how financially successful some other musicians are, a jazz musician knows within himself that he can do something very few people can do, and no way can they learn how to do it. Financial success does not equate to being a good jazz musician and being able to rapidly improvise good sounding music; "either you got it or you don't".*****

It cannot be stated better than this. Case closed!!
As usual, the OP has restored order.

I was reading the Downbeat Issue listing all the Jazz studies programs across the country. I was amazed at the number! I always thought Jazz studies sort of started and ended with Indiana and North texas. Silly me.

I wonder what happens to all those students. They sure aren't playing Jazz for a living.

Cheers