Jazz for aficionados

Rok, do you even know what it means to "copy note for note"? Obviously not. You have no idea what you are talking about because they clearly are not. I dont enjoy calling you out on on this stuff, but frankly you come across as a jerk with comments pretending to be substantive. I know, I know, but comes a time when things need to be said. What is the point of your ridiculous comparisons? Look, are you interested in learning about this stuff, this decade and its music and players or not? Did you listen to the McCoy/Brecker, or to the recordings in the article that you yourself posted? You are so predisposed to believing that nothing besides what you like is of value that you lose sight of what the thrust of the discussion is. Notice that no one else is, likewise, saying that their favorite music is the only one of value. It's simply too difficult to deal with your idiotic an sophomoric stances. So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots. There. If you change your mind and decide that you want to move beyond your very narrow sphere of understanding, let me know. As I pointed out before and to paraphrase Acman3, it's those that pretend to want to save it that end up destroying it.

Cheers (I think)

The point of my 'ridiculous' comparisons is to highlight and demonstrate the differences between Traditional Jazz Players, and the so-called 'Fusion' crowd. Playing the same music, so as to easier ID the differences, if any.

I noticed you didn't comment of any of them. Which is your modus operandi, when your position is untendable. Then of course, comes the name calling. But you still didn't comment.

This has nothing to do with my favorite music. It has to do with the insistent effort on this thread to equate all this "Fusion" nonsense, with Jazz.

I was giving everyone an easy oppourtunity to hear for themselves. To make their own judgements. If you think the Parker and Pastorious performances were about equal, or Pastorious' was better, then say so.

*****So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots.*****

Well, I would not say ALL, are idiots.. Because Acman3 and the OP have not weighed in yet.

BTW, the 'thrust' of this discussion is 'Fusion', and the people who play it. And how it is not real Jazz. And since the 70's was full of this stuff, it's right on topic. I also noticed you declined to give your definition of 'Fusion'.

Cheers

Acman, I enjoyed all of your posts, even the ones I didn't understand; like Cecil Taylor.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Rok seemed to want to know what artists made the 70's so different, and that would include all artists associated with fusion and there was every kind of Fusion under the sun.

Frogman, since Acman is doing such a good job "instinctively", I suggest he continue on the same way. I'm going to go through that decade the same way I went through it in life at that time; since I was bored with "classic jazz", I welcomed fusion, and I went all over the place, that's the way I'm going to proceed.

Frogman, the direction you're going to take according to your last post sounds good to me.

Enjoy the music.

Frogman, your view to music is academic, the things you think, others (Rok) just might not FEEL. Its quite simple actually. I dont know why do you continue arguing. Regarding the subject of your discussion, personally I have not acquired the taste for music of that (70's) era, but that is a matter of my personal estethics on music, like it is with any other art form. It is completely understandable that we all have a different perspective on such things.

My hit of the day, Bobby Jaspar, Herbie Mann, Tommy Flanagan and Joe Puma on 'Flute Souffle' album.

http://youtu.be/otengS4cE3Q

O-10, thanks for weighing in and for bringing some calm to the proceedings.

Alexatpos, my view of music is far from academic; I beg to differ with your assessment. Much is said and done about keeping music in the realm of "can I FEEL it?" If that is as far as the listener's sensibilities go, that is a very simplistic and musically immature attitude and criterion for judging music; if judging must be done (Rok). Some music challenges the listener with sounds and "feelings" that he has never experienced before, and if the listener is willing to not be quick to dismiss it because he does not understand it, then the listener has an opportunity to grow; it's that simple. You are new to this thread and may not be aware of the fact that this "argument" has been a recurring theme on this thread. Question: I suggest there is good music of every decade and style, yes, including fusion. Now, Rok comes along, as he often does, and insists that it is simply noise, they are noise makers etc, that there is nothing good about the genre "fusion". Multiple attempts are made, with examples of worthy music, to show the other side of the coin. He insists it is noise (There was even a time when Rok insisted, probably still would, that Igor Stravinsky composed nothing but noise !?) So, tell me, just who is it that "continues to argue"?

As I said before, if I am going to participate here, I need clarity. As far as I am concerned there is no room for personal agendas. If it is also a personal agenda to insist on pointing out the obvious, that jazz is an ever evolving art form and that there is ALWAYS (every era) good music, different perhaps, and that all art is like a living thing: it reflects the human spirit in whatever era that spirit exists, then I suppose I am guilty of having a personal agenda as well. Additionally, it is not the responsibility of the art and artist only to make sure that the listener can understand or appreciate it (to like it is an entirely different matter), the listener has an opportunity (some would say responsibility) to grow during the process of learning to understand it IF HE SO CHOOSES; an important "if". But if the listener doesn't want to, or finds it too difficult, that does not give him the credibility to call it noise.

I hope that wasn't too "academic" for you.

Regards.