Calling all Jazz Cool Cats......

[thebes]

Sorry Oldtimer, I meant those things that look like paino keys that
guys pound on with drum sticks with padding on them. Have no idea
what they are but whenver I hear them my skins crawls.

By
the way what type of music do you play and what instruments? (hope it's
not as described above[]) I'm always jealous of people with
musical talent which is kinda silly, I guess envious would be a much
better word.

[scott0527]

I really dug these cats in my younger days [H]. "You gotta get hot to play real cool."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTSOjbp0Hs0

I think it's safe to say that wolf was into random horn blowing.

[oldtimer]

Thebes I don't know now what you mean. If they are metal (keys) then you mean vibes, if wood or wood substitute, then it is a xylophone or marimba. I have been trained and can play anything from percussionist in an orchestra to drum set (kit) in a jazz big band, combo, or rock band. I don't make a living from it these days, I suppose I could if I had to or wanted to. I used to anyway. I could play a stainless steel sink for that matter. They can make really good sounds depending on dampening factors, etc. Oh I could make your skin crawl and enjoy it too, not that I would want to. The beauty of percussion is that almost every different instrument has its' own technique.

Don't be envious, btw. I could never get the hang of most any other instrument I tried. Trumpet was the closest. I might have made a decent trumpet player, but percussion was my niche. As much as I am inspired from time to time to expound in a Faulknerian manner, I could never approach the spontaneous creative verbal output that seems to emanate so easily from you.

[Audio Flynn]

Not intending to be a cool jazz cat but I just remembered I should listen to some Wes Montgomery and Milt Jackson this weekend. Jazz is just not on my mind as much as other genres.

[joshnich]

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

Sorry that I have to disagree. To say that jazz was meant to gotten by anyone other than the people playing it is downright absurd. To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is a joke. Insert Rap for Jazz in your post and you will see how false your premise is. You could defend either one from an I understand it and you dont standpoint and you would be wrong in both cases.

Josh

[NOSValves]

I loved the blue note sampler 4 cd set that Allan recomended but I just don't get this type of random horn blowing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6WwuxqXPOg

They started and ended ok but in the middle, everyone just did their own thing without any relationship to each other or what anyone else was playing.

Exactly what I'm talking about that sounds like all 4 players are playing completely different tunes...............

[NOSValves]

OK, I looked all over YouTube and tried to find the BEST example of what you guys call "random horn blowing" and came up with this short clip of Marshall Allen on alto with the Sun Ra Arkestra, probably from the mid-1970s. Personally, I LOVE this stuff, but I can really understand why it tends to have (ahem!) limited appeal:

But you know what? This band is probably the closest thing to a "jam band" in that most of the members worked and LIVED toghether for years and years and years and they practiced and rehearsed about 5-6 hours per day, EVERY day for decades. It took YEARS for Marshall Allen to get to this point. And you know what? During this same performance this band would have delivered straight-ahead Fletcher Hendersonesque swing charts with Allen playing sweet, "standard" solos. This was truly an amazing band.

Allan,

I have to say that one made me laugh so hard I'm in tears!! What was the name of that tune? ....Screaming pig or what[] I mean that makes Dean's favorite group Mudvayne seem subdued in comparison. Are you serious you like that kind of stuff?

Craig

[pauln]

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

Sorry that I have to disagree. To say that jazz was meant to gotten by anyone other than the people playing it is downright absurd. To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is a joke. Insert Rap for Jazz in your post and you will see how false your premise is. You could defend either one from an I understand it and you dont standpoint and you would be wrong in both cases.

Josh

Sorry that I have to double disagree. Fundamentally, to say that jazz is not "meant to be gotten" by anyone other than the people playing it is downright close to the truth. Many who enjoy it without playing it can learn to appreciate it in a sense similar to the way the players do, but the creative center of jazz is almost entirely within the performing musicians and to a small extent the listening audience. For many forms of popular performance there is a feedback loop that includes the audience - in jazz this loop is much tighter and stays up with the players - when they are flying they don't even know the audience is there...

To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is true. You don't need a music degree, don't need to know music theory, don't need to know how to read music notation, and don't even need to have ever played any instruments (it helps if you are a musician or have followed jazz intently for a long time). That egalitarian position that anyone is able to understand it is the joke - it assumes that all music is the same, but it is not (see my long post earlier in this thread about the progressive complexity of the popular forms) - it is as incorrect to think that we all receive the same understanding of jazz as it is to assert that we all have the same understanding of anything else - our individual backgrounds, experience, training, and many other more subtle influences very much determine how one will encounter something like jazz, what one will hear in it, what one will overlook, what one will call "quality", and what one will accept, understand, appreciate, and cherish. The easiest way to demonstrate this truth to yourself is to stop by a pawn shop and pick up an alto horn, trumpet, guitar, whatever; and see how long it takes you to play jazz with others. It took me 15 years and in the 15 years since then I am still "getting it" little by little as best I can.

[jt1stcav]

Thebes, give "Rendezvous: Jerome Harris Quintet Plays Jazz" (1999 Stereophile STPH013-2) a listen...it may (or may not) change your mind about the vibraphone. Steve Nelson performs brilliantly on the instrument; his solos soar throughout the vibe's musical range as if two musicians were playing the damn thing! With vibes, along with drums, alto sax, trombone, and the acoustic bass guitar, there's absolutely no reason for a piano to exist in this ensemble of players. Mr. Nelson's creativity on the vibes is awe inspiring IMHO...hardly enough to make your skin crawl. Buy (or borrow) the CD, and enjoy.[8]

[joshnich]

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

Sorry that I have to disagree. To say that jazz was meant to gotten by anyone other than the people playing it is downright absurd. To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is a joke. Insert Rap for Jazz in your post and you will see how false your premise is. You could defend either one from an I understand it and you dont standpoint and you would be wrong in both cases.

Josh

Sorry that I have to double disagree. Fundamentally, to say that jazz is not "meant to be gotten" by anyone other than the people playing it is downright close to the truth. Many who enjoy it without playing it can learn to appreciate it in a sense similar to the way the players do, but the creative center of jazz is almost entirely within the performing musicians and to a small extent the listening audience. For many forms of popular performance there is a feedback loop that includes the audience - in jazz this loop is much tighter and stays up with the players - when they are flying they don't even know the audience is there...

To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is true. You don't need a music degree, don't need to know music theory, don't need to know how to read music notation, and don't even need to have ever played any instruments (it helps if you are a musician or have followed jazz intently for a long time). That egalitarian position that anyone is able to understand it is the joke - it assumes that all music is the same, but it is not (see my long post earlier in this thread about the progressive complexity of the popular forms) - it is as incorrect to think that we all receive the same understanding of jazz as it is to assert that we all have the same understanding of anything else - our individual backgrounds, experience, training, and many other more subtle influences very much determine how one will encounter something like jazz, what one will hear in it, what one will overlook, what one will call "quality", and what one will accept, understand, appreciate, and cherish. The easiest way to demonstrate this truth to yourself is to stop by a pawn shop and pick up an alto horn, trumpet, guitar, whatever; and see how long it takes you to play jazz with others. It took me 15 years and in the 15 years since then I am still "getting it" little by little as best I can.

I triple disagree. I dont need to stop into a pawnshop and pick up an instrument to understand how hard it is to play with other folks.

For the record my instrument collection includes a 610 schimmel grand piano ( and yes I can play it and yes I have played with other people. Ill let others judge how well) a 1968 Fender Tele, a 69 Martin D 28, and two Taylors that I never felt the need to learn the model numbers of. I studied piano and sax as a child and have been playing the piano for over 40 years, guitar for 25. I have played with some musicians of note. The late great Vernon Alley being the most notable. People have paid money to see me play. I cannot say they were happy about it but I did make spare change for more than a few years through music. Needless to say, but I do have a working understanding of music theory.

I think your perspective on jazz is much like everyone in the court of the emperor with no clothes.

[pauln]

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

Sorry that I have to disagree. To say that jazz was meant to gotten by anyone other than the people playing it is downright absurd. To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is a joke. Insert Rap for Jazz in your post and you will see how false your premise is. You could defend either one from an I understand it and you dont standpoint and you would be wrong in both cases.

Josh

Sorry that I have to double disagree. Fundamentally, to say that jazz is not "meant to be gotten" by anyone other than the people playing it is downright close to the truth. Many who enjoy it without playing it can learn to appreciate it in a sense similar to the way the players do, but the creative center of jazz is almost entirely within the performing musicians and to a small extent the listening audience. For many forms of popular performance there is a feedback loop that includes the audience - in jazz this loop is much tighter and stays up with the players - when they are flying they don't even know the audience is there...

To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is true. You don't need a music degree, don't need to know music theory, don't need to know how to read music notation, and don't even need to have ever played any instruments (it helps if you are a musician or have followed jazz intently for a long time). That egalitarian position that anyone is able to understand it is the joke - it assumes that all music is the same, but it is not (see my long post earlier in this thread about the progressive complexity of the popular forms) - it is as incorrect to think that we all receive the same understanding of jazz as it is to assert that we all have the same understanding of anything else - our individual backgrounds, experience, training, and many other more subtle influences very much determine how one will encounter something like jazz, what one will hear in it, what one will overlook, what one will call "quality", and what one will accept, understand, appreciate, and cherish. The easiest way to demonstrate this truth to yourself is to stop by a pawn shop and pick up an alto horn, trumpet, guitar, whatever; and see how long it takes you to play jazz with others. It took me 15 years and in the 15 years since then I am still "getting it" little by little as best I can.

I triple disagree. I dont need to stop into a pawnshop and pick up an instrument to understand how hard it is to play with other folks.

For the record my instrument collection includes a 610 schimmel grand piano ( and yes I can play it and yes I have played with other people. Ill let others judge how well) a 1968 Fender Tele, a 69 Martin D 28, and two Taylors that I never felt the need to learn the model numbers of. I studied piano and sax as a child and have been playing the piano for over 40 years, guitar for 25. I have played with some musicians of note. The late great Vernon Alley being the most notable. People have paid money to see me play. I cannot say they were happy about it but I did make spare change for more than a few years through music. Needless to say, but I do have a working understanding of music theory.

I think your perspective on jazz is much like everyone in the court of the emperor with no clothes.

Glad to hear you are a musician and member of the six string brotherhood. This makes me even more perplexed why you don't recognise how your knowledge of these things influences how you hear music differently from those who don't play something or don't have an extended personal relationship to jazz. An engineer sees a bridge differently, a film makers sees TV differently, a mechanic sees cars differently, a biologist sees plants and animals differently... on and on... I have to believe that when someone is close to a subject and knows things about it that walk-a-day folks don't - they see it differently. I bet if you wrote a review of a jazz performance it would be quite different (and probably much better) than one written by someone that did'nt know about music, don't you think?

If you still disagree I won't argue, but I would like to understand your position. I'm just here to learn from others.

[meagain]

I had to disable my email subscription for this thread as when I get home tonight - there would be 100 emails!

My husband, who's played in Jazz bands all his life and has an arsenal of CDs, etc. Even agrees with me in the end. There's a lot here that does sound the same and even he can't listen to it for hours on end. So what am I missing? Allan - tell me what to listen to and I'll grab it. I'm willing to accept that perhaps I'm not listening to the right stuff.

Just no Miles Davis with Muted Trumpet please. These khorns tweeters make my ear drums pierce to the point of pain with it unless drastically eq'd.

[joshnich]

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

Sorry that I have to disagree. To say that jazz was meant to gotten by anyone other than the people playing it is downright absurd. To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is a joke. Insert Rap for Jazz in your post and you will see how false your premise is. You could defend either one from an I understand it and you dont standpoint and you would be wrong in both cases.

Josh

Sorry that I have to double disagree. Fundamentally, to say that jazz is not "meant to be gotten" by anyone other than the people playing it is downright close to the truth. Many who enjoy it without playing it can learn to appreciate it in a sense similar to the way the players do, but the creative center of jazz is almost entirely within the performing musicians and to a small extent the listening audience. For many forms of popular performance there is a feedback loop that includes the audience - in jazz this loop is much tighter and stays up with the players - when they are flying they don't even know the audience is there...

To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is true. You don't need a music degree, don't need to know music theory, don't need to know how to read music notation, and don't even need to have ever played any instruments (it helps if you are a musician or have followed jazz intently for a long time). That egalitarian position that anyone is able to understand it is the joke - it assumes that all music is the same, but it is not (see my long post earlier in this thread about the progressive complexity of the popular forms) - it is as incorrect to think that we all receive the same understanding of jazz as it is to assert that we all have the same understanding of anything else - our individual backgrounds, experience, training, and many other more subtle influences very much determine how one will encounter something like jazz, what one will hear in it, what one will overlook, what one will call "quality", and what one will accept, understand, appreciate, and cherish. The easiest way to demonstrate this truth to yourself is to stop by a pawn shop and pick up an alto horn, trumpet, guitar, whatever; and see how long it takes you to play jazz with others. It took me 15 years and in the 15 years since then I am still "getting it" little by little as best I can.

I triple disagree. I dont need to stop into a pawnshop and pick up an instrument to understand how hard it is to play with other folks.

For the record my instrument collection includes a 610 schimmel grand piano ( and yes I can play it and yes I have played with other people. Ill let others judge how well) a 1968 Fender Tele, a 69 Martin D 28, and two Taylors that I never felt the need to learn the model numbers of. I studied piano and sax as a child and have been playing the piano for over 40 years, guitar for 25. I have played with some musicians of note. The late great Vernon Alley being the most notable. People have paid money to see me play. I cannot say they were happy about it but I did make spare change for more than a few years through music. Needless to say, but I do have a working understanding of music theory.

I think your perspective on jazz is much like everyone in the court of the emperor with no clothes.

Glad to hear you are a musician and member of the six string brotherhood. This makes me even more perplexed why you don't recognise how your knowledge of these things influences how you hear music differently from those who don't play something or don't have an extended personal relationship to jazz. An engineer sees a bridge differently, a film makers sees TV differently, a mechanic sees cars differently, a biologist sees plants and animals differently... on and on... I have to believe that when someone is close to a subject and knows things about it that walk-a-day folks don't - they see it differently. I bet if you wrote a review of a jazz performance it would be quite different (and probably much better) than one written by someone that did'nt know about music, don't you think?

If you still disagree I won't argue, but I would like to understand your position. I'm just here to learn from others.

I agree that a knowlege of music theroy and a history of music aids in understanding and would therefore add to the appreciation of jazz and jazz players. Maybe I read more into your first post than was intended or said. It wouldnt be the first time! It just kind of fries me when people's response to someone liking something is that the person is somehow unsophisticated. I think it may be as simple as they dont like it. Thats all.

Josh

[garymd]

I had to disable my email subscription for this thread as when I get home tonight - there would be 100 emails!

My husband, who's played in Jazz bands all his life and has an arsenal of CDs, etc. Even agrees with me in the end. There's a lot here that does sound the same and even he can't listen to it for hours on end. So what am I missing? Allan - tell me what to listen to and I'll grab it. I'm willing to accept that perhaps I'm not listening to the right stuff.

Just no Miles Davis with Muted Trumpet please. These khorns tweeters make my ear drums pierce to the point of pain with it unless drastically eq'd.

Lisa,

PM me your address and I'll send you a few CDs I'm sure you'll like.

Also - Pick up the best of Blue Note CD. I think it's call "The Best Blue Note Album In The World..............Ever" or something like that. Get the version that only has 1 CD.

[BillH2121]

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

Sorry that I have to disagree. To say that jazz was meant to gotten by anyone other than the people playing it is downright absurd. To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is a joke. Insert Rap for Jazz in your post and you will see how false your premise is. You could defend either one from an I understand it and you dont standpoint and you would be wrong in both cases.

Josh

Sorry that I have to double disagree. Fundamentally, to say that jazz is not "meant to be gotten" by anyone other than the people playing it is downright close to the truth. Many who enjoy it without playing it can learn to appreciate it in a sense similar to the way the players do, but the creative center of jazz is almost entirely within the performing musicians and to a small extent the listening audience. For many forms of popular performance there is a feedback loop that includes the audience - in jazz this loop is much tighter and stays up with the players - when they are flying they don't even know the audience is there...

To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is true. You don't need a music degree, don't need to know music theory, don't need to know how to read music notation, and don't even need to have ever played any instruments (it helps if you are a musician or have followed jazz intently for a long time). That egalitarian position that anyone is able to understand it is the joke - it assumes that all music is the same, but it is not (see my long post earlier in this thread about the progressive complexity of the popular forms) - it is as incorrect to think that we all receive the same understanding of jazz as it is to assert that we all have the same understanding of anything else - our individual backgrounds, experience, training, and many other more subtle influences very much determine how one will encounter something like jazz, what one will hear in it, what one will overlook, what one will call "quality", and what one will accept, understand, appreciate, and cherish. The easiest way to demonstrate this truth to yourself is to stop by a pawn shop and pick up an alto horn, trumpet, guitar, whatever; and see how long it takes you to play jazz with others. It took me 15 years and in the 15 years since then I am still "getting it" little by little as best I can.

I triple disagree. I dont need to stop into a pawnshop and pick up an instrument to understand how hard it is to play with other folks.

For the record my instrument collection includes a 610 schimmel grand piano ( and yes I can play it and yes I have played with other people. Ill let others judge how well) a 1968 Fender Tele, a 69 Martin D 28, and two Taylors that I never felt the need to learn the model numbers of. I studied piano and sax as a child and have been playing the piano for over 40 years, guitar for 25. I have played with some musicians of note. The late great Vernon Alley being the most notable. People have paid money to see me play. I cannot say they were happy about it but I did make spare change for more than a few years through music. Needless to say, but I do have a working understanding of music theory.

I think your perspective on jazz is much like everyone in the court of the emperor with no clothes.

BillH2121's reply:

The purpose of my comments was to convey my belief that most artists (jazz musicians, painters, sculpters, etc) that seek to push the limits of their art forms' status quo are not doing so for the enjoyment of the masses, because the masses will neither understand nor probably enjoy that art. They do so to further the art form and usually without the support of the masses. It is not difficult to look back over 400 years of music and realize that very few composers that we now consider relevant were not fully appreciated, or were actually ignored, during their lifetimes. Bach's composing sons were more popular than he during the time immediately following his death, Mozart died in a penniless state, many even now believe that Coltrane was just making "noise" in his later years. To think that a non-musician can fully understand the technique required to play jazz or classical music, or that someone who doesn't paint can actually understand the technique and related challenges involved in painting, etc, etc, defies logic. This is true of almost any craft or specialized endeavor - carpentry, tennis, football, cooking. One can surely appreciate the aesthetic appeal of the "thing" produced and can enjoy that "thing" but they cannot, without the specialized knowledge or experience, fully understand the technique and related challenges that accompany the creation of that "thing". I performed music professionally since the age of 15, taught for several years, and was a doctoral student in music and I would never profess to say that I fully understand what and how great musicans do what they do. I have a great appreciation and understanding for the difficulty of what they are doing, I can enjoy the experience of listening to what they do, but I rarely can say that I fully understand exactly what they are doing. If you believe that you fully understand how its done without ever picking up an instrument, you are fooling yourself. That is not to say you cannot enjoy what they do and become more educated as to the stylistic considerations of the art form, but unless you are one of those boundary-pushing artists, you cannot fully "get it".

[Mike Lindsey]

I don't know guys... I think more is being made of this than has to be.

I do not play a musical instrument, do not know how to read music, would not consider myself that intelligent (HS education only), I am certainly not sophisticated, do not know how to paint, although I do consider myself a very good cook, and can honestly say that I just dig this music. There's something to it for me that just kind of takes me to a higher place. I can't understand it and don't try to. Sometimes I'm not sure if someone is playing a clarinet or an alto sax. Makes no difference to me. I still dig it and that's all that matters to me.

But continue on... this has been a great thread and I have thouroughly enjoyed keeping up with it.

Mike

[BillH2121]

Mike - I think you make my point. My point is not that anyone is intellectually inferior or incapable of enjoying certain art forms without specialized knowledge. The lack of a music education or experience playing an instrument does not necessarily lessen the aesthetic experience involved with listening to great music. That enjoyment focuses on your subjective experience regarding the music, it is not focused on the intent of the musician or composer. All I'm saying is that specialized experience adds greater understanding of what the musician is doing, not that it necessarily make the aesthetic experience any greater or lesser. One can love a great painting without being able to paint - they just can't understand fully how the painting was created. My primary point though is that musicians like John Coltrane do not play or compose for the masses - if they were truly interested in pleasing the most people, they would not choose to perform jazz, they would play "pop" music - "pop" being short for popular. I just have a feeling that when Coltrane recorded some of his later pieces (any of his pieces), he wasn't worried whether they would rocket to #1 on the hit parade or be fully appreciated by Joe Blow whose musical experience is limited to listening to the local pop station on am radio.

[NOSValves]

Allan,

I hope I didn't make you mad buddy! Your right at the top of the Jazz Cool Cat club.

Craig

[Allan Songer]

Craig--

Did you get the box today?

[NOSValves]

What so your mad at me? Yes I received your package I was out just about all day braving a blowing snow storm to deliver some good to the border for a Canadian customer. I think we were both nutz travelling the roads just for some audio gear. Nice guy though and we had a great lunch together.

Craig