A blowing session????

@daveyf

IOW, if you have heard one great blowing session, maybe you have heard them all?

Sure, I guess, if you’re not much of a fan of the genre.

It’s not as though we can easily place all Jazz recordings into one of two categories.

There are plenty of albums that feature strong original compositions by leaders but also include a simpler bluesy/funky vehicle for improvising/"blowing". Many Blue Notes come to mind!

One could also argue that there are "blowing sessions" that are equal to some well rehearsed recording dates. Both the quality of the material and its execution/interpretation are important. Great players can take a simple progression and "off the cuff" make it transcendent. Middling players can rehearse more complex compositions and be less compelling. 

Let’s not oversimplify.

@daveyf 

My OP was wondering more along the lines if the particular genre at the time...mostly Bop, was pretty much a ’blowing session’ for a lot of these musicians. Which would lead me to my next question, perhaps this is why Miles Davis ’progressed’ into the discovery ( if you can call it that?) of fusion.

It's unclear to me what you mean by "Bop".  I associate the term Bop with Bebop, as opposed to hard Bop or Post Bop. Bebop may sound like "just blowing" but a highly sophisticated grasp of harmony was required to "blow" in that genre. According to what I've read, the major figures in that movement (Bird, Dizzy, etc.) put in a lot of woodshedding, discussion and serious study to refine that language and their facility. 

Bebop is where Miles started out but he subsequently went through a variety of  phases before embracing Fusion, including loosely structured ("In A Silent Way"), highly structured ("Birth of the Cool") and points in between. So you could say he was, among other things,engaged in an ongoing exploration of  the relationship/tension between written composition and "composition on the fly" (improvisation). 

As to why he embraced Fusion, I've also read he was financially motivated but at the same time, genuinely enjoyed the music of of Hendrix and Sly. Plus, he was creatively restless; it was only natural that he would not stay in one place for long. And it's worth recognizing that he worked his way into it; it wasn't a single, sudden leap from "If I Were A Bell" to "Miles Runs the Voodoo Down". 

@charles1dad

I respect all of Miles’ work but have to say that his earlier era of late 1940s to the early 1960s (Bebop-Modal) are what I enjoy most. Certainly to each their own.

Me too. I was enamored of his Fusion stuff when I first got into Jazz but it’s been decades since I owned any of those recordings. I’m drawn to strong melodies and actual chord changes. I derive very little satisfaction from listening to blowing over repetitious, open ended vamps. If forced to choose, the group with Herbie, Tony, and Ron,whether with G. Coleman or Wayne on sax, is my very favorite Miles era. Having tried to get back into Bitches Brew and Big Fun numerous times and failed, I’ve given up at this point! I’d rather listen to Mahavishnu O. or Hendrix when in that sort of mood. As you say, each to his own...

@mahgister

Love the aquatic metaphor!

@larsman

I’m a big fan of Miles’ work in the late 60’s and early 70’s; just ordered the Vinyl Me Please box set of Electric Miles Davis, which has his albums from ’In a Silent Way’ to ’Get Up With It’....

That’s one of the great things about Miles -- there’s something to please just about any Jazz fan!

@crustycoot

I never developed the ear for the saxophonist’s individuality as you describe it, but I do have that ear for the electric guitar masters

It’s purely a matter of exposure/repeated listening. If you can tell the difference between P. Green and D. Kirwan, between EC and Duane on "Layla", between Andy Powell and Ted Turner on "Argus", you can learn to tell the difference between Sonny Rollins and Dexter Gordon. Of course, you have to like the music enough to begin with, otherwise you won't have any reason to put in the time for this process to occur.