Dave Brubeck

Rok2id,
I have heard both Brubeck and Desmond in concert. Brubeck's Time Out was revolutionary. I remember well when it came out. It took the jazz world by storm. The jazz world had never heard anything like it before. Brubeck's compositions are totally original, unique and unequaled. Listen to Paul Morello's solos -- the man was blind. Just listen to the genius of Morello playing the genius of Brubeck.

As a piano great you cannot compare Brubeck to other piano greats such as Art Tatum or Oscar Peterson, for example. Brubeck is technically brilliant but his style is his own. Art Tatum was mainly a soloist, though not exclusively. Oscar Peterson had a powerful command of the keyboard -- I saw him play him in the 1980s -- but he was not known for his original compositions. Brubeck was certainly a great -- a great pianist and a great composer.

With all due respect, since when has venue ever been the measure of an artist's genius? Why in the world would playing in a concert hall ever make an artist a lesser giant than playing in a club? Were any of the classical piano virtuosos club players? Venue is a totally irrelevant measure to use in this respect. IMO.

Rok2id,
The following quote is from the same interview with Dave Brubeck that I cited in my earlier post.

Dave Brubeck said, "Look at it this way - the people I respected, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman uh, Woody Herman, Willie 'the Lion' Smith, Art Tatem, Bud Powell - they all liked what I was doing. Charlie Mingus, Miles Davis, almost all of the guys that really had made it and were experimental people, experimenting, liked what I was doing. So what do I care if some critic doesn't like it? I'd care if Duke Ellington didn't like it."

Onhwy61,
You stated, "To deny Dave Brubeck's importance in jazz history is silly." As we used to say in the 1960s, "Right On".

Rok2id,
With all due respect, I did not miss your point at all. Your point is that you do not care for Dave Brubeck. And you try to buttress your preference by saying that he did not play clubs, so he cannot qualify as a real jazz great, and the reviewers were not crazy about him so that reinforces the opinion you have about him. Personally, I like listening to jazz. My preferences are not influenced by what others say is worth listening to. In any case, regarding the criteria you have put forth for joining the playing field, you are not quite accurate.

For your edification, from this site:

http://www.davebrubeck.com/html/about.php

"The group played in jazz clubs in every major city and toured in package shows with such artists as Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzerald, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie and Stan Getz. The Dave Brubeck Quartet repeatedly won top honors in trade magazines and critic’s and reader’s polls. In 1954 Dave Brubeck’s portrait appeared on the cover of Time Magazine with a story about the jazz renaissance and Brubeck’s phenomenal ascendancy."

And from this site, from an interview with Dave Brubeck:

http://www.pbs.org/brubeck/talking/daveOnCritics.htm

"SMITH: Uh, huh. You did better with the public in a lot of ways than you did with some of the critics."

"DAVE: Maybe, but we had a lot of critics on our side. I mean all you have to do is go back and read the old Downbeats, Metronomes and reviews and you'll see how many people were behind us."

Well, it's all about image. Brubeck was not born in Mississippi and he did not move to Chicago. And he did not "swing" in the accepted manner. He was brought up on a farm. And he did his own thing. Which does not make him any less great. Just different.

Charles1dad,
I like Sonny Stitt and Lee Morgan very much. I have a lot of their music. And a lot of Brubeck's too. My point is this. It is one thing to say you prefer this or that pianist or group. No problem. But once you get into the realm of who is great and who is not then that's a whole other ballgame. You start to push your preferences into a larger realm. For instance, I imagine a lot of us have our favorite musicians who are not generally considered great and who may not even be that well known. But we may rank them up there with "the very best" because of our personal preferences. As you say, a lot of this is subjective. When it comes to greatness there are two facets here. One facet is those who are generally recognized as great. The other facet is those we feel are great regardless of what others recognize.

Rok2id,
"Sameness" is a matter of perspective. When you live overseas what sounded all the same starts to get differentiated after a while.

It seems that you are determined to win the argument about "greatness" -- whatever it takes. But this is an argument you can never win -- no matter how many rabbits you pull out of the hat -- because what are really saying is "I am not crazy about his music so he cannot have been great", which is silly, of course. We all have our preferences but most of us will leave it at that.

As I pointed out earlier, which you have not replied to, is that while it is true that greatness is in the eye of the public, it is also true that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. It is like beauty. Saying that a work of art is not beautiful backs you into a corner because there are inevitably those who will disagree with you. Ergo, you cannot win the argument.

Now -- after two failed attempts -- you have a third argument to bolster your feelings that Brubeck was not great -- since your assertion that he did not play in clubs -- but he did -- and since your assertion that the critics did not like him -- but many did -- have fallen a bit flat. I note that you have not responded after I clearly showed that your first two assertions were false.

Your third and most recent assertion is that no one followed Brubeck so he cannot have been great. Your argument is specious. There have been many great artists and many geniuses in all walks of life throughout history who were never followed. In the world of music, my question to you is "Who followed Art Tatum?" No one that I know of. Certainly not Oscar Peterson who quit playing piano for a number of months after he first heard Art Tatum play, so overwhelmed was he by what he had heard.

Art Tatum and Dave Brubeck were originals. They both broke the mold. No one could follow them without being derivative. In that sense, if one wished to be negative about this, all followers could be branded as unoriginal, imitators and mere copyists -- which would be an equally specious assertion.

Rok2id,
I was using the word argument in the sense of a point that is being made -- not in the sense of being argumentative. No offense intended.

Rok2id,
In my books Brubeck was a jazz great and a jazz giant. It all comes down to preferences and taste -- like food and women. What is delicious for one may not be for another.

Charles1dad,
You stated, "What I don`t understand Sabai is your response to Rok2id, you seem very determined to make him hold Brubeck to your level of esteem."

Not at all. He does not like Brubeck. No problem. But to lay down criteria for "greatness" or for being a "jazz giant" -- all the while moving the goal posts -- is another matter. He is determined to relegate Brubeck to a lesser level. I happen to disagree.