Jazz for aficionados

While perusing the vinyl for new looking records, I discovered one by Herby Hancock that may surprise everyone;


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0OGHVjnu9M

**** ....when we look at jazz, unless we accept the premise that it encompasses more than bebop and hard bop, then there is no need for further discussion. ****

I refuse to acknowledge that comment for reasons that should be quite apparent.


Frogman, there were two Dizzy Gillespie's; one was a sort of musical ambassador who presented what that audience expected; a "bebop" entertainer. There was also another musician who was more serious about "his" music, meaning music he was creating as time went by. I have much more of "Dizzy" than just the beginning, he never quit being serious about creating new music that was linear with modern jazz, but not completely off the track; try this as one example;


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1j4mN7OT0


He reworks this tune in numerous boss ways, the same as "Night In Tunisia" is reworked.


Here he is on the ambassador track doing what he was famous for doing.



          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tRGMHfKrE





Miles went completely out of the bounds of what could be called jazz, but since it was Miles doing it, his new fans called it jazz, but his original fans didn't agree. I can't corroborate this because I talked to some of his original fans who were mentioned in his book. What we laughed and talked about personally, they would not admit publicly, but Miles trolley jumped the jazz track.

We have too many fundamental disagreements in regard to the music to begin a comparison of those two; consequently we'll have to debate something else.


Enjoy the music.


PS I never heard Lee Morgan on "Blue Train" before now, it was all just part of the music, but now Lee Morgan is all I hear.

**** I refuse to acknowledge that comment for reasons that should be quite apparent.****

Not apparent to me, so please explain. So, what are you saying? That jazz does not encompass more than bebop and hard bop? I hope not.

O-10, your clips, as good as they are, make my point perfectly. There is really nothing new in that music beyond what was common in jazz through, I would say, the 50’s. Again, absolutely nothing wrong with that; it is what it is, but it is certainly not breaking any new ground. That reworking of Manteca is nothing new except that it has been arranged for big band in a fairly traditional way.

Are you also suggesting that nothing of what Miles did from the 60’s forward can be definitively called jazz? Again, I hope not. 60’s Miles is much more advanced conceptually than anything Dizzy did. Not jazz? Really? This is not a criticism of Dizzy at all; he stayed in his comfort zone like most musicians, even many of the greats, did. If you do agree that 60’s Miles IS jazz, please post something by Dizzy that shows that kind of harmonic and/or rhythmic sophistication and forward looking attitude.

**** We have too many fundamental disagreements in regard to the music to begin a comparison of those two; consequently we’ll have to debate something else.****

With all due respect, then why do you propose such comparisons to begin with if you are not willing to, at least, give the discussion a shot? 

**** ....when we look at jazz, unless we accept the premise that it encompasses more than bebop and hard bop, then there is no need for further discussion. ****


That statement implies that I'm so narrow minded, I can only accept "bebop" and "hard bop" as jazz. If that was the case, there would be no need for further discussion.

O-10, personally, I don’t see the need to personalize a comment like that. I, and I’m sure strateahed as well, were not implying that you are narrow minded. However, it is relevant to the overall comment that I think he was making and to my recent one. I also think that since you were the person suggesting these comparisons, it’s relevance also has to do with a comment that you have made many times to the effect that your frame of reference is pretty much exclusive to what you consider the beginning of "modern jazz": bebop (Bird) and then hardbop. As always, if any discussion is to have any real meaning then I think we should strive for the most clarity possible; otherwise, there will be a sense that we are always guessing about what the writer is saying. Example:

In your comparison of Dizzy and Miles you seem to be suggesting that the fact that Miles "strayed away" from jazz as it was accepted until then and into his electric projects (non-jazz?) somehow lowers his standing relative to others simply by virtue of that fact. What about his work up until then, relative to what others like Dizzy were doing? Furthermore, Miles was doing stuff in the 60s (what many consider the best band ever in jazz) that was unlike anything Dizzy ever did and was not like his electric stuff at all; stuff generally considered "post-bop". So, what does the fact that he went on to venture into what some may not call jazz have to do with anything relative to Dizzy or anyone else? Personally, I don’t care whether it’s considered jazz by some or not; some of it is interesting music and that’s all that matters. You stated that the "exercise" of the comparison could be interesting. I think it could be...with a little more focus and clarity. Just some potential food for thought. Regards.