Jazz for aficionados

Great article- ghosthouse
WM is a world-class Jazz musician.
Happy Listening!

In case anyone is interested or curious.. First, the Bolling/Rampal Suite is not jazz and when listening one should not have that expectation. It is intended as a fusion of Classical and Jazz styles. It is “jazz like” in many places of the score and not intended to be more than that. If the listener doesn’t like Classical, Baroque music in particular, chances are he won’t like it. The flavor of its “jazz” is not unlike the way that Michel Legrand plays “jazz”. Kind of an “aristocratic” and, dare I say it?, very “white” approach to a jazz feel. In some respects it is at times reminiscent of some of the West Coast jazz (Brubeck in particular) in its use of Classical counterpoint. And remember it is mostly through-composed; little actual improvisation. As Rok would say, it could use a lot more of the blues. However, in many respects it is very charming music with a very joyous feeling and some wonderful virtuosic playing. Jean Pierre Rampal was one of the greatest Classical flutists ever. So, take your Jazz hat off when (if) listening. Not necessarily an endorsement, and you may find some things to like:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZTGaJ4nkeY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S7repRpobFA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMoLAqWSuE

Thanks Ghosthose for the introduction to the Alboran Trio. I agree the bass player is a big part of their signature. Currently listening to Meltemi.

Cool, acman3. You are welcome, of course. If you read the All About Jazz review, EST was mentioned so hopefully Alboran Trio will work for you as well. Yeah, I could hear how prominently the bass figured...both in terms of composition/performance as well as how he’s mic’d. The AAJ write up called it out so knew it wasn’t just imagination.

BTW - Here’s more "jazz from Italy". Over 50 years old but and still fascinating to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJq3j4rA0o0

Herbie Hancock’s solo in Autumn Leaves (it starts around 8:45) is amazing. Geez what a talent.

For how old this is, the sound is remarkably good.  

My favorite band in all of jazz.  That quintet was magic.  Great clip.  Tony Williams was 19 years old!

Forget anything else said or written about Miles, the fact remains he sure knew how to gather talent around himself. I stumbled onto that 1964 footage after watching a short one where Ron Carter describes how he got recruited by Miles. What a charmer RC seems. "Well!...."

watch it here (very short)....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzHDKtTI1rw

Celebrating "Oscar Pettiford" today. While Mingus is one of my "go to" musicians, for all of his many incredible compositions, when just singling out the bass, Oscar Pettiford is my favorite.

Unfortunately, you won't find as many Oscar Pettiford records as Mingus, but I savor what I have. There is nothing "objective" about my choice; Frogman, the professional musician would be the one to make an "objective" comparison in regard to the two bassists.


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5EwGijmqKc


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6u8j1jnJso


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut6LinT-DJI


While Mingus resonates with me, Oscar Pettiford resonates deeper.



Born September 30, 1922 Okmulgee, Oklahoma, United States Died September 8, 1960 (aged 37)
Copenhagen, Denmark Genre Jazz, bebop, third stream, Instruments Double bass, cello.
Years active 1942–1960 Labels Debut, Bethlehem, ABC Records

Associated acts Thelonious Monk, Coleman Hawkins, Charlie Barnet, Earl Hines, Ben Webster, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Milt Jackson, Sonny Rollins, Art Tatum, Johnny Hodges, and Kenny Dorham. He was one of the earliest musicians to work in the bebop idiom.


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


Blue Brothers Oscar Pettiford


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7gKcfKdeQ4


Tricotism; Lucky Thompson, OP, and Skeeter Best.



   

frog, your comment suggests I share a little personal musical history - "If the listener doesn’t like Classical, Baroque music in particular, chances are he won’t like it."

As mentioned previously, I grew up in a house with a fair bit of recorded music.  Dad played records of jazz from the '30s and '40s while mom listened to pop singers of the day, mixed with only a little light-classical.  My own interests in music began with rock and roll (Bill Haley, Little Richard, Elvis), then folk, then jazz, but I had practically no exposure to classical music.

Early on in college I happened to hear some of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos and was fascinated by it.  To me the polyrhythms were similar enough to some jazz lines to make a connection, as well as the "call and response" element.  So I began listening to other music by Bach, and that lead to other Baroque composers such as Vivaldi, Telemann, etc.  Eventually that lead me to Beethoven, Mozart, and many others.

My point in sharing this is to suggest there can be a tie between jazz and classical, as well as my own wonderment that my appreciation for classical evolved from jazz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSRIDtwsfM

All this contributed to my appreciation for a wide variety of music, even some opera and country western which I once discounted totally.  Today I can find something to enjoy in just about every genre, the exceptions being rap, hip-hop, and heavy metal. ;^)

A little more on the jazz/classical mix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wo_5D-Bg44

But I believe I read somewhere that Gunther Schuller, credited with originating the term "third stream", intended it to represent a stand-alone musical category.  He felt the use of third stream jazz was a misnomer. 

rok, I have that album among my somewhat large Monk library and play it fairly often.  I always thought Overton did a great job transcribing Monk's music for the larger group.
I knew the recording time on a single LP would not likely include the full concert, so I always wondered if it had all been recorded and if so, were the remaining numbers available elsewhere?  So looking for more along the right side of your first link I see one for (Full Concert) with a time of 1:05:30 which got my hopes up.  But going to that link I found it contained several screw ups, i.e. not really all from the concert -

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

So if anyone has a lead on more from Town Hall please post.

Also, interesting about Art Monk.  Never heard about that before. 

rok, you may have later seen this, but in case not -

In 1961, Schuller defined Third Stream as "a new genre of music located about halfway between jazz and classical music".  Schuller insisted that "by definition there is no such thing as 'Third Stream Jazz'"

Good point, but Gershwin’s music is missing one of the key ingredients in Third Stream, improvisation; according to Schuller’s definition. As you often point out just because there is improvisation does not make it jazz; probably one of the reasons that, as pryso points out, Schuller did not want to refer to Third Stream as TS Jazz. Conversely, just because it has elements of Classical and Jazz (Gershwin) does not make it TS. Personally, while I think that Schuller’s reasons for giving this fusion of two musics a new title was well intended I think it points to how the preoccupation with titles and with locking music into rigid genre designations can simply confuse matters; and I suspect it was greatly a reaction to purists’ objections to the perceived “contamination” of one genre with elements of the other. Using Schuller’s own definition Ellington’s large scale orchestral works, for example, would qualify for TS designation much more than Gershwin’s.

pryso makes some really interesting comments that touch on some of this with his account of how he learned to appreciate Classical by recognizing its “ties” to Jazz. Excellent observation since I think that sometimes a listener’s reaction to music is a kind of knee jerk reaction to the genre based on a preconceived notion of what the genre is supposed to be. I think that if there were a shift, or at least an openness, to focusing more on the common ground in all music and it’s performance that musical tastes would broaden. Then the focus can be on the quality of the performance or how well the composer exploits the things that “tie” the different genres and which may be familiar to the listener from experience with a favorite genre. Is a rhythmic groove by Miles’ rhythm section “better” than a great orchestra playing Bach? Does the presence of strings on a recording like Bird With Strings diminish the greatness of some of Bird’s very best perfomances on record? Take the exact same string arrangements, but have a Hammond B3 play them instead. Does the music all of a sudden become more “jazz”?

Anyway, great posts all.

Some fairly recent TS from the great clarinet virtuoso Eddie Daniels.  The album is “Breakthrough” and I’m almost shocked that there is only this cut from it on the Tube:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxCm9G54ZQ

Well frog, is this famous Miles' number classical or jazz or Third Stream?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvcU_v8ruGE

Curious minds want to know. ;^)

And yes, I'd heard of Eddie Daniels, possibly even heard one of his recordings on my local FM jazz station.  But I couldn't say I was familiar.  I rather liked that though.

Anybody remember this? I have it somewhere. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbvOw-5-Sr0

acman3, that was totally new to me.  That is interesting since I've commented a couple of times on connections I found between Baroque/Bach and jazz.

Now to clarify my position since I commented on likes and dislikes by identifying musical categories.  In fact, I basically agree with frogman and Duke Ellington, "There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind."

Well, pryso, I would have bet my “six eye” copy of that great record that it would be the one in the link even before clicking on it 😉.  I think that record makes my point about how genre designation can create a lot of confusion; and, for me, ultimately a pointless exercise.  That record is as good an example of what most people would call Third Stream as any...most people.  How about some more confusion?

There is something that is left out of most definitions of “Third Stream” that is, for me, what makes me say “Third Stream!”; and is the thing that, if forced, would make me say that the record is a jazz record...more than anything else.  I am talking about the ATTITUDE of the music and the playing.  To my ears many “Third Stream” compositions, in an attempt to straddle the line between Jazz and Classical, end up sounding somewhat self-consciously deliberate and stiff and without the looseness and relaxed attitude of good jazz.  To my ears this record has very much a jazz attitude.  Whatever anyone chooses to call it, it is great music.

Couldn’t agree more and I remember a recent post by Schubert, deleted for some reason shortly after posting, that made the same observation.  Great clip, thanks!

(“Fisk” U!  Hah!)

rok, you're on a run.  For my taste at least. ;^)

While I listened to a lot of folk music in high school, it was not until 20-30 years ago that I learned how much I enjoyed bluegrass/string band music.  Your "Bluegrass Breakdown" sure had some hot pickin'.  And the "Rhythm, Country, & Blues" was a great video introduced on PBS some time ago, after which I bought the CD.  No argument with any of your choices.

Considering similarities between jazz and bluegrass, the latter does include a fair bit of improvisation.  True there are favored runs or riffs that are inserted, but to my untrained ear, those are done spontaneously.  In addition, compare the rhythm guitar backup with Grant Green or other jazz band accompanists.  Then too, even the banjo was common in jazz groups up to WW 2.  Look at Louis Armstrong's Hot Five and Hot Seven.

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

I don't mean to break up the current party; although I don't agree with most of what's been said in regard to various genres and jazz, I'm just one person with one opinion.

Making good jazz music is never easy; the practitioner must spend years mastering his instrument, the same as a concert pianist; but the biggest difference is that jazz comes from within, maybe that's why the concert pianist can never make good jazz.

The concert pianist has all this written music (external), while the jazz pianist has it all internal, and he has worked hard for years to be able to express what he feels.

An example of this is "Bobby Timmons"; no one can express so much with so few notes. While I have noted many references to outstanding musicians, and I can't disagree with that, the complexity of the music might indicate the mastery of the instrument, but we're talking about "jazz"; somehow this music has to reach people on a deeper level, it has to "resonate" some profound innermost feelings; those are the feeling the jazz musician has sought to express in a meaningful way for his entire life. When he is successful, there is resonance, and we are in harmony with his music.

Music is a very personal thing for each individual; for me, I no longer listen with an attempt to evaluate the music, I simply turn the music on, and if it finds me, (achieves resonance and harmony) the music is a keeper, if not, on to the next thing.

Sorry folks, I relied on my memory which failed me again.  I intended to reference Freddie Green as Basie's rhythm guitarist, not Grant Green.  Just a steady foundation to each tune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVwB7_CS6rk

frog, I have that Richard Greene album in my collection but haven't played it in years, so I'd forgotten about it.  Do you see a thread here? ;^)

Bingo!!!

You are exactly right. “Method” and “building blocks”; and in most cases a strict framework within which the player has to work. A strict and predetermined framework of form and harmony and, if the improvisation is to be good, respect for the melody of the tune in that improvisation.

Moreover, to suggest that because a concert pianist has the music written out that the music that he creates comes from a place that is “external”, not “internal” or not from the heart and that it doesn’t reach people on as deep a level as jazz is simply mistaken. This is not a matter of opinion; it may be so for a particular listener, but that is a statement about the listener and his tastes and not about the music. I would suggest to anyone who would dispute this to take a sheet of music (a Beethoven piano sonata would do just fine) and look at it long and hard. What do you hear? Anything? ...... I didn’t think so.

“Building blocks”. I like it; but doesn’t “nuts and bolts” have more charm? 😉

Another very good Bill Frisell recording for us to enjoy.

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

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

And for Frogman!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLTY214-gI4

Rok, you and Frogman are making interesting conversation, but you both are totally wrong.

Do you recall an interview with Herby Hancock, where he stated how he goofed (played wrong chord or notes) and Miles came right behind him and made it all perfect; Miles thought that was what Herby intended to play. Improvisation is spontaneous, there is nothing predetermined about it.

Evidently, what you and Frogman can not comprehend, you must find other reasons for it's existence; I have seen jazz musicians perform impossible feats night after night; they're jazz musicians, that's what they do.

No matter how many people the concert pianist reached, the music was right in front of him and it may have been hundreds of years old; "external", outside of one's body; "internal", from the soul, that inner spirit that makes us alive, and different from every other human being on the planet; that's where the jazz musician is coming from.

In regard to reaching people, I'm sure the concert pianist reaches his desired audience. I may not hear anything when I look at a Beethoven piano sonata, but a concert pianist most certainly would when he looked at it; but did he create it?

Building blocks, nuts and bolts; I assume you are referring to the stuff that makes music; if so, all musicians use the same nuts and bolts, they just arrange them differently.

Bill Frizell, Thomas Morgan, "Subconscious Lee"; the music reached me, I didn't have to make any effort. I checked and was surprised it was done in 2016.


Subconscious-Lee is a jazz album by Lee Konitz although a few tracks were issued on 78rpm under Lennie Tristano's name. It was recorded in 1949 and 1950, and released on the Prestige label.

Now everything makes perfect sense; ever heard of "Jack Kerouac"? I don't know where Lee Konitz got his inspiration from, but it sounds awfully "Beat" to me, can you dig it?

Listing artists, not particular discs:

Carla Bley
Gary Burton 
Stan Getz
Charlie Haden
Jim Hall
Modern Jazz Quartet
Thelonius Monk 
Gerry Mulligan 

Improvisation -- for me that can be expressed several ways.

The classical pianist may read the notes on the score for a Beethoven sonata and play every one of them without error.  Still, their rendition will not likely sound like another pianist.  They may vary the tempo, either overall or by intervals.  They may insert pauses or hold sustain.  They may play some passages (or notes) louder or softer.  They are following the score (at least the notes) but they are performing with their personal emotion and thus interpretation.  Are they not improvising for self expression?

Similarly a jazz pianist will play notes familiar enough that the song is recognizable, at least for the opening and ending bars.  But they may also take the same personal interpretation steps with those segments, while adding more spontaneous intervals of some length through the middle.  And unless it is "free jazz", those spontaneous intervals will follow certain "rules", the strict and predetermined framework of form and harmony frogman referenced.  Otherwise the other musicians in the group could not follow them, nor could the audience.  Still, there is great freedom within that framework, and the best musicians create something new and exciting with each playing.  That is their improvisation.

And this is why I find some connection with bluegrass.  The lead musicians are following a somewhat similar format as the jazz artists.  The main difference may be their frameworks are more limited or restrictive.  The still improvise, just not to the wide extent or with as many variations as jazz musicians.

More than speaking English, Previn and Peterson conversed easily because they spoke a similar musical language.  So it flowed, had cohesion and energy, and was entertaining.  Jazz artists communicate the same way musically.  One does not know exactly what the other will play (say) next, but if it follows the predetermined framework then they can respond in a way that makes sense and hopefully builds upon that.  I think it was simply Miles' talent that allowed him to carry on following Hancock who'd broken the rules of that framework, so that was a testimony to him.  Not every good musician could have done that.

At least as a non-musician that's how I see it. 

It's not the note you play that is the wrong note, It's the note afterwards that makes it right or wrong. 

Miles

That quote was right on time Acman.

While I'm not a musician, I can tell you what I've witnessed; big time jazz musicians came to St. Louis, some time alone, and collected what was called a "pick up band". How they selected these musicians, maybe Frogman knows, I don't; but what I have seen is the fact that they gathered as short a time as 1 hour before the performance, and discussed what was supposed to go down.

When show time came, they performed like they had been playing together forever; nothing but spontaneous "hard bop"; improvisation all night long. While the lead man carried the bulk of the load, each sideman had to carry his share as well. Every night, the crowd, one that was geared specifically to improvisational "hard bop" was mesmerized.

What I have described is akin to what Miles talks about that went on at "Mintons" in his autobiography. I said "akin" because this wasn't a jam session, they were supporting the lead man, and his music in a fashion that good sidemen are capable of.

The guys you were talking about knew the same, probably Blues based cords. Thats why you here them say something like blues in C and count off the rhythm. They may not know the song, but they can play with each other. Remember Bird getting laughed off stage before "Woodshedding", and coming back the best player.

I remember Lightnin Hopkins had trouble playing with others because he played music the way he taught himself, so a lack of universal language.


Just a small part of the basics you need to "hear" before you can improvise, over chords change. Some are gifted in different areas of course, so some areas are easier than others.



http://www.dummies.com/art-center/music/music-composition-for-dummies-cheat-sheet/

Thats what I'm talking about!

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

O-10, as I have said many times previously I admire that you put jazz musicians on such a high pedestal; and deservedly so. Jazz obviously reaches you on a very deep and personal level and that’s a beautiful thing. But the achievement of jazz musicians in the area of expression or ability to reach the soul of the listener is no greater than that of a great Classical musician and I don’t understand the need to knock one down in order to build up the other; at least that’s how it seems.

Excellent comments by rok, pryso and acman3; and very accurate. Some further thoughts and sorry for the long post; but if you’re going to tell me that I am “totally wrong”.....😎...all in good fun.

The often referenced account of Miles “fixing” Herbie’s “mistake” is interesting, but as with many things “Miles” it has been somewhat overblown because, while it certainly is not an “easy” thing to do, it really is the kind of thing that all musicians do all the time to varying degrees and in different ways. Herbie played a “wrong” note in a chord; wrong as defined by being a deviation from the “strict and predetermined framework of harmony” that comprised whatever tune they happened to be playing. Miles heard that wrong note (as most good musicians would) and incorporated that note in his improvised solo. That is exactly what Rok described, and he also pointed out they were not “starting from zero and making something up”; it simply doesn’t work that way. In this case it was an astute musical reaction/interaction by Miles in the realm of the harmony of the tune. Fundametally, this is really no more impressive than what a concert pianist has to do in the realm of rhythm during a performance of, say, a piano concerto with orchestra by having to react and “adjust” to varying tempo changes, very subtle or large, by the players in the orchestra; or even having to react and adjust to a mistake by a player or conductor while still making it all sound seamless. Yes, those mistakes do happen. Unless we are talking about “free jazz”, a jazz musician has to memorize the harmonic progression of a tune, know the form of the tune and understand harmony in a very deep way that allows him to compose a solo that makes sense; and that, like most what we are touching on here, is just scratching the surface. Acman3’s description re your experience with watching those bebop players just show up a play together is very good and, as concerns this topic, analogous to, say, an “All Star” baseball game. They may have never played together before, but they speak the same language; a “language” that had to be learned. The musicians had all learned the frameworks of the various tunes.

O-10, there has to be a willingness to understand some basics about the music making process for any of this to make sense. Most of these basics are what pryso correctly referred to as the “tie” between jazz and Classical (and any genre, really). My observation is that you have an aversion to understanding any of these basics because (I think) you feel that somehow going to that place detracts from the emotional part of the experience and somehow shortens the pedestal that you put jazz musicians on. All I can say is that it doesn’t. As always, no problem if you’re not interested in going there; we all approach listening to music differently and have different emotional agendas for its place in our lives.

Speaking of Herbie and Rok’s recent mention of Gershwin. While I always hesitate to speak about my personal professional experiences perhaps this may help, in a roundabout way, illustrate some of what we are talking about re jazz vs classical musicians and the fact that while they are different disciplines in some ways they share a lot of common ground as far as fundamental musical values are concerned. Both disciplines come from the same place as concerns emotion which seems to be the point of contention.

Over the last few years it has become very “in vogue” in the Classical concert scene for jazz pianists to appear as soloists playing Gershwin’s “Rhapsody In Blue” for piano and orchestra; one of the most popular works in orchestral music. Also related to Rok’s earlier comment about Gershwin and Third Stream is that while the piece, as composed and as traditionally performed, has no improvisation, this new “approach” to Rhapsody is for the jazz piano soloist to improvise during some of the extended solo sections that do not include the orchestra. I have had the privilege of being part of performances of this piece with various orchestras with four well known jazz pianists, Herbie, Makoto Ozone, Marcus Roberts and Chick Corea. No name dropping intended and I was a just a humble player in the orchestra. Now, it is generally acknowledged by musicians and critics (for whatever that may be worth) that with very few and rare exceptions these “experiments” with Rhapsody fall flat and dismally at that. Why? Two main reasons. One could point to the fact that, inevitably, the soloist strays too far away from the style of the music as intended by the composer (Gershwin) and the piece loses coherence. Interestingly, it was Marcus Roberts who did the best job of improvising within the style of Gershwin. However, that wasn’t the most glaring problem with the performances and what is usually cited; and here is the punchline of where I am going with all this. All four are great piano players (duh!). They all played all the correct notes as written on the page and played them with great technical skill. But, and this is a big but, compared to what a great Classical soloist can do with the written parts of that work the jazz payers all sounded somewhat stiff, hesitant to a degree, and emotionally flat. Great jazz players falling short in the very area that is being suggested is the purview of jazz players. Obviously no disrespect intended toward these amazing players; only meant to point out that a classical pianist who understands that language on a higher level than a jazz musician and who perfected that particular discipline can do a better job of doing justice to the music and touching the listener on an emotional level.  Just as a good jazz player can do a better job with a jazz tune than a classical musician can.

The Cooker is an album by the jazz trumpeter Lee Morgan, released on the Blue Note label in 1958 as BLP 1578. It was recorded on September 29, 1957, and features a quintet with Morgan, Pepper Adams, Bobby Timmons, Paul Chambers and Philly Joe Jones.

This is the first album to feature his own compositions, and the first without any compositions by Benny Golson.

Some people say this is the best "Night In Tunisia" ever; who am I to argue, for sure it's a contender for the best "Hard Bop" ever. Talking about an "All Star" cast, here it is; I could listen to this every other day and point out something new.


        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cooker


This is sweet sweet music to my ears.

Frogman, you sometime mix apples and oranges and I don't know what you call the finished product. That's what you're doing when you mix classical and jazz.


""Obviously no disrespect intended toward these amazing players; only meant to point out that a classical pianist who understands that language on a higher level than a jazz musician and who perfected that particular discipline can generally do a better of doing justice to the music and touching the listener on an emotional level; just as a jazz player can generally do a better job with a jazz tune than a classical musician can.""


This is what you stated, and it sounds like gospel truth to me. Classical pianists are accustomed to playing written music, and for jazz musicians, when the music is written, that's just the ball park they are supposed to play in.


" But the achievement of jazz musicians in the area of expression or ability to reach the soul of the listener is no greater than that of a great Classical musician and I don’t understand the need to knock one down in order to build up the other; at least that’s how it seems."


I absolutely can not comprehend that; but here again we're speaking of apples and oranges; when some guy played the same identical "Bach Concerto" as another guy the night before, and someone else the night before that, I don't see any latitude for improvisation; and in all cases the music is precisely written down, and must be precisely executed as noted.


I have seen jazz musicians come into a room with no "formal" education in music, but acquired his ability to play his instrument through a lifetime of desire and dedication, and set the crowd on fire.

Now when ever I mention a lack of formal education, you interpret that as though it somehow makes that musician superior to one who has formal training, but it's just a matter of fact nothing more; I'm sure musicians who lacked formal education would have gone to a conservatory if they could have.

I absolutely put this musician on a pedestal higher than the classical musician who went to "Juilliard". The improvising jazz musician begins his night with nothing but his instrument, and an audience who is going to give him the thumbs down if he doesn't produce big time. This musician has to come up with original "hard bop" that's going to be spontaneous and improvisational for the whole night to please his always tough audience.

The classical musician comes into the concert hall to play something he's played many times before, to an audience that knows exactly what to expect; how can he fail?

"Wikipedia"

Theodore "Fats" Navarro (September 24, 1923 – July 6, 1950[1]) was an American jazz trumpet player. He was a pioneer of the bebop style of jazz improvisation in the 1940s. He had a strong stylistic influence on many other players, most notably Clifford Brown.


  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT9Zb9ykj68


Here he sounds a lot like "Clifford Brown", or if properly stated, Clifford Brown sounds like him.

Ok, O-10, I get it now and it seems to be quite simple: every musician, no matter the genre, that I have ever had any type of contact with or read opinions by and posters here are wrong about this and you are correct.  

o10, I hope you don’t read this as my joining frogman and "piling on". As you’ve noted more than once, you and I share many musical tastes and appreciations.

For all that, I think you look at classical performances in too much of a constricted view. If you really believe "when some guy played the same identical "Bach Concerto" as another guy the night before, and someone else the night before that, I don’t see any latitude for improvisation", then I suggest you read, or re-read, my post at 10:46 PM yesterday. Even as a non-musician I easily hear different interpretations by different musicians of the same written score, be that for soloists or entire ensembles. How else would classical conductors or orchestras develop such individual reputations? There can be and are improvisations in both genres.

Yes jazz and classical are very different, but those apples and oranges can all become "juice" for those open to the tasting.