You got to show me something more!

Sugarbrie, you exagerate a mite. Worst still you miss one of the most important aspects of the history of this incredibly rich music. The state of civil rights had everything to do with much of what spawned this great tradition.

Coltrane, yes I do get it thank you. But your attitude towards this subject (jazz) and music in general, I am afraid is at best misguided and at worst militant and angry. You may disagree all you want but your comments speak for themselves. Your enthusiasm for jazz is obvious and laudable, your arrogance is not. "Jazz players don't imitate anyone" This is part of the mindset that over-romanticizes the creative process in jazz. Now, the greats are obviously inspired musicians but let's not forget (and they themselves are quick to point out)the countless hours that were spent in the practice room "working their shit out" and yes copying or drawing from the players that they emulated. The real Coltrane himself candidly spoke of his own influences Dexter Gordon,Lester Young. Have you ever heard the famous Clifford Browm practice tapes? "Any decent jazz pianist can play circles around a trained classical player" Give me a break. You can't possibly believe this. If you do, you obviously haven't listened to the great classical pianists. If you have and still feel that way, I'm afraid you have let your agenda cloud your senses. Perhaps you didn't mean to but the truth is you have come on too strong about all this. No one music is "better" than another. The best art is always a reflection of society, and a difficult social climate spawns very emotionally rich music. I wonder what much of todays music is saying about our society? That's a seperate thread. Again, your obvious fervor is admirable; but I am somewhat cofused by some obvious contradictions. I don't know how to say it in an inoffencive way so I will try it like this: I can think of few things that musicians hold in more disregard than the use of a giant's name in vain. Calling oneself Coltrane is, if you really understand Jazz and the mindset of it's practitioners a drag to say the least. I will end by quoting Doug Ramsey in notes for "The Complete Paul Desmond RCA Victor Recordings": "Now that the dust has settled from the last century's silly arguments about worth based on sales, sociology and categories rather than on musical value, there is general agreement in the jazz community (that Paul Desmond was one of the major soloists of his time).Listeners- real listeners undistracted by intamural nonesense-knew it all along.

...intramural nonesense...along"

I sense a softening in your attitude Coltrane1. You will find that you yourself might learn something from the contributors to this site. You are correct it is "about thought, and the sharing of ideas". The hardest thing is balancing one's convictions with some objectivity and an open mind. We are not all created equal as far as our hearing acuity nor our openness to music that is challenging or emotionally demanding. But most can learn and learn to appreciate the more subtle aspects of any form of music. Pick up any recording of Marriner cunducting Bach with The Academy of Saint Martin In The Fields. If that doesn't swing, I don't know what does. There has been no presumption, assumption nor misquotation in response to your comments. Just go back and reread your own posts with a bit more objectivity and you'll see what I mean. It's OK man, we all sometimes let our exuberance get in the way a bit. I'm reminded of when I was in conservatory and it was hip to put down the "classical cats" for not being able to swing and the classical cats stereotypically assumed that the "jazz cats" wouldn't be able to play in tune nor with finness. Not! Any really good musician knows that the dividing line is not nearly as wide as often thought. Take the edge off of your exuberance and you might make a good contributor to this arena.

Hey Softy, there's a great story popular among my professional colleagues that goes like this; and it is absolutely verifiably true: Gerry Mulligan is on a plane on his way back to N.Y. and meets Zubin Mehta (then conductor of the N.Y. Philharmonic). They're chit-chatting and before you know it the maestro invites Mulligan to play the soprano saxophone solo in "Bolero" (by Ravel) in an upcoming series at Lincoln Center. Bolero is a very deceptively difficult solo to play well. During rehearsals it was one mishap after another, when came time for the soprano sax to play. Late entrances, inaccurate rhythms, very sharp high register...On the first performance, Mulligan played the entire second half of the solo one beat behind where he should have been. The second night he started the solo in the wrong octave (one too low) and the tenor saxophonist was about to finish the solo for him as he was about to run out of notes, when he suddenly jumped to the correct octave to finish the solo. The last performance whent fairly well and at the end the piece as the orchestra was taking it's customery bow, Mulligan turns to the tenor saxophonist and says: "We played the shit out of it, didn't we?"

Many of the best instrumentalists (and singers for that matter) wether they are "classical" players or jazz players study(ied) with the same teachers for developing a solid foundation of technical mastery of their instrument. For wind players, one of the "gurus" was always Joe Allard who was a Juilliard, NBC/Toscanini based "classical" player who was revered by many prominent jazz players. From that standpoint, the approach is always the same no matter what direction a player will eventually take. Technical mastery of one's instrument is necessary no matter what. The player who pursues one avenue or another at some point finds that the emphasis must be placed on certain specific aspects of playing more so than others. As Coltrane1 points out, the jazz player must immerse his/herself in jazz theory; but to no greater degree than a classical player might have to study say, Baroque ornamentation. Entire treatises have been written on the subject as well as many other techniques that a "classical" player must be immersed in to convincinly play certain styles. Incidentally, the idea that a "classical" player has to simply be true to the score is a gross oversimplification. Much great music is at least in part about subtlety, and the extent to which a great classical artist has room for interpretation and bringing his/her own vision of the work to the performance is usually not understood. The point is simply that not only is no one music "better" than another; neither music (jazz nor classical) places more demands overall on the player than the other. This is the point that I think you continue to miss Coltrane1. Your comments suggest a higher plateau of demands on players for jazz. Not so. The reason I continue to come back to this is out of respect for the great enthusiasm that you show towards jazz. At some point in their evolution as players, musicians time and time again point to one of their most important milestones (no pun intended, if you know what I mean): Embracing all worthy music as fully equal in worth and worthy of their respect without condescension nor sense of superiority. Good luck with your playing and growth as a musician. Check out: Murray Perahia, "The Aldeburgh Recital". Sublime piano playing, as introspective as anything I have heard of Bill Evans' including the times I heard him live at The Vanguard. Are you hip to the piano music of Scriabin, Messiaen?