I admire Miles Davis, i admire Stravinsky; but i loved Chet Baker and Scriabin...You?

Says you.

mahgister

I concur- Chet Baker was West Coast Cool.
Miles Davis was East Coast Cool. Very competitive back in those days.

Happy Listening!

I only stick with the musicians/vocalists/composers I love. It isn't enough just to admire them.  Music has to do more than just cater to my frontal lobes.  For me, art trumps technique every time.  I got to say, too, that cool & controlled as he might have been, Miles Davis almost never failed to hit my emotional buttons.

edcyn very interesting ....We are all different then we react differently.... I can understand why you love Miles so much, i admire him very much and listen to him often....

My thread is here for each of us to realize at which level the complexities of sound and interpretation of music work on our complex soul/body... And at the same times suggesting a musician to one another out of our normal listening habit perhaps....

And to think about why something that is so much evident for us, the love of someone, appear less evident for someone else....Admiration and liking are not love....

Sometimes love begins in the reflexive part of us and transform the heart....And sometimes the reverse is going.... Neither is bad or better.... It is a learning process that’s all....

As Mahgister points out, “for sure it is different for all of us”. Important to give enough relevance to the simple fact that the distinctions made often say much more about ourselves as music lovers (and possibly in other ways as well) and less about the artists in any absolute sense. Moreover, when making this type of comparison, for me it works best to keep matters in at least some historical context. Music is always a reflection of the time of its creation. So, for me, a better context for making these distinctions is to look at artists/composers from the same (or close) periods in time; particularly as concerns composers, but also performers and whether they, to some degree, honor that consideration.

I wish I could say that I admire Chet Baker. I like some of his work very much; especially early Chet. “...And Strings” is a minor gem, but the orchestrators, especially the great Johnny Mandel deserve a good bit of the credit. However, I have heard little in his trumpet playing that “I love”. There is a very appealing accessibility in his playing that makes it easy to take in, but I need to be challenged a bit more in order to “love” a musician or composer. While I save the word “hate” for bigger things, for me, his singing comes dangerously close. The over riding feeling that I am left with is one of indulgence in melancholy. For me, that feeling of indulgence has always been there in his singing, but also crept into his trumpet playing later in his career when he lost his teeth and was having severe “chops” problems. He then leaned more heavily on the melancholy. Not really that important, and subject to one’s personal definition of “virtuosity”, but a trumpet virtuoso he was not.

On the other hand, I LOVE Miles Davis and I admire him to no end. On emotional grounds, he touches all the right buttons for me. His ballad playing was superb. I cannot think of a more evocative sound than that of a single note from his horn with Harmon mute. The construction of his improvisations, no matter the tempo, was likewise superb; in great part for his inspired use of space, the silences between the actual notes played. There is a saying among Jazz players that says that “you can’t play (improvise) outside the harmony before you know how to play inside the harmony”; otherwise it’s just bs. This is the bane of many of the so called “free Jazz” players. Miles was a master of both approaches. The same idea can be applied to the criteria for a claim to “virtuosity”. Miles was such a virtuoso that when he sounded rough and undisciplined, sloppy even, it was by design and for emotional effect, not because of lack of technical control and finesse; he had those in spades. I also admire him to no end for his unrelenting need to grow and evolve as an artist; the reason he was one of the great innovators in the music.

Just a few more that come to mind before my morning coffee:

I like and admire Giovanni Palestrina, but I absolutely love Carlo Gesualdo and his unbelievably ahead of his time use of harmony and chromaticism. Difficult to “admire” someone with a personal story as twisted as his music (in historical context).

I like and admire Tchaikovsky, but I love Dvorak; and moving slightly forward in time Prokofiev reigns in my book.

I reluctantly admire Wagner (I know, I know), but I adore the other Richard, Strauss; and to a slightly lesser degree, Leos Janacek.

I admire Brad Mehldau, but I adore Herbie Hancock.

I admire Stravinsky, but I love Bartok; and, if in the right mood, Alban Berg.

I admire Aaron Copland, but I love Bernstein.

I admire Jascha Heifetz, but I love Nathan Milstein.

I admire Oscar Peterson, but I love Kenny Barron.

I admire and like Count Basie, but I adore Ellington.

I admire Frank Sinatra, but I love Tony Bennett. There is great joy of singing in Bennett. Sinatra often sounds to me as if he is doing the listener a favor by singing.

I admire Karajan, but I love Kleiber.

I admire Maurizio Pollini, but there is simply something about Murray Perahia that pushes my buttons. Love his playing.

I admire Nina Simone, but I love Dinah Washington.


I could go on, but I need my morning coffee. Interesting thread. Thanks!