What have you learned from being on this forum?

[wesbed]

From this and other boards or discussion groups I've learned thousands of "jazz fans" are limited by narrow style restrictions and by what has been issued on cd.

I don't understand people discussing the details of Lee Morgan records without knowing their Keppard, Armstrong, Smith(s), Eldridge, Gillespie, Cherry, Bowie, etc- let alone other musics.

I'm self-limited to the jazz that has been issued on CD. I'm even more self-limited to jazz that has been remastered AND issued on CD. There is too much jazz to purchase, too much jazz that I would like. I can't buy ALL of it so I've limited myself to buying only those titles which have been remastered and issued on CD.

On my own, as time, money, interest, and enthusiasm permit, I'm s-l-o-w-l-y discovering, learning about, enjoying, and appreciating all kinds of jazz. More jazz than I'd have ever though I'd like. During this year of 2004, I've 'discovered' Cotrane's Ascension (and enjoyed the hell out of it), Louis Armstrong's Hot Five and Seven Recordings (and enjoyed the hell out of them), Art Pepper's dancing-out-in-front-of-the-group saxophone (and enjoyed the hell out of it), the jazz music of New Orleans (the screaming clarinet of New Orleans jazz -- whoohooo!), the electric period of Miles Davis, and on and on. My jazz interest has taken me on a trip that I'd never have guessed I'd embark on. My appreciation of, interest in, and knowledge of jazz continues to bloom, as time, interest, and enthusiasm permit.

I agree with Chuck, that to better-appreciate the music of Lee Morgan, it's good, if one has the interest, to know what came before. I hope I have the time and money to discover and appreciate ALL of it before I have to call it quits.

Every lover of art must make his/her own adventure of it. To take whatever time & space is required to learn, appreciate, and enjoy. I suppose those who have the interest and desire will find the hidden and lesser known parts of the history of jazz (I hope to be one). However, said person must find the gems on their own and in their own time. The person can't be 'forced' or 'dragged into' an appreciation (as much as I wish it were possible to do so).

Edited June 7, 2004 by wesbed

[GregK]

I fully understand where Chuck is coming from. I, too, have been surprised to find how many jazz enthusiasts limit their listening to a very narrow time slice. When I became interested in jazz, in the mid to late 1940s, swing was still predominant and bop was coming in (this was post-war Europe, so we were catching up), but it seemed natural to take it all in. When the music took new turns, it seemed just as natural to explore those paths. And, BTW, I never understood why so many jazz listeners ignore the blues of people like Bessie Smith, Robert Johnson, Champion Jack Dupree, et al. It all belongs together, IMO, and I can still enjoy most of it with undiminished awe.

I agree with you Chris. I am guilty of listening to a very narrow slice of jazz, but that is more to do with my severely limited time for listening than anything else. If I just didn't have to sleep or work, I just might be able to sneek a few hours away from "family time" to listen to more music. That's one of the reasons I come to this forum when I have a few mintues here and there-to check out new releases, recommendations, etc., hoping for some directions to take my listening to next.

[Jim Alfredson]

Is it hot and humid out or something? Y'all ain't got air conditioning?! What's the bug up everyone's ass?

Chill, folks.

[Christiern]

I fully understand where Chuck is coming from. I, too, have been surprised to find how many jazz enthusiasts limit their listening to a very narrow time slice. When I became interested in jazz, in the mid to late 1940s, swing was still predominant and bop was coming in (this was post-war Europe, so we were catching up), but it seemed natural to take it all in. When the music took new turns, it seemed just as natural to explore those paths. And, BTW, I never understood why so many jazz listeners ignore the blues of people like Bessie Smith, Robert Johnson, Champion Jack Dupree, et al. It all belongs together, IMO, and I can still enjoy most of it with undiminished awe.

I agree with you Chris. I am guilty of listening to a very narrow slice of jazz, but that is more to do with my severely limited time for listening than anything else. If I just didn't have to sleep or work, I just might be able to sneek a few hours away from "family time" to listen to more music. That's one of the reasons I come to this forum when I have a few mintues here and there-to check out new releases, recommendations, etc., hoping for some directions to take my listening to next.

That's good, and understandable, Greg. At least you are not closing your ears to it. I think that even the most broadminded of us have a narrow time slice or two that we favor--my point is that we can enjoy those slices even more if we see the whole pie.

As I said, I came to jazz when there was a lot less to catch up with, so I understand not having time to take it all in. I think a good approach is to read jazz history narratives and make it a point to hear any artist who pops out at you from such texts.

[danasgoodstuff]

I too have (re)learned that I don't know as much as I thought I did, nor am I nearly as good at expressing what I do know as well as I ;thought I could. Most of all, I have (re)learned that partisanship in all its myriad forms is just poison...

[Chuck Nessa]

As I said, I came to jazz when there was a lot less to catch up with, so I understand not having time to take it all in. I think a good approach is to read jazz history narratives and make it a point to hear any artist who pops out at you from such texts.

I came to jazz as an early rock fan - Little Richard, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, etc. My dad gave me an Ellington record and asked to hear it (from my room) once a week. I liked it and went to the nearest music store to find more. That store was Eshbach's in Ames, Iowa. Ellington was in the "jazz" section which contained maybe 60 sides. I started buying them. Within 6 months I bought Miles, Armstrong Hot 5s, Rollins, the Elgart Bros, Johnny Dodds, Four Freshmen, Basie, Monk, Lunceford, and lots of Duke.

All this music was the SAME to me. Recorded in 1924 or yesterday did not make a difference - this stuff interested me and I needed more.

When I went to college I took a music appreciation class led by a wonderful man named Eldon Obrecht. He taught us about Bach, Beethoven, Bartok, Schoenberg, Webern, Carter, etc. He also brought in Gunther Schuller in as a guest lecturer. I worked up the nerve to ask Mr Obrecht if I could have some time to play some records for him. For some reason he agreed and I played a bunch of jazz stuff for him. When I was finished he told me about his "leaves" during WWII when he went to 52nd St to hear Tatum and Hawkins.

Bob Koester, Delmark/Jazz Record Mart, introduced me to blues. I had personal experiences with Sleepy John Estes, Bukka White, Big Joe, Roosevelt Sykes, Little Brother, Otis Rush, Muddy, Otis Spann, Wolf, JB Hutto, Junior Wells, Buddy Guy, etc.

After all this experience, I know there is more great music out there than I can ever absorb and as a result I refuse to knuckle under to the second rate.

I continue searching for more, new, beautiful sounds and pray that I might add to this list, rather than diminish it.

Chris says there was "less to catch up with" when he started but I disagree. Much more (beautiful, important and pleasurable music) in the past exists for all of us and the current time (and the future) is a small step to take.

Music is an endless adventure. Thank God for that.

[Big Al]

I've learned that there will always be more jazz than I could ever hear or afford to hear or have the time to hear.

[Peter Johnson]

Music is an endless adventure. Thank God for that.

Nice sentiment, Chuck. Couldn't agree more; this board is such a testament to your statement.

Where else can you get, in ten minutes:

1) Recommendation for the best recording of the Bartok string quartets;

2) Vehement discussion about what occurred in recordings that were never released (trainwreck);

3) Fervent analysis of the sonic difference between the JRVG, TOCJ, RVG and McM versions of Blue Train; and

4) Wrap it all up by purchasing a copy of All Music from the man who recorded the goddamn thing (I know, I need to send you some $$$ to get this, Chuck).

[Christiern]

Chuck, when I said there was less to catch up with, I meant that in 1947 I only had to go back 24 years to get to the Oliver sides. Today, 24 years only takes you back to 1980, and with the advent of LPs, the volume of recordings went up considerably, so the annual output of old is nothing compared to what it became. Ergo, more to catch up with now than when I got started--right?

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck, when I said there was less to catch up with, I meant that in 1947 I only had to go back 24 years to get to the Oliver sides. Today, 24 years only takes you back to 1980, and with the advent of LPs, the volume of recordings went up considerably, so the annual output of old is nothing compared to what it became. Ergo, more to catch up with now than when I got started--right?

Chris, remember I drug in Bach and stuff - the time frame stretches and recent times seem less significant.

[wesbed]

I think that even the most broadminded of us have a narrow time slice or two that we favor--my point is that we can enjoy those slices even more if we see the whole pie.

This has become so true for me. The more I learn about jazz, the more I like and appreciate it. The more I like and appreciate jazz, the more I learn about it.

[mikeweil]

From this and other boards or discussion groups I've learned thousands of "jazz fans" are limited by narrow style restrictions and by what has been issued on cd.

This is a huge "bummer" for me. I have based my life on the "exploratory nature" of the human animal. This may have been a big mistake.

NOT a mistake - only most people prefer to stay on the safe side.

Staying the same all the time certainly is NOT jazz.

[Jazzmoose]

NOT a mistake - only most people prefer to stay on the safe side.

Staying the same all the time certainly is NOT jazz.

Well, I don't know if it's a preference, or just the easiest path to take. When I first came to jazz, it was the hardbop/Blue Note type stuff, and it was exciting as hell. After a few years, it became more of an "old freind" than new and exciting, but there's nothing wrong with that. I didn't even realize I was in a rut until I made the "mistake" of ordering the Quartet Out discs from Jim Sangrey and had my ears "surgically opened" to fresh approaches again. I'm sure somewhere down the road I'll need shock treatment again...

[JSngry]

I didn't even realize I was in a rut until I made the "mistake" of ordering the Quartet Out discs from Jim Sangrey and had my ears "surgically opened" to fresh approaches again. I'm sure somewhere down the road I'll need shock treatment again...

Think you're ready for some Cap'n Sambeaux?

[mikeweil]

NOT a mistake - only most people prefer to stay on the safe side.

Staying the same all the time certainly is NOT jazz.

Well, I don't know if it's a preference, or just the easiest path to take.

Well if you can always tell the difference, that's real cool ... B)

When I first came to jazz, it was the hardbop/Blue Note type stuff, and it was exciting as hell.  After a few years, it became more of an "old freind" than new and exciting, but there's nothing wrong with that.  I didn't even realize I was in a rut until I made the "mistake" of ordering the Quartet Out discs from Jim Sangrey and had my ears "surgically opened" to fresh approaches again.  I'm sure somewhere down the road I'll need shock treatment again...

Well said - I went through this several times. Grew - well, not tired, but a litle weary of hard bop and other styles for some time.

But I think Chuck is right that there are people who NEVER feel such a shock that takes them to new areas - perhaps not because there are no such opportunities for them, but they simply cannot have that feeling. And if these act like attorneys of "the real jazz", that can be a drag.

Edited June 8, 2004 by mikeweil

[mikeweil]

Perhaps the most important thing I have learned here is to take my time before posting and think about what I say - no matter if it's a guess on a Blindfold Test or a political statement - and to always try and be fair and aware there might be someone who knows better.

[EKE BBB]

I´ve really learned a lot being on this forum. I´ve discovered new artists, new styles, new recordings....

My jazz tastes have been widely broadened.

This board´s the best way to keep you updated on what´s goin´ on in jazz (magazines are always one or two months behind) and it´s a lively and enriching discussion among all kind of people (musicians, producers, critics, collectors, scholars, simple aficionados.... ) about ANY jazz matter you can think of.

I owe you a lot, guys!

[Dan Gould]

NOT a mistake - only most people prefer to stay on the safe side.

Staying the same all the time certainly is NOT jazz.

Well, I don't know if it's a preference, or just the easiest path to take.

Well if you can always tell the difference, that's real cool ... B)

When I first came to jazz, it was the hardbop/Blue Note type stuff, and it was exciting as hell.  After a few years, it became more of an "old freind" than new and exciting, but there's nothing wrong with that.  I didn't even realize I was in a rut until I made the "mistake" of ordering the Quartet Out discs from Jim Sangrey and had my ears "surgically opened" to fresh approaches again.  I'm sure somewhere down the road I'll need shock treatment again...

Well said - I went through this several times. Grew - well, not tired, but a litle weary of hard bop and other styles for some time.

But I think Chuck is right that there are people who NEVER feel such a shock that takes them to new areas - perhaps not because there are no such opportunities for them, but they simply cannot have that feeling. And if these act like attorneys of "the real jazz", that can be a drag.

Let us not forget that it is equally possible that there are passionate jazz fans who find little to enjoy from some subgenres of jazz.

In other words, its not a matter of an inability to be shocked into new areas, or a lack of curiosity about different areas.

They aren't defective, and they ought not to be "drags" to self-righteous fans who feel smugly superior because they're ears happen to encompass a wider variety of styles.

[mikeweil]

I said "if", and when they do, it IS a drag. There are some of these - I didn't say most, or many or whatever. There are people like you described, yes, and I was not talking about them.

Among non-jazz fans, of course, the type I described is found very often.

[mikeweil]

I just noticed I stepped into some kind of trap - there may be as many types of jazz fans and listeners as there are people doing just that - listening to music and enjoying it. Only people professionally inclined listen to music they don't like.

I respect everyone's preferences here - no need to argue about tastes. I did not intend to label anybody, but I know there are some people who really cannot feel such a cathartic shock as jazzmoose described. For whatever reason. I did not say this is defective, it is the way it is.

[Noj]

I do as much "exploring" as my sad little bank account can bear.

[Dan Gould]

I'm sorry, Mike, you got caught in the crossfire I was sending Chuck's way.

I wish that Chuck would learn that jazz fans come in many varieties, and those whose ears don't stretch as far as his do are not inferior to him.

[Joe G]

I didn't even realize I was in a rut until I made the "mistake" of ordering the Quartet Out discs from Jim Sangrey and had my ears "surgically opened" to fresh approaches again.  I'm sure somewhere down the road I'll need shock treatment again...

Think you're ready for some Cap'n Sambeaux?

[Clunky]

I have broadened my listening considerable since visiting this board and others. I share Chuck's enthusiam to hear new things.

Hence I've followed up recommendations here for jazz from Australia and Italy, Chicago etc , discovered Nielsen , Honneger and Walton (expensive thread that one!!), chilled to the Beach Boys and Loretta Lynn, massively expanded my collection of prewar jazz, delved into the "new thing" (aka Funny Rat), picked up on Nessa artists and ...and...and consolidated my understanding of 1950s and 1960s BN type jazz. But I also listened to opera, rock, blues, all manner of classical music prior to my arrival here.

It's difficult not succumbing to second rate stuff though. It's the very nature of being exploratory, you'll come across stuff that doesn't work for you.

[Guest Chaney]

I agree with Chuck... as filtered through Dan: those not listening to all of jazz are scum.

Don't hit me! I love you both!

Anyway, I really can't imagine what type of jazz I'd be listening to without this influence of this and other boards. The Sounds of Blue Note alone? The offshoots of fusion? Would I have tired of what I was listening to and have moved on to other types of music - leaving jazz behind?

I haven't a clue.

I really have to wonder if I'd be where I am today ( ) without the pokes and prods of you men and women and the easy access the Internet offers in finding the music. (What the heck did we do before the Internet? OH! I remember! Browse the usually pathetic selection available at the brick-and-mortars just HOPING to find what we came for - too often disappointed.)