JSngry

In the post-William Hung era, he could well be re-catipulted to superstardom!

Oh really? One of the most influential I can see, but there sure seem to be a lot of pianists from the post-60s who were/are more influenced by McCoy and/or Cecil and hardly at all, if any, by Evans. Or don't they count?

Willie Cook John Butcher John Phillip Sousa

Yuron!

Miles Evans Miles Standish Lloyd Sitkoff

Thanks, but everything I had always suspected was merely enforced/confirmed/empowered by the exposure to the thoughts of Anthony Braxton.

Well now, it's not a true "trend" unless people follow it, is it. And the reasons they follow it are as important as the fact that they do. Those reasons are many, and they are varied. These "macro trrends" could have, and did, manifest themselves in any number of ways. The root impulse of Horace Silver could have (and did) come out of the "overall mix" as Red Garland or as Les McCann. In which direction did Miles steer the music? I think you underestimate the skill/art/whatever of exerting power in the cause of providing meaningful direction. Creation (or invention) is only the first step...

Ranger Smith Phil Esposito Wilt Chamberlain

Yeah, I give them points for keeping a modicum of "real" jazz artists on the active roster in what are no doubt "challenging" times for such music. As for the rest of it, hey, they're doing what they think they have to do to remain a Viable Corporate Entity, and they seem to be succeeding. Whether or not their strategy is providing short-term gain to the label's "headroom" at the expense of long-term viability for the music they'd like to be putting out is a question that can only be determined in retrospect. It could go either way.

High Energy has a funk version of "Crisis" that is really cool. To me, the best of the 70s "commercial jazz" by the "old guard" that is so widely reviled today took the basic forms of Hard Bop and simply replaced the underpinnings with something more "of the times". No harm there, imo. Actually, I dig it. The worst of it, however, took the basic content of Hard Bop and simply replaced it with something more "of the times". Yuck. Boo. Etc. Freddie did a bit of both, no?

The recent Glasper side was interesting, but hardly compelling. The same could be said about much of "contemporary jazz" in general. Which may be a big part of the problem...

WHOA!!! Details, please!

Fine. Turn that switch off. I'm all for it. But you'll still be left with a lifetime of damn fine, strong music. And if that's not worthy of respect and love, what is? Perhaps the problem isn't that the serving's too big. Perhaps the problem is that your plate is too small to hold all the food that's available. Or maybe you just need more than one plate. It's a buffet, dude. All you care to eat. Adjust accordingly.

Well, the first part of that is something with which I have no quibble, and the last senetnce goes to personal relevancy of same, so there's no quibble there either. But really - what you say about uniqeness of vision and the "expressing the continual intense energy of the diametrical self-conflict and accompanying melancholy that characterizes life as it exists for those who continually question "Why?"" pertains to pretty much damn near every genius of jazz. That's kinda the essence of the entire thing right there, dig? So, really, unless for some perverse reason you have to have one genius to place above all others, then it's more than good enough to say that Woody Shaw achieved the highest pinnacle of jazz awareness, and that he's in some pretty elite company for having done so, company which includes, yes, Miles. And Bird. And Pres. And Trane. And Newk. And Duke. And so on. Actually, genius is obvious. At least it is for those who have the chops (either intrinsic or developed) to recognize it. Most people don't have these chops because they have been trained, sometimes bluntly, sometimes subtly, to fearfully defer to power of any sort (and the genius of jazz lies in its power of self-definition, which is as big of a threat to the established order as anything imaginable), not to view it as something that they themselves are worthy of partaking in as a functioning ingredient in their own life. It's precisely this dynamic that leads "the powers that be" to keep a eye out for "genius manifestations" and adjust the prism (to use your word) with which these manifestations are viewed to their advantage. Think about it - you bitch because Miles is so well-known, but how is he well known to the masees? Do they have even half a clue as to the depth of his genius and/or the true content of his music? Do they really have an understanding of the stories being told in his music(s?) HELL NO! They view Miles as the "ultimate" in "cool" or "hip" or whatever, without even having half a clue as to what those terms imply, much less what they really mean (if they do in fact mean anything, which I suggest depends on who's doing the defining). Miles' very real real power has been reduced to a convinient decoy (sound familiar?), something that people are encouraged to partake of at face value, the equivalent of a restaurant that's been relentlessly labeled "the best". It very well may be the best (or close to it) of its type, but how many people eat at such a place and really taste the food? It's to the restaurant industry's advantage to have such restaurants, because by having such pre-established benchmarks in place, the tendency of so many people to believe the hype w/o any personal/critical discernment means that they pre-buy the experience/reputation rather than the food itself. And that means that they really don't taste how good the food really is. And that means that they don't leave out of there wondering why every other restaurant's food isn't that good, or at least close to it. And that means that things just roll right on along undisturbed & unchanged. Mediocrity (and profit margins) ultimately goes unchallenged, even though excellence is exhalted. Pretty neat trick, eh? Now, you may want to posit Miles as an equivalent of the above-mentioned "benchmark" restaurant that doesn't exemplify excellence, that exists purely on hype. That would, of course, be your perogative, and from your personal POV, that might indeed be how you see it. But most people who do have the abilty to accurately discern what's what in this music would tell you that you're off-base (although there are a few who would applaud your insight!). Some of us see him as somebody who kept the excellence and took the money, figuring that "the system" was going to be what it was going to be anyway, that somebody was going to get the money anyway, so why the hell shouldn't it be him? Yeah, he was a willing participant in the creation of his own hype, but he never (inarguably pre-retirement, arguably - but not by me - post-retirement) cheapend the value of his product in the process. Whatever... In the end, what's relevant to you, as a thinking person and not a simple reflexive receptor (or reflexive rejector!) of hype is what you'll place the most value on. But it would behoove you to pay attention to what ends you ultimately put the power that comes with that value (and make no mistake - value is power). Use it to expand awareness, true awareness, deep (so deep you can't get under it) awareness, of yourself and those around you, enabling in both you and them the abiltiy to Travel The Spaceways From The Ancient To The Future, and yeah, that's a black thing. Use it to smash one empiricism only to replace it with another, and that's just the same thing only different, which is a white thing. A very white thing.

Role reversal?

No, I saw it. Very informative. Thanks!

Baby Ruth Babe Ruth Ruth Buzzi

Seems to be a Flash-based site, so if you got dial-up or any other slower type connection, I suspect that it would be slow. I'm bummed that they only take Pay-Pal.

Can't wait for Woody's next gig! Seriously, this attitude that there's only room for one "king" is at the very root of the dynamic that creates the problems that causes you so much consternation (some of which I can totally empathize with, some of which seems a bit, uh, nuts. No offense...). Who's "the greatest jazz trumpeter of all time"? That's a "White Folks" kind of question, if you know what I mean, and I think you do, which is why your insistence on pursuing the issue of Woody's unquestioned greatness in these same terms seem all the more insane and self-defeating/destructive to me.

I will agree that there is SOME argument about Woody Shaw's contribution to trumpet, but the bolded part is where you are just flat out off your rocker. I would be impressed, and even AMAZED, if you can get a single person on this board to agree with that. Me too. It's one thing to take note of a player's personal evolution, another thing altogether to equate it with "changing the face of the music" as a whole.

So, these must be empirical quantities then. I'd like to see the data that proves this. Anxiously awaiting the bar graphs and pie charts...

Dude, if you're waiting for a time when "most people" evaluate music, any and all music, primarily on an informed technical awareness of its mechanical components, I suggest, as a friend, that you get a time machine and set it to, like, NEVER!

George Wallace George Wallace Chris Rock

The cash bar?

Bill Hardman Dick Wellstood Pithecanthropus Erectus