BeBop Posted March 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) can only speak of the ones I've known: Dave Schildkraut, Jaki Byard. Probably Julius Hemphill. well, there's more - let us not forget Bix Beiderbecke - true genius, as was Jelly Roll Morton. Did you know Bix and Jelly Roll too? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Edited March 25, 2009 by BeBop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 good point - it's seance time - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 In my youth, authorities on jazz usually accorded the title "genius" to Armstrong, Ellington and Parker. That still seems pretty sound to me. well, there's more - let us not forget Bix Beiderbecke - true genius, as was Jelly Roll Morton. I'd be tempted to add Lester Young, too, at the very least. And maybe Monk, Art Pepper, and Herbie Nichols. And if anyone out there kicks at Herbie Nichols being categorized as a genius, maybe we should just trash the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Oh, and then there's Charles Mingus, of course. Certainly some sort of near-genius at the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clifford_thornton Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Herbie Nichols. And if anyone out there kicks at Herbie Nichols being categorized as a genius, maybe we should just trash the term. Amen, brother. To paraphrase Misha, a true "painter." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blajay Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Stan Getz and Art Pepper??? How? This is silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Do you think that jazz attracts more than its share of geniuses, as opposed to, say country, opera or architecture? If so, why? No. If they were that smart, they'd find paying gigs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clifford_thornton Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Art Pepper is awesome. I would add that those whose music challenges me the most - to the point of sometimes not LIKING it - are those to whom genius I can apply. Also those who are very subtle but whose class and beauty and complexity I grasp at only later fall into this category. So: Dixon, Braxton, Cecil (tho his music was always "easy" for me to like), Ayler, Trane, Joe Maneri, Roscoe, Monk, Nichols, George Russell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I suppose it all comes down to how many people you want to put at the top. I can certainly relate to those who want to prevent the "overcrowding of the hall of fame" syndrome that affects baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 What? No Miles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blajay Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Art Pepper is awesome. I listen to his music and I read his book. Music is great and book is alright but over-rated. I don't hear/see genius anywhere there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I'd argue with anyone who said Pops and Pres and Bird weren't geniuses. There's probably others, but I'm sure of those three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I'd argue with anyone who said Pops and Pres and Bird weren't geniuses. There's probably others, but I'm sure of those three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Pops Poopadeaux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILLYQ Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 The term "genius" gets used quite a bit. Too casually, in my opinion, but that's just me. So this poll is more about the term "genius" than it is about jazz. But jazz gives a frame of reference. Do you think that jazz attracts more than its share of geniuses, as opposed to, say country, opera or architecture? If so, why? I don't have an opinion vis a vis other art forms but would use the term sparingly, given its generally accepted meaning. Thus the only 'geniuses' of the tenor sax, from the points of view of creativity, originality, influence and technique would be Hawk, Prez, Getz and Trane. Which is not to denigrate the talents of many others, by any means. Have to include Sonny Rollins in that group! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILLYQ Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 to get back to the genius thing, Jaki Byard truly qualifies as well - he was playing "outside" music in the early 1950s in Boston, could do anything, work with anyone. Always ahead of the rest - I saw Jaki Byard play once at a benefit for WRVR about 30 years ago. He played solo and started up with something very out, and with each restatement of the head he went further back until he finished by playing ragtime! In the space of about 15 minutes he had played the history of jazz piano. Absolutely brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffcrom Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 can only speak of the ones I've known: Dave Schildkraut, Jaki Byard. Probably Julius Hemphill. I found this very interesting - I had never heard Dave Schildkraut referred to as anything more than a talented Bird disciple. This sent me back to Eddie Bert's Like Cool album, which has Schildkraut on tenor. His solos are definitely the most interesting on the album, with all due respect to Barry Galbraith, Hank Jones, and Bert. I don't know that I would call him a genius, but my opinion is based on the hour or so of recorded music that I've heard by him. I certainly enjoyed listening with a different perspective, and I was very impressed with his playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 well, there are a few records that give a sense of what he could do - but still they are records, and the people who speak of him so highly-Bill Evans, Dizzy, Mel Lewis, McLean, Getz, Triglia, et al, are the guys who knew him after hours; and as Loren Schoenberg told me, Mel Lewis never said anything much about other musicians but was ecstatic in his reaction to Dave. Still there are strong samples on the Fresh Sound stuff (ask Larry Kart about the second Handy session) and the Honey Dew. And the concert I recorded has many incredible moments. There was a young guy who was a bebop fanatic in New Haven whom I invited to that concert, and his jaw was literally hanging open afterwards. He said it was the closest he would ever get to having the experience of being on 52nd Street at the creation, and he was right (it helped that Curly Russell was in the audience; Dave had something to live up to). Also, how many guys had Lester Young go out of their way to say, hey, sit in with me? Also, Dizzy kept offering him a recording session; Davey turned him down three times - the last time, Dizzy said, "sorry Dave, I tried, but three strikes you're out." He had some trouble in the recording studio, it is true - his attitude toward playing was very much like Sonny Rollins - a perfectionist, perpetually dissatisfied. But listen, on the song Footnotes, as I may have already mentioned, to his solo. I have never, in my life, heard a more rhythmically complex solo. His brilliance is maybe more subtle than some, as he played with an incredible sense of forward harmonic and rhythmic momentum - but I have no doubt he was one of the greats - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 My understanding of the term genius is that, rather than being smarter than everyone else, it involves having a unique perspective or vision, and having one or more original ideas. So I would say that when it comes to the interpreting of a standard (or a song people other than the composer would want to play), jazz up through 1970 had a pretty fair number of geniuses. I suppose after 1970 the unique ideas were coming mostly from people who wanted to create their own sounds (and wrote their own songs) rather than interpret the songs of others. Since a number here have mentioned Lester Young and his game-changing method of playing his instrument, I would suggest that Jimmy Smith was a genius too. He created the hip stops on the organ, and invented a whole school of jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 to get back to the genius thing, Jaki Byard truly qualifies as well - he was playing "outside" music in the early 1950s in Boston, could do anything, work with anyone. Always ahead of the rest - I saw Jaki Byard play once at a benefit for WRVR about 30 years ago. He played solo and started up with something very out, and with each restatement of the head he went further back until he finished by playing ragtime! In the space of about 15 minutes he had played the history of jazz piano. Absolutely brilliant. James Carter can do something similar on saxophone. My problem is that I rarely want to hear the whole history of jazz in 10-15 minutes. I like Byard, but sometimes what he gives is a bit much for me to swallow at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 well, Jaki did it right, I think. I've never heard Carter go through it - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I prefer to think of "genius" as the creation, not the creator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Eric Dolphy I'd think would qualify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I agree about Dolphy as I think one prime characteristic of genius is the ability to hear first what everybody else will be hearing next - in a way, to show us what we will be thinking and doing just ahead of that time, before even we know what we are thinking. It's like, we hear it, and we say, THAT'S IT - that's the future. Why didn't we think of that? But we didn't - as logical and inevitable as it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.