Eric Alexander vs Joshua Redman

[JSngry]

All I'm saying is that there's a big difference between sharing a Golden Shower with your wife & taking a nap in a field and having a plowhorse start pissing all over you.

Shouldn't be that hard to see, much less feel, the difference!

Then again, horses are a really beloved species, so perhaps I underestimate the affectation some have for their urine.

Edited March 17, 2010 by JSngry

[DrJ]

All I'm saying is that there's a big difference between sharing a Golden Shower with your wife & taking a nap in a field and having a plowhorse start pissing all over you.

Shouldn't be that hard to see, much less feel, the difference!

Then again, horses are a really beloved species, so perhaps I underestimate the affectation some have for their urine.

That's all fine and well, but the crux of the matter is that one man's wife is another man's horse.

Edited March 17, 2010 by DrJ

[danasgoodstuff]

OK, this has done got weird...

OK, this has done got weird...

[Big Wheel]

I'm saying that in my experience, projecting all these personal biases onto the music to create a codified "culture of orthodox jazz criticism" contributes to people sitting there listening to a lot of music they actually don't enjoy much at all, because they are "supposed" to like it - because people "in the know" tell them it's the "stuff" and changed society and they just don't play it like this anymore and blah de blah blah. And by the same token that vibe also leads to people missing out for a long time on music they might love - like I did with Hamilton - because it just isn't what they "should" be listening to.

The thing is, this cuts both ways. One point I was trying to make upthread is that the main reason there's so much music these days that sounds like Eric Alexander and Scott Hamilton is that there's a culture of orthodox jazz education that itself plays favorites and puts so much emphasis on bebop.

I have no problem with listeners enjoying neo-traditionalists. But as a musician with an interest in seeing innovative music getting made, I'm also going to encourage peers to turn away from copying their example.

[JSngry]

All I'm saying is that there's a big difference between sharing a Golden Shower with your wife & taking a nap in a field and having a plowhorse start pissing all over you.

Shouldn't be that hard to see, much less feel, the difference!

Then again, horses are a really beloved species, so perhaps I underestimate the affectation some have for their urine.

That's all fine and well, but the crux of the matter is that one man's wife is another man's horse.

No, the crux of the matter is that a smart man will have both a wife and a horse, and will never confuse one for the other.

Unless, you know, they're all three into that type thing...

[cymbalgroove]

I'm saying that in my experience, projecting all these personal biases onto the music to create a codified "culture of orthodox jazz criticism" contributes to people sitting there listening to a lot of music they actually don't enjoy much at all, because they are "supposed" to like it - because people "in the know" tell them it's the "stuff" and changed society and they just don't play it like this anymore and blah de blah blah. And by the same token that vibe also leads to people missing out for a long time on music they might love - like I did with Hamilton - because it just isn't what they "should" be listening to.

The thing is, this cuts both ways. One point I was trying to make upthread is that the main reason there's so much music these days that sounds like Eric Alexander and Scott Hamilton is that there's a culture of orthodox jazz education that itself plays favorites and puts so much emphasis on bebop.

I have no problem with listeners enjoying neo-traditionalists. But as a musician with an interest in seeing innovative music getting made, I'm also going to encourage peers to turn away from copying their example.

What would you call innovative music these days though?

[A Lark Ascending]

The problem with so much of this discussion thus far is that it projects all kinds of things that are part of the inner psyche of the posters onto the music the musicians are playing.

Spot on!

In fact an awful lot of critical orthodoxy (and an awful lot of dissent) is just that...projection masquerading as revelation.

So, is this some kind of revelation?

I defy you to show me any adult, hell, child, even, of even semi-functional capacity who doesn't do that, one way or the other.

There's a way of expressing an opinion or a preference that acknowledges that it is just that.

And another where the poster comes across as being in possession of a universal truth, one that they are duty bound to preach from the mountain top.

I, like many others, enjoy the Alexanders of this world (as I enjoy the 'second' or 'third' division composers of this world), as one of the options available. I can fully appreciate that others choose to focus on what appears to be newly minted. The problem comes when the latter assume that the former are in 'error' (or the former assume the latter are...).

Not that it matters. Despite all the patrician disdain expressed towards Alexander, his recordings keep on cropping up in the various listening threads.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[Peter Friedman]

It looks to me like there is a great amount of over interpreting Dr. J's post. He was in fact, giving his opinion on what he had been reading on this thread, and on the playing of Scott Hamilton.

Rather than arguing against people expressing their opinions, my take is that he was , at least in part, saying it would be beneficial to get beyond a narrow set of preconceived ideas about styles, etc. Listen to the music with an open mind and then evaluate it and feel free to express your opinion.

[JSngry]

Once again, as far as I'm concerned, it's all opinion (unless it's an objective, prvoable, objective fact, which anything like this discussion is not even remotely close to being). That's a given going in, or should be. If some opinions are expressed more "strongly" than others, oh well. They are still just opinions. Anybody who thinks otherwise, one way or the other, is either giving themselves and/or others either too much or too little credit.

Passion does not = truth, it just = passion. Ain't nothing wrong with it, ain't nothing right with it either. It just is what it is, and life goes on.

[cymbalgroove]

I think this music is all about opinions. We all have our favorite players/styles ect.. I try to check it all out before I say I don't like it or like it.

Edited March 17, 2010 by cymbalgroove

[JSngry]

Rather than arguing against people expressing their opinions, my take is that he was , at least in part, saying it would be beneficial to get beyond a narrow set of preconceived ideas about styles, etc. Listen to the music with an open mind and then evaluate it and feel free to express your opinion.

I think that's what a lot of people have done. And they still don't like it, and they do have thier reasons.

Unfortunately, this whole "you probably don't like it because you're not listening to it right" thing is very Marsaillisian, among other cults that use the "if you don't like it, ok, but, see, if you just heard it RIGHT, you WOULD like it" methodology.

For the recorrd (again), I have defended Scott Hamilton in these pages, and have expressed nothing but the highest regard for Alexander's musicianship. If I don't like (or in Hamilton's case, like more than just moderately), it's because that's how I feel it. Any attempts to persuaee me otherwise are really presumptuous, just as it would be if I tried to persuade somebody not to like these players. As much as I like or dislike some players, as ardently as I value or disdain their work, I don't think I've ever told anybody that they were wrong for feeling otherwise.

[DrJ]

Big Wheel posted: One point I was trying to make upthread is that the main reason there's so much music these days that sounds like Eric Alexander and Scott Hamilton is that there's a culture of orthodox jazz education that itself plays favorites and puts so much emphasis on bebop.

Well you won't get any argument from me about this issue, I agree, mostly. But it's a different issue than what I was commenting on.

The one thing I do have to point out though is that Scott Hamilton most emphatically was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system, at least based on what I know of his formative years. Plus he's hardly a dyed in the wool bebopper, right? Most of his inspiration seems to have come from the pre-bop era, and he ascended at a time when it was EXTREMELY unfashionable to cop to that. So I really don't think one can place the orthodoxy label on him.

This points out another issue, which concerns the over-generalizations people tend to make about ALL youngish players, like they've all come out of exactly the same mold. Simply not the case. In fact it may be truer to say that the OLDER generation of players fit that description better - since so many of them spent their formative years in one of a small handful of big bands and "mentoring" situations (such as working with Blakey).

Edited March 17, 2010 by DrJ

[A Lark Ascending]

The trouble with these sorts of disagreements is that they muddle musicological/historical significance with personal enjoyment.

The fact that a musician might be considered musically or historically significant might be good reason to give them a listen; but it doesn't compel you to like them.

Similarly, the fact that a musician is not considered to be of great musical or historical significance is no reason not to like them.

We all hear music as a result of very different experiences and contexts and will consequently take to individual players in very different ways. I suspect most of us are comfortable with that.

Now if you want to enter the ring about who really 'matters', then you'd better make sure your historical/musicological evidence is substantive. I'll enjoy reading what you say; you might even be persuasive enough to make me want to listen (or listen again). But get too preachy (or spend too much time telling me what's wrong with someone) and I just tune out.

[DrJ]

Rather than arguing against people expressing their opinions, my take is that he was , at least in part, saying it would be beneficial to get beyond a narrow set of preconceived ideas about styles, etc. Listen to the music with an open mind and then evaluate it and feel free to express your opinion.

I think that's what a lot of people have done. And they still don't like it, and they do have thier reasons.

And that is totally fine/great with me...that's exactly what I'm arguing for, in fact, and arguing AGAINST the Marsalisian orthodoxy thing. See?

JSngry posted: For the recorrd (again), I have defended Scott Hamilton in these pages, and have expressed nothing but the highest regard for Alexander's musicianship. If I don't like (or in Hamilton's case, like more than just moderately), it's because that's how I feel it. Any attempts to persuaee me otherwise are really presumptuous, just as it would be if I tried to persuade somebody not to like these players.

Never said anything to the contrary.

JSngry posted: As much as I like or dislike some players, as ardently as I value or disdain their work, I don't think I've ever told anybody that they were wrong for feeling otherwise.

This doesn't hold water for me. While it's true you haven't come out and told anyone they are "wrong," in my view when you start talking about peoples' enjoyment of certain artists as a form of masturbation - not "the real thing" - you might as well have. Are you really going to say with a straight face that folks are supposed to feel their perfectly legitimate viewpoints have been "validated" (meaning NOT "agreed with" but recognized as valid FOR THEM) by those types of comments?

No, the crux of the matter is that a smart man will have both a wife and a horse, and will never confuse one for the other.

Actually, I found my "crux of the matter" to be much more on point, and find yours concerns a different matter entirely than what we've been discussing here. But that's just me.

Edited March 17, 2010 by DrJ

[DrJ]

But get too preachy (or spend too much time telling me what's wrong with someone) and I just tune out.

Tell it brother!

Seriously though, I couldn't agree more. If someone is inclined to work that hard promulgating their world view, why waste time hanging around here? Go run for political office, there's plenty of lost sheep out there looking to be led.

Edited March 17, 2010 by DrJ

[JSngry]

And while it's true you haven't come out and told anyone they are "wrong," I think when you start talking about peoples' enjoyment of certain artists as a form of masturbation - not "the real thing" - well, you might as well have.

What was under discussion there - and in most other such instances - was the player, not the listener/fan. Huge difference.

And when it comes to players and the decisions they make, you're damn right I have some strong opinions, and some damn solid reasons for having them. I've had to make them myself, and I have the same justifications, opinions and reasons for my decisions as they do for theirs. If any player doesn't then they are really worthless. But if they do, hey...passion is a good thing that does not always lead to orthodoxy. So be it.

Actually, I found my "crux of the matter" to be much more on point, and find yours concerns a different matter entirely than what we've been discussing here...

But of COURSE!

Edited March 17, 2010 by JSngry

[DrJ]

JSngry posted: What was under discussion there - and in most other such instances - was the player, not the listener/fan. Huge difference.

But I don't think it IS a huge difference.

You're totally and obviously entitled to your opinions about some other player's choices, and being passionate about it is wonderful.

But nonetheless, when you start implying not so subtly as you have that there is some objective artistic standard that says unequivocally that they are wankers because of the choices they have made, that doesn't fly for me. If I wanted that type of thinking, I'd read the Collected Wynton Marsalis Liner Notes of Stanley Crouch, Vols. 1-12.

Edited March 17, 2010 by DrJ

[JSngry]

geezus christ dude, gimme a break - ONE MORE TIME: there is no "objective artistic standard that says unequivocally that they are wankers because of the choices they have made". that's just my opinion, and if you have issues with me having that opinion & expressing it with somewhat the same intensity as I feel it (believe me, I tone it down for "public consumption..."), in other words, if my opinion upsets you so much that you try to convince me that I think it's a fact when I know good and goddamned well that it's nothing but an opinion, then I have to question who's projecting control-freak issues onto whom.

I mean, really - what part of "this is my opinion" do you not understand?

[jlhoots]

Opinions are like you know what - everybody has one.

[danasgoodstuff]

Urine trouble now, and how appropriate, since this has totally turned into a pissing match, not surprising given the premise...

[Big Wheel]

The one thing I do have to point out though is that Scott Hamilton most emphatically was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system, at least based on what I know of his formative years. Plus he's hardly a dyed in the wool bebopper, right? Most of his inspiration seems to have come from the pre-bop era, and he ascended at a time when it was EXTREMELY unfashionable to cop to that. So I really don't think one can place the orthodoxy label on him.

But that's mainly because the orthodox jazz education system barely existed at the time Hamilton was coming up (there was the North Texas program around that time, but not much else was in anything more than nascent stages). I wasn't saying that Hamilton and Alexander are themselves products of this system (though Alexander definitely is), but that the system actively encourages people in this style (more similar to Alexander's, less so to Hamilton's). I mainly included Hamilton because I think the system's orthodoxies are heavily biased toward inside playing at the expense of teaching more adventurous ways of approaching the music.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Big Wheel

[papsrus]

I'm thinking of making the following my signature thingy.

All I'm saying is that there's a big difference between sharing a Golden Shower with your wife & taking a nap in a field and having a plowhorse start pissing all over you.

That's all fine and well, but the crux of the matter is that one man's wife is another man's horse.

I enjoy the way JSngry writes. Wouldn't change a thing. Couldn't. But I'm with both you guys. .... on the horse thing .... and least ...

[Larry Kart]

The one thing I do have to point out though is that Scott Hamilton most emphatically was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system, at least based on what I know of his formative years. Plus he's hardly a dyed in the wool bebopper, right? Most of his inspiration seems to have come from the pre-bop era, and he ascended at a time when it was EXTREMELY unfashionable to cop to that. So I really don't think one can place the orthodoxy label on him.

But that's mainly because the orthodox jazz education system barely existed at the time Hamilton was coming up (there was the North Texas program around that time, but not much else was in anything more than nascent stages). I wasn't saying that Hamilton and Alexander are themselves products of this system (though Alexander definitely is), but that the system actively encourages people in this style (more similar to Alexander's, less so to Hamilton's). I mainly included Hamilton because I think the system's orthodoxies are heavily biased toward inside playing at the expense of teaching more adventurous ways of approaching the music.

Not so -- Berklee (for one) was going like gangbusters back then; though you're right that Hamilton was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system.

Also, when I was at Downbeat magazine back in 1968-9, the jazz education movement was something we regularly took account of editorially because the so-called "stage band" thing was getting big in high schools and colleges -- U. of Indiana under David Baker, U. of Illinois under John Garvey (not that those two were "stage bands" per se), etc., etc. -- and that movement meant big sales for the musical instrument companies that advertised in DB.

[Big Wheel]

The one thing I do have to point out though is that Scott Hamilton most emphatically was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system, at least based on what I know of his formative years. Plus he's hardly a dyed in the wool bebopper, right? Most of his inspiration seems to have come from the pre-bop era, and he ascended at a time when it was EXTREMELY unfashionable to cop to that. So I really don't think one can place the orthodoxy label on him.

But that's mainly because the orthodox jazz education system barely existed at the time Hamilton was coming up (there was the North Texas program around that time, but not much else was in anything more than nascent stages). I wasn't saying that Hamilton and Alexander are themselves products of this system (though Alexander definitely is), but that the system actively encourages people in this style (more similar to Alexander's, less so to Hamilton's). I mainly included Hamilton because I think the system's orthodoxies are heavily biased toward inside playing at the expense of teaching more adventurous ways of approaching the music.

Not so -- Berklee (for one) was going like gangbusters back then; though you're right that Hamilton was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system.

Also, when I was at Downbeat magazine back in 1968-9, the jazz education movement was something we regularly took account of editorially because the so-called "stage band" thing was getting big in high schools and colleges -- U. of Indiana under David Baker, U. of Illinois under John Garvey (not that those two were "stage bands" per se), etc., etc. -- and that movement meant big sales for the musical instrument companies that advertised in DB.

I forgot about Berklee - I was mainly thinking about the elite programs today that didn't exist back then AFAIK (Manhattan, Mannes (began in 1986), NEC, Miami, Juilliard (which had no jazz until around 2000), William Paterson etc.). How long had Baker been at Indiana in 1968? My point is that though the movement existed, it didn't really have anywhere near the monolithic influence that it does today. Even by the 1970s, going to college for jazz was pretty much optional in terms of having a successful career, whereas these days it's considered a fixture of how young players learn to play.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Big Wheel

[Larry Kart]

The one thing I do have to point out though is that Scott Hamilton most emphatically was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system, at least based on what I know of his formative years. Plus he's hardly a dyed in the wool bebopper, right? Most of his inspiration seems to have come from the pre-bop era, and he ascended at a time when it was EXTREMELY unfashionable to cop to that. So I really don't think one can place the orthodoxy label on him.

But that's mainly because the orthodox jazz education system barely existed at the time Hamilton was coming up (there was the North Texas program around that time, but not much else was in anything more than nascent stages). I wasn't saying that Hamilton and Alexander are themselves products of this system (though Alexander definitely is), but that the system actively encourages people in this style (more similar to Alexander's, less so to Hamilton's). I mainly included Hamilton because I think the system's orthodoxies are heavily biased toward inside playing at the expense of teaching more adventurous ways of approaching the music.

Not so -- Berklee (for one) was going like gangbusters back then; though you're right that Hamilton was not a product of the orthodox jazz educational system.

Also, when I was at Downbeat magazine back in 1968-9, the jazz education movement was something we regularly took account of editorially because the so-called "stage band" thing was getting big in high schools and colleges -- U. of Indiana under David Baker, U. of Illinois under John Garvey (not that those two were "stage bands" per se), etc., etc. -- and that movement meant big sales for the musical instrument companies that advertised in DB.

I forgot about Berklee - I was mainly thinking about the elite programs today that didn't exist back then AFAIK (Manhattan, Mannes (began in 1986), NEC, Miami, Juilliard (which had no jazz until around 2000), William Paterson etc.). How long had Baker been at Indiana in 1968? My point is that though the movement existed, it didn't really have anywhere near the monolithic influence that it does today. Even by the 1970s, going to college for jazz was pretty much optional in terms of having a successful career, whereas these days it's considered a fixture of how young players learn to play.

Baker began to teach at Indiana in 1966. I do know that the jazz program there was up and running and regarded as special by 1969, when I heard the IU band led by Baker at the Notre Dame Jazz Festival (which itself was a fairly big deal of its kind and featured only high school and college ensembles) and at another such fest that year or the following year at the U. of Illinois. There or at Notre Dame I also recall hearing, among many others, ensembles from Ohio State and Memphis State, and several players who went on to make names for themselves and who are now inactive or even deceased!