Quote:
|
Originally Posted by warrrreagl
From a long-time jazz player's perspective, I can't understand why anybody would want to simply listen to jazz. Unless you play it yourself, I don't see how you could possibly relate to what you're listening to.
|
This is a highly confusing statement. I completely disagree. My fans disagree. My non-musician friends who enjoy listening disagree. 2-3% of the record buying public disagree. I'd love to hear an in-depth explanation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jimellow
Initially I am trying to listen to those that performed earlier in the 20th century.. Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, and most recently Benny Goodman. I am not familiar with where they all "fit" chronologically, and right now am just enjoying listening to their music, while trying to be able to differentiate their styles from one another. It's a very enjoyable process overall.
|
That's great news. One thing I often like to think about the different times in jazz history is how even though we know the chronology, there are a zillion examples of earlier material sounding more "modern" than later examples. There is a factual timeline of artists, but with the vast amount of recordings out there, we can Time Travel through the history of the music. I was amazed, for example, to discover how much more advanced* Art Tatum's music was than Red Garland, who came many years later, but most of my interest in Art came after listening to Red Garland for a long time. Similarly, I am currently interested in the music of Roscoe Mitchell after a long period of listening to Dave Douglas. You go back and forth through time.
*I am aware of my suspect use of the term "advanced" in a musical context, and apologize, but it was the best way to get my point across at the time.