What 'Great' Jazz Musicians Do You Just Not 'Get' (and why)?

Also so many of his tunes are classic, and often really different from what was going on at the time. Epistrophy, Green Chimneys, Well You Needn't, Little Rootie Tootie, Evidence...for me they lend themselves to creative interpretations very naturally, while still always sounding like Monk tunes.

but i have Bowie's "Fast Last!" album from 74 that's just amazingly beautiful.

Perhaps another thing is that I don't think the "Genius of Modern Music" albums are the best place to start. "Brilliant Corners" and "Thelonious Monk With John Coltrane" are better and the one he did with Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers is great too although marred for me by my low tolerance of drum solos.

But I think I've always "got" Monk, so I'm not the best person to ask. The thing about the "wrong notes" is just how "right" they are. There's nothing contingent or slapdash about Monk.

Don't get Bird - too many notes for my poor overloaded mind to deal with.

But something clicked and now I get him completely. Easily my most exciting musical find of the last 6 months. And of course it affects how you hear other stuff as well - the last couple of days I've been listening to Gerry Mulligan and Chet Baker, who I've always liked, but I seem to get it at a slightly deeper level now that I've grasped Getz.

Still don't get Dizzy Gillespie, though, and I somehow suspect I never will.

23.57 UK time.

'Bitches Brew' = jazz.

Monk? Wrong notes? Wha?? I'm not sure what you're hearing if you get that out of it. "Monk with John Coltrane" is a good place to start. The trumpet players on Monk records tend to screw everything up for some reason. I like this compilation done by NRBQ's Terry Adams, "Always Know"--all stuff from '62-'68.

I guess you just have to listen to the tunes; in my opinion, they're pretty ingenious but not difficult. It seems to me that if you don't get Monk, maybe you are gonna have trouble getting jazz, it doesn't get much more bedrock than this. I myself am puzzled by folks who think something is not worth checking out because it's too "early"--what?? What difference does that make? Has the whole jam-band mentality become so embedded--those god dam Medeski, Martin and Woods--that we can't hear what jazz is anymore? It's not complicated.

I don't "get" Coltrane, or not to the extent other people seem to. It's not the fabled "intensity" or "free" style (I like Ornette, Ayler etc), there's just something cold about him that I don't like - it's almost as if he's playing for himself and doesn't care about the listener.

And the Modern Jazz Quartet. I can listen to Brubeck occasionally when I'm in the mood, but the MJQ just send me to sleep. I really can't hear why people get enthusiastic about a group who seemed to have a complete lack of enthusiasm.

Well, I don't know--fusion is all those fussy little compositions I guess you'd call them, Al Demiola and that sort of wankery. Jazz-rock seems more like Miles on "Agartha" or Larry Coryell or something--bit less effete. But it's terminology. Apart from a few things here and there, the whole fusion/jazz-rock thing was a big mistake, hey, why not just listen to ELP or Yes?

I don't know, what do people expect from something like "Bitches Brew"? It's just some rhythm tracks with electric pianos burbling around in the background. Nice rhythm tracks as far as it goes although the Meters or James Brown did it better. If Miles Davis had been really hip he would've gotten Allen Toussaint and Ziggy Modeliste to play on his records, instead he had to get those guys like Zawinul or Chic Korea...who could play better maybe but who didn't have the sense of discipline and form you find on the better releases by Lee Dorsey...so I think the problem is this completely stupid expectation that you're getting "art" or "jazz" when it's just the same old rhythm-section stuff you could pick up off of any reasonably competent funk record. On "Bitches" it's pretty boring for the most part, since it's just some grooves and the occasional trumpet blat to relieve the tedium, but on "Jack Johnson" he managed to get it all to hang together, plus John McLaughlin actually played well on it.

Too bad that Ornette and those guys never did just go down to New Orleans and hook up with some of those guys, it would've been great. "Cissy Strut" with Blood Ulmer and Coleman could've been great.

That being said, it's never seemed like a headscratcher to me -- it's groove music, really, with (some) highly complex harmonies. I liked it from the first moment I heard it (though I prefer the first disc to the second). I certainly see it as completely contiguous with Pangaea, which was the closer to that period of Miles' work...

(Please don't respond with stuff like "You need to listen to it in a dark room, forget about everything you know, let the music flow over you..." I got that advice with Pet Sounds and as a result it took me twice as long to appreciate as it normally would have, I think.)

If you live in a civilized part of the word, you'll be able to get some barbecue and use some fancy napkins. Make sure to ask for slaw on the sandwich. Now put on the record and try hard to forget all the bullshit you've read about it over the years. Try not to listen to the solos at first, that might help. Just concentrate on the rhythm section, pat your foot, try moving around to the record (careful not to drop your sandwich). Miles Davis always allowed that you need to tap your foot heel first, not toe first, in order not to look like an ofay. So that might help too.

Once you do that you might want to check out the solos on the first track. Try just getting with the swing and nice use of space between the notes on Miles' solo, it's pretty simple. Again, try moving your body or something--don't be a square. Cannonball Adderley's solo at about 5:17 in the first cut should get you to feeling better, just imagine Cannonball enjoying a big plate of food and a drink, stretching his belly, manipulating that sound like a big greasy rubber band.

If you don't live in a part of the world where you can get a decent, cheap pork barbecue sandwich, perhaps you can put some hot sauce on a piece of tofu. I think that might be part of the problem in general with jazz-appreciation these days, people don't keep any hot sauce in their refrigerators and become dyspeptic and worried about their "classic" album appreciation. Hope it helps.

I probably need to listen to more of their recordings, though; my most recent Jazz Messengers encounter was with "Three Blind Mice Vol. 1", by which I was remarkably unimpressed, and I think I need to cleanse my palate with another, better AB&tJM disc.

But all these artists have really distinctive voices, so it's easy to like one and not the other.

(I do like his composing just fine.)

I guess there's probably someone out there who still thinks that's a bad thing, but I'm quite content that pop was taken over by R&B and Rock&Roll and that jazz became Thinkin' Man's Music.

Try going chronologically starting with the early stuff like Jazz Advance (I'm thinking "Rick Kick Shaw"). A lot times this stuff is overlooked, but you get a sense of his post-Monkian aims. From the roots there he just blasts off into outerspace. If you pay attention to his attack and his technique and his use of the whole keyboard the stuff gets infinitely more listenable. Try not thinking of it as "jazz" either or even as something to try to 'get'. Also, listening to Cecil's solo recordings is helpful, too, but takes patience (problem for people is that a lot of the pieces are so LONG and demand a certain amount of concentration that it's easy to just say 'oh forget this'.) I can't tell you I "get" everything Cecil Taylor does by any means, but the more I listen to his recordings the more I find to enjoy in them.

Speaking of Chuck's comment on Charlie Parker above (and I agree with him on Davis' "Get Up With It," which is easily one of my 20 favorite records of all time; don't agree on "On the Corner," which my brain says is great but which I have to be in a certain mood of--what's the word, ennui--to really enjoy). The single most useful and cost-effective Parker CD I know is "Best of the Complete Savoy & Dial Studio Recordings," 20 tracks, great sound, superb liners, released 2002, catalog # 17120. Takes you from "Tiny's Tempo," a simple blues, thru "Cool Blues" and some of the classix like "Relaxin' at Camarillo" and "Au-Leu-Cha." What I get from this is that he doesn't actually play that many notes, and fits into the basically blues formats so easily and elegantly. It's his tone and his incredible timing that make it, and of course there are some great themes as well. Anyway, it's a really great introduction to Parker and maybe all a non-specialist needs.

Anyway my favorite Art Blakey stuff is Mosiac (the tune), with the classic Blakey afro-cuban beat and a sick sick solo, and Hank Mobley's Soul Station for swingin out.

I don't really get Sun Ra either.

Braxton: try his Lennie Tristano record. Or his great quartet with George Lewis.

This goes back about 16 years ...I think the problem lies within the fact that I leapt straight in and bought Conquistador (to add to my collection of Blue Note vinyl that was being sold off at a fiver an album). The chap in the shop said "You do know what you're buying, don't you?" ...I could hardly say no at that point. I also bought Grachan Moncur's Evolution (fantastic - Jackie Mclean is slightly flat throughout and it really adds something), Eric Dolphy's Out to Lunch, Joe Henderson's Mode For Joe (glorious!) ... and loads more. It became my weekly Saturday treatl until they'd sold out.

I think that means you get him.

I'm lucky. My old man was a BIG Monk fan, so I grew up with a big stack of Monk records to listen to. Check out Monk Plays Ellington and the solo records to get a hint of where he was coming from. Monk playing stride piano was a bit of a revelation to me when I went back to listen to them. I'm quite fond of those solos where he hits a tone cluster, stops (while the band cooks on behind him) and hits a slight variation or two before (it sounds like) he thinks he nailed it, and proceeds with his solo.

Ever notice that whenever anyone else covers his material, they lose all the subtle rhythmic shifts? His compositions are so startlingly clear, almost mathematical, explorations. Bach's "Variations" comes to mind, albeit from a very different cultural origin.

Re: Ornette's tone, and "flatness". Common thought is that it may derive from the fact that he started playing on a plastic C Melody sax, which may not mean a whole lot to non-musicians but imagine that you're playing with a whole bunch of cats who are playing brass instruments that resonate @ B flat, and yours is pitched a whole step higher... and is made out of plastic. Certain things might start sounding "normal" to you.

A lot of Sun Ra IS like stoned Elligton... what's so bad about that? I read a piece once that said, if Ra had been able to keep together as good of a band as Ellington could, the history of modern jazz might be very different.

And what did Charles Earland have that the other 1,964 jazz organ players didn't? Never understood what was so unique about him either.

-- Colin Meeder (amisrau...), November 17th, 2006. (later)

Tell us more! ;-)

i wld say to the Chet hatas that jazz isn't just abt virtuosity - tho' in fact baker is remarkably consistent, all in all - and that mystique, romanticism, cliche and poise can often be just as important, or exciting. the chet alb w/ bill evans, herbie mann etc. is the v. last word in neurotic white boy outsiderdom and sunday smack comedown - a superlush rec

not feeling monk is a little strange to me. id think he would be one of the most easily appreciable jazz musicians out there. i really like his solo pieces the best....

and i didnt think there would be so many bitches brew haters. i have to agree with the person who asked "what are you looking for in bitches brew?", if youre not feeling it its because your expectations for it are amiss. it managed to fuse jazz, ambient, dub, rock, and funk together, sometimes before some of those genres really existed!

and for those who didnt like mclaughlin, definitely check the mahavishnu stuff. there's some wild shit on there!

-- factcheckr (factcheck...)

I didn't know that (ugly) white sax was a C-Melody! Always wondered what they looked like. Who knows, that could indeed be a major contributing factor in his unpleasant-to-my-ears tone.

Really, I should check out Ornette On Tenor somedday - might be a revelation. I remember liking a non-alto track from In All Languages.

I think you can appreciate Chet Baker for what he is (a top notch pop singer and a fascinating tragic figure) and still acknowledge that he's not a great jazz musician.

and i think i got straight into "Change of the Century" bu Ornette, having failed to enjoy lots of other albums of his. Again, dubious, as maybe i'd finally set myself to appreciate "Change .." after all the other attempts,.. horse and cart.. yeah, maybe compared with the "Beauty is a Rare Thing" box set i'd borrowed it was merely finite
Anyway i found that album instantly accessible. It still sounds like an album of different versions of the one tune though.

not getting monk does strike me as unusual. that music is so accessible, in my opinion. kids get it immediately. just great melodies and the push-pull of his structures is addictive, too.

His most accessible to me is Looking Ahead from 1958. He had a stretch from 58-66 where he put out some amazing recordings, including Looking Ahead, New York City R&B/Cell Walk for Celeste, Nefertiti the Beautiful One Has Come, Conquistador and Unit Structures.

I fell in and out and back in love with Taylor's music. I reacted neagatively to something he said at a show at the Jazz Showcase in the early 70s to the effect that if you didn't "get" his music, you could not think fast enough to understand him. I've known too many bipolar people in the manic phase who feel/say the same thing.

Now, either my thinking has sped up (most people who know me would laugh heartily at that concept) or I have heard the Tzotzil/Mummers/Tzotzil and Live in Bologna material enough times that I do actually enjoy it.

x-post: I think you're right abt Monk's public perception in the 40s. Thank goodness he persisted.

Baker's was always too soft for me. But then, I make a steady diet of free jazz. So what do I know.

and yeah, baker is soft, and limited. nice, though. apparently he was, you know, a junkie and a narcissist...they was selling his face as much as his trumpet back then...

xp

bcz with ppl you can say to yr pal of a friend they don't think they like that if they knew them better they would like em, they just don't "get" them yet -- an the assumption that yr pal likes YOU and you like this friend -- but it AIN'T SO! sometimes the chemistry will always be bad between yr pal and yr friend -- they just don't hit it off!

so by logic i conclude that sometimes there will be a jazz voice you will JUST NOT LIKE and it ain't cz you DON'T get it it's bcz you DO -- and you know this person isn't for you and vice versa, and it's no good moralising the odds

most jazzers maintain cultural solidarity -- except for known feuds and wars between movements -- but as late as the 80s you could get miles to diss monk openly as not a good player -- and indeed be snidey abt parker and coltrane

there IS music that is "difficult" or that doesn't open up easily during a casual listen.

a lot of this thread seems to be about people not "getting" why other people rave about an artist or like an artist so much. people aren't hearing what the fans hear. and this is where mark's comments are most applicable. you aren't always gonna agree with people's takes on things. no shame in that. but i would tell people to at least give an artist that gets lotsa love from people that they respect/agree with about other stuff the time that music sometimes deserves before coming to some final judgement. and even go back and listen years later and see if there is a difference in their opinion because there often is.

another example, since i was recently listening to a show on him: there are probably people who base their opinion of wes montgomery on his later cti-style strings & things pop interpretations (which he still plays great on) and never even have heard the earlier innovative straight ahead stuff that he did prior to that. and if that's the case, then they are only hearing half the story. or less than half. this is true of other genres to some extent, but there are so many settings for jazz. solo, small groups, bigger groups, big bands, etc, etc, and in every different setting someone might play a little differently.

ha! i never knew ward fowler = andrew l. i feel dumb.

Me neither!

If Derek Bailey is jazz, then him, though I haven't given up. I liked his book though.

DB would not have wanted to be considered jazz, surely?

Yeah, I'm sure you're right.

I don't "get" him either, regardless.

DB was "not" a lot of things, but the main thing he 'wasn't' was jazz

DB (and some of the other names on this thread) are very tied in with certain currents in classical music. Looking back at this thread is hard not read that relationship between jazz and classical as forming some of the discomfort.