I went to a jazz club with a couple of friends last night. While I wouldn't call myself a jazz fanatic, I probably have more than 30 CDs in my collection and I tend to like the stuff which is rooted in blues i.e. most of it and my outer limit of acceptability is Thelonious Monk. It's quite clear that you can't play jazz unless you are musically competent i.e. know your instrument very well if not inside out.
Anyway, the quartet last night was seriously good. We could have been in a New York nightclub around 1959.
It got me wondering: how can it be that musicians of such consummate quality, playing a kind of music which, when played well, sounds utterly natural (irrespective of its complexity) be so undervalued i.e. few household names, audiences which can only fill smallish clubs and relatively small record sales?
It could be that it's a kind of music which only hits you when you hear it live. I can understand how someone can dismiss a Charlie Parker record after a few seconds of listening but live is another matter.
Thoughts?
Anyway, the quartet last night was seriously good. We could have been in a New York nightclub around 1959.
It got me wondering: how can it be that musicians of such consummate quality, playing a kind of music which, when played well, sounds utterly natural (irrespective of its complexity) be so undervalued i.e. few household names, audiences which can only fill smallish clubs and relatively small record sales?
It could be that it's a kind of music which only hits you when you hear it live. I can understand how someone can dismiss a Charlie Parker record after a few seconds of listening but live is another matter.
Thoughts?