It's not just me...:)

[HoytClagwell]

For me, Braxton is very much a mixed bag. I love some of the Black Saint records, but I've listened to other recordings (Leo comes to mind) that just seem like a bad put on to me. I try to always keep open ears, but a lot of it, I just can't listen to it all the way through. And the diagrams as composition titles always left a bad taste in my mouth. But, again, the Braxton I've enjoyed, I've really enjoyed.

He's not on the list, but I'd throw Oscar Peterson out there as one that I could never really get into. I get why people like him, and he was obviously a hell of a player, I just don't enjoy his recordings for some reason.

Edited March 11, 2009 by HoytClagwell

[A Lark Ascending]

it strikes me as odd that the original poster asked what artist you have difficulty "getting into," which i took to mean the listener is having trouble understanding and/or appreciating the artist. however, in many people's replies there is a direct or implied criticism of the artist for this lack of appreciation. in effect, "it's braxton's fault i don't like him," or "brubeck doesn't deserve my understanding or appreciation." it's one thing to "not get it" and another thing "not to want it." if the former is true, the door's still open, as long as your ears and your mind are too. in the case of the latter, it seems rather silly or petty to say someone's not great because you lack the understanding or appreciation that others enjoy.

Excellent points. Just because you don't "get" someone, it doesn't mean that there is nothing there to "get".

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

My view too. An awful lot of time is taken up by critics and bulletin board posters using words like 'paradigm', 'aesthetic' and 'art' to disguise the fact that what they're really saying is 'Purple rule, Sabbath are crap.'

I've never really got Brubeck - I'm not keen on the block chords and what to my ears sounds rather heavy handed. But I like some of the Quartets music, largely because of Desmond. I don't find it hard to see that the problem lies in the fact that my ears don't align with Brubeck's approach rather than it being something inherently wrong with Brubeck.

Braxton is someone who interests me but I can't claim to understand or love him. It's almost as if I can sense there is something there but can't yet feel it.

Armstrong I learnt to really enjoy 10-15 years ago; but if I was grabbing my favourite CDs as the house collapsed around me, there would be other things to go for first. Just because an historical judgement has been made that Armstong is highly significant doesn't mean we have to align our musical preferences to encompass him. But the fact that he is so highly regarded and his importance has been argued by many very good writers without particular axes to grind made me seek him out. In his case, I was rewarded.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Bev Stapleton

[ejp626]

it strikes me as odd that the original poster asked what artist you have difficulty "getting into," which i took to mean the listener is having trouble understanding and/or appreciating the artist. however, in many people's replies there is a direct or implied criticism of the artist for this lack of appreciation. in effect, "it's braxton's fault i don't like him," or "brubeck doesn't deserve my understanding or appreciation." it's one thing to "not get it" and another thing "not to want it." if the former is true, the door's still open, as long as your ears and your mind are too. in the case of the latter, it seems rather silly or petty to say someone's not great because you lack the understanding or appreciation that others enjoy.

Excellent points. Just because you don't "get" someone, it doesn't mean that there is nothing there to "get".

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Well, we certainly get to make aesthetic judgements, but we should be prepared to back them up. I'm not a fan of Braxon at all. That doesn't mean I don't understand he is trying to do something, but it doesn't interest/move me. I've come to understand that I don't enjoy free jazz much at all, and I've largely stopped buying it to see if it is one of the few albums that I might enjoy. I guess some would say this is my loss... but I think it is just as silly to say that just because some people appreciate a certain style of music, then there must be some "there there" and the rest of us ought to keep working at it until we get it (this is not what Rob appears to be saying here, but this argument certainly comes up).

Anyway, to me the metaphor that works is comparing jazz to contemporary art. If it is something that I could execute (whether or not I thought of it), then I think it is not art (my artistic abilities are pretty meager). However, if I know that an artist has considerable technical skills, but I know they are intentionally doing something ugly or childish, then I may cut them some slack. So if I hear someone blowing loud and fast, but basically just noodling around at the level I could achieve (I'm a marginally better reeds player than I am an artist) or conversely playing almost no notes and letting the "silence" carry the piece, then I will certainly suspect they are frauds who don't have any technical playing abilities and they have glommed onto free jazz as a way to obscure this fact. And again, if I know this is a technically proficient player doing something to make a point, I will be somewhat more responsive... but I still would be unlikely to enjoy the music or to listen again.

[Alexander]

I have to say that I'm into just about everyone on the list. I've been going through my Armstrong recordings chronologically over the last few months, and they never fail to satisfy.

I'm BIG into Getz and Bud Powell. I went through phases a few years ago where I bough virtually every recording I could find by these two artists.

I will say that of all the artists listed, the only I picked was Braxton. Not that I dislike him, but I have virtually nothing by him (maybe one or two side man appearences, but that's it). So it's not so much that I CAN'T get into him, simply that I have not done so thus far.

The artist it took me the longest to get into was Ellington, but once I did, I got into him in a big way.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Alexander

[AllenLowe]

"Just because an historical judgement has been made that Armstong is highly significant doesn't mean we have to align our musical preferences to encompass him"

yes, in this case it does -

[Alexander]

When I first got into jazz, I remember looking askance at Brubeck, simply because "Take Five" was one of those "classics" everybody had heard. It seemed like everytime a cocktail party was shown in a movie (and classical music was not being played), "Take Five" was the song playing. It seemed like shorthand for college educated urban hip.

Then I picked up "Time Out" and liked it a lot. Over the years, I've gotten many other Brubeck albums. I will admit that I prefer the Desmond years (haven't heard as much of his work with Mulligan) over some of the later stuff I've heard, but have to say that I dig Dave.

[Alexander]

"Just because an historical judgement has been made that Armstong is highly significant doesn't mean we have to align our musical preferences to encompass him"

yes, in this case it does -

I honestly don't see how you CAN like jazz without appreciating Armstrong. His sound is central to the genre. Everything blossoms forth from his horn...

[Bright Moments]

it took me a long time to "get" monk - but now i dig him!

for me i just don't get evan parker - but i'll keep trying!

[A Lark Ascending]

"Just because an historical judgement has been made that Armstong is highly significant doesn't mean we have to align our musical preferences to encompass him"

yes, in this case it does -

I honestly don't see how you CAN like jazz without appreciating Armstrong. His sound is central to the genre. Everything blossoms forth from his horn...

Of course you can like jazz without 'appreciating' Armstrong. I liked jazz for nearly twenty years before having any interest or feel for him. It's perfectly possible to like jazz without caring about anything before 1945...or 1960...or 1978 (or after those dates, for that matter). Of course, it would be hard to understand how it evolved historically. But an awful lot of people who listen to jazz just enjoy the music, regardless of the historical background or the philosophical debates.

'You can't like jazz if you don't like X/Y/Z' is an insider ruse. It's one of the things that distances people from jazz...the idea that there is some sort of insider masonic knowledge that is needed before you can be a true believer.

To my mind, you can take as much or as little of what jazz has on offer as you wish and still claim to like jazz.

As I said, to claim to have some sort of understanding or appreciation takes much more. But only a few people need that.

[BeBop]

Bud is god. Co-god, with Bird.

I didn't come to this realization right away.

[AllenLowe]

well, as Dave Schildkraut said: "Bird was great - but Bud had 10 fingers, he could play ten things at once."

[BeBop]

well, as Dave Schildkraut said: "Bird was great - but Bud had 10 fingers, he could play ten things at once."

...and that MIND! (Both Bird and Bud) I wish I could get into their heads. How can all this be going on? Were they insane (by some measure?); or maybe just on another plane. Certainly not the same kind of sane/plane I'm on. Not just a speed thing; CREATIVITY! I'm awed.

[Shawn]

I didn't vote, because I like everyone on that list.

Now if Bill Evans had been a choice....

[7/4]

I voted for Bud, but then I haven't really heard enough yet. I can understand the problem with Brubeck, but he's OK with me.

[BillF]

Bud is god. Co-god, with Bird.

Add Diz and make it a trinity!

[Dan Gould]

I'm wondering why its "any period of Miles" but not "any period of Coltrane". There are certainly a lot of people who didn't follow him into Interstellar Space, that's for sure.

So, having no interest in Bitches Brew and beyond Miles, that was an easy choice. Braxton was an easier one - my exposure came when I picked up some used LPs with Kenny Drew on them ... and I still sold them back fast as I could. I seriously doubt that anything he recorded without a mainstream player like Drew would change my opinion ...

Brubeck was third although like others, I certainly enjoy Desmond.

[tranemonk]

what's wrong with Bill Evans??? :unsure:

I didn't vote, because I like everyone on that list.

Now if Bill Evans had been a choice....

[Van Basten II]

Don't know if i'm answering the way the thread starter wanted to be answered, but the only guy in the bunch i don't look for recordings is Brubeck, have no intentions in seeing him live, have a boxset of him and take five, care little about the rest, i dig Desmond work with Hall.

Besides that Armstrong, i have only started to get an interest in listening stuff from him, the other guys well what i don't have i usually buy blindly.

[Alec]

I went with Ellington and Braxton.

They don't 'speak' to me, or, more than likely, my ears don't open for them.

I appreciate their talent and understand their importance, but I like what I like.

I've learned long ago not to judge others on what they like or don't like, and I'm thankful for others who do the same.

I like the variety and am glad others have different likes and dislikes than mine.

[JSngry]

Wow....I can't answer this question, if only because I can "get into" people and still not really "like" them. I can, and do, listen two different ways, sometimes at the same time - "as a musician" and "as a fan". And things can get to me one way that they don't the other. I mean, Brubeck, ok, not a "hero" or anything, but damn, the guy had some really interesting and provocative harmonic ideas, both as a soloist and accompanist. And so forth.

Even my general target of scorn, Stan Kenton, well hey, even aside from the Graettinger stuff and the acknowledged "exceptions to the rule", I've evolved a bit of "understanding" about why ti is what/how it is. I still don't "like" it, but technically, and to some extent sociologically, there's a story there.

Hell, there's usally some kind of story in even the lamest piece of shit music made anywhere on Earth, even if it's a story about how much "settling" goes on in this life. That's not necessarily a musical story, but still, there's life even in that, and I respect it accordingly. Loathe it as well, perhaps, but respect and loathing need not be mutually exclusive, lest one turn into a creature of hate instead of a creature with rather strong aversions.

[AllenLowe]

hey, if we're talking Bill Evans, we'll have to summon Larry Kart -

if CPE Bach had been on the list, I would've gone with THAT one -

[Larry Kart]

hey, if we're talking Bill Evans, we'll have to summon Larry Kart -

I like a lot of Bill Evans up through the Vanguard recordings, and then I don't mostly -- for a load of reasons I wrote about at some length in Ye Olde Book.

[RDK]

Hmm. I thought everybody digs Bill Evans.

[David Ayers]

It seems that Brubeck's 'All the Things We Are' (which features Braxton on two tracks) should be a kind of hate-album for some of you guys!

Seriously, I think the list lumps together the great and the merely very good, so it is no surprise that people might say, well, they don't care for Brubeck etc. If there were only greats it might be a harder pick. But I also think the question isn't good - there is a difference between getting into (i.e. you enjoy to pass the time listening to the recordings) and recognising the importance of. Like, for me, I don't pass much time listening to recordings of Haydn, and I wouldn't go out of my way to hear concert performances of his work - but that doesn't mean I don't think he isn't crucial - just, I get it, and I spend time on other things).

[Niko]

would never have guessed coltrane getting so little votes (less than ellington for instance...); had never heard braxton until i checked out some sound samples recently which sounded pretty cool - did i miss something?