Contemplazione

Fresu is already better than Rava, but he has this excessive urge to record, and record, and record (and of course, it’s money!) anything, whether good or bad, as long as his name keeps circulating. He is omnipresent, ubiquitous, inconsistent in musical output, lacking a true artistic direction, and anyway, he’s no genius. He’s a good trumpet player, he is (at least seemingly) modest, he is hard-working, but he’s now annoyingly overexposed. I’ll skip right over Boltro and Bosso.

Primiballi: of course, there are MYRIADS of deceased musicians we like more! Once, there was a multitude of musical geniuses; now, either three or zero people know them, or simply there aren’t any, in any case, there are fewer. I'm not being snobbish, what do you think? I simply don't love musicians without ideas. Obviously, Rava isn't Pausini, but he's not a brilliant musician either. Listening to his music doesn't spark any light bulb in your head! Tom Harrell, Leo Smith, Dave Douglas, Tomasz Stanko, Lester Bowie, Don Cherry, just to name a few—are they clones of Miles and Chet? No, they’ve found their own voice. Do they constantly perform tribute concerts? No, they play their (wonderful and adventurous) music! Is it possible that in Italy we always have to feel like children of a lesser god? Why justify mediocrity by saying "there's worse"?

There are famous and bad albums. There are famous and good albums. Where "good" means "valid," "substantial," "rich in content," "innovative," "historically important," or simply "pleasant." All combinations are valid. Lists of "best albums" serve as an initial reference point, keeping in mind that they are ALWAYS incomplete and subjective.

Fortunately, there are Sandro Satta and Claudio Filippini, who, however, record and play little, either because they are not allowed to (there's an unimaginable mafia behind this) or because they are elusive... at this point, cheers to the late Massimo Urbani and Luca Flores.

By now, the usual names in Italian jazz are extremely overexposed and they make me flee in horror... it seems there are only: TRUMPET- Rava, Fresu, Boltro, Bosso. SAXOPHONE- Di Battista, Giuliani. PIANO- Rea, Bollani, Allevi (!). BASS- Bonaccorso, Pietropaoli. Drums- Gatto, Sferra. I almost forgot Petrella on trombone... and aside from a few salvageable things, THEY ALWAYS DO THE SAME DAMN THING! THEY NEVER TAKE A RISK! They copy (even poorly) the stylistic features of the past and little more. You can have all the collaborations, tribute albums, standards, "contaminations" you want... everyone can do that if they can play decently! But developing a PERSONAL style, YOUR OWN ideas, COMPOSING substantial instrumental pieces instead of the usual fillers, NO??? Laziness? Inability? Dishonesty? Mediocrity? Fear of change? A lift operator mentality? Famous Italian jazz musicians, dare a little more!! You’ve broken our balls...

For me, Parker was above all an EXTRAORDINARY soloist, improviser, interpreter, as well as a very complex and tormented human being. His originality lies solely in the HOW he plays, not in the WHAT he plays. Monk's originality, on the other hand, is found both in the how and the what. But I repeat, far be it from me to underestimate Parker, an artist among my favorites!! When I write, "The contribution of Thelonious Sphere Monk to the birth and development of modern jazz is incalculable," by incalculable I do not necessarily mean that it is superior to that of Parker. I’m referring to the difficulty intrinsic to such evaluations...the contributions of Parker, Monk, Mingus, Davis, Coltrane, etc. are enormous, and I love them all. However, in certain cases, using rationality, I can't help but think that Monk may have been crucial in setting the "engine" of the vehicle subsequently driven recklessly by Parker.

Always difficult to explain oneself and to understand each other without the contribution of non-verbal communication. If there's one person who doesn't generalize, it's me. I'll try again with a metaphor: Parker and Gillespie explored two different coasts of the same island, which they reached by boat together, only to separate (while remaining on the same island). Monk has created his own island.

I'm not so sure about this (nor its opposite), because while Parker's influence can be "measured" by the number of imitators or musicians inspired by him, Monk's influence, mostly underground, is just as hard to quantify. They are both giants; it's truly difficult to establish the real importance of each! And if Monk had not been born, perhaps Parker, Gillespie, and Bud Powell would never have sparked the bebop movement, having been deeply influenced by him first. Who knows...maximum respect for these figures, whom I consider "equal" in terms of importance. However, as for my personal tastes, I have a slight preference for Monk and his musical world, which was uniquely his. Parker, on the other hand, "shared" bebop with Dizzy, Powell, and the others... he was the greatest champion of that style, but he didn't create anything out of nothing like Monk did; rather, he elevated and synthesized the new melodic-harmonic-rhythmic approach that was in the air during those years. His legendary charisma also ensured that his legend stayed alive, even after his death.

AH AH AH PANAPP's comment is, let's say, singular! Beethoven's music empty and the music of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries devoid of meaning... Someone could (albeit mistakenly and quite dramatically, but at least with a basis) accuse BACH's music of being "empty," due to how inhuman it seems, but certainly not Beethoven's, which is a hundred percent human, infused with life, utterly full. Anyone who defines themselves as a "faithful Bachian" is essentially proclaiming themselves an extremist, fitting into that category of individuals from whom the reviewer rightly distances themselves in their writing. Giving a 3 to these masterpieces is the mark of arrogant ignorance.

Could it be that the flamingos made the anus pink? What a year, '72...