I'm sure he is, but I still haven't heard him do anything that someone as uninformed as I am could appreciate. Also, he has a face that would turn Medusa to stone when he's playing.

I'll second that nomination.

John Scofield, This meets That. Last night, lights out. You
either totally dig, or can't stand, an original like John S.
This is one of the best recorded CDs I have heard. If you like
over the edge, eclectic jazz, John is worth a listen. Also if
your curious what the House of the Rising Sun might sound like
on acid, it's on this CD.

Peace,

PB

U2 Under A Blood Red Sky

Yo-Yo Ma, Edgar Meyer, and Mark O'Connor - Appalachian Waltz
Oscar Peterson Trio - Plus One (with Clark Terry)
Art Tatum - Piano Starts Here

Listened to Hiromi:

chou à la crème

And to think I use to hate both Jazz and piano now I love both, well except classical piano.

Ok no big surprise I’m listening to her again but the coolest part besides her playing it that I got all my food prep/cooking done for the week in the time it took to play her “Beyond Standard” CD.

Yup I need to get a life.

At the risk of appearing less refined, I still fit a bit into your original category. Solo piano continues to be me least favorite, but not necessarily disliked, instrument. I can appreciate amazing piano talent from poor, in multiple genres, but if given the choice between a solo piano CD and any other solo instrument, I'll almost always go with the other.

Piano mixed into a orchestra, jazz group, rock band etc. is a whole other matter. I generally enjoy what it adds as a piece of the bigger puzzle so I'm not sure why it's my least favorite solo item. No need to analyze it I guess, one likes what they like.

RE: Analyzing what one likes.

Immanuel Kant spent a very long time with his brain in that very shrubbery maze. Check out "Critique of Judgement." It changed the way I perceive everything. (Sorry, I used to teach "Philosohpies of Aesthetics." Kneejerk sorta thing.)

Thanks BobKay. I took the time to Google his work at lunch. I managed to find what is most likely an extremely over-condensed, Coles Notes type version of this, his third 'Critique' on subjects that most would find way too "undefinitive " (yes I know that's not a real word) to even take a stab at.

I actually got about 3 paragraphs into my thoughts on the bit I could grasp from a quick scan of the above shortened version but I have since deleted them. I realized I hadn't read enough of the real paper to make judgmental statements on his theory of judgments

No, they were not necessarily negative judgments either. Although the one thought I will share is that the samples of his interpretations did at times appear to be thoughtful enough to inspire deep though on my part <good> but yet full of terminology that in itself was very open to interpretation. Thus I wondered if perhaps his actual paper was accompanied by a glossary of sorts that hardened up his terminology so it was less interpretational ...or.. was he deliberately using interpretational language to describe his theories so that they were more likely to be accepted by the masses (supports multiple interpretations) or less likely to be refuted.

In the end though, it is a stronger effort to explain something unquantifiable than I could have mustered up so it's worth reading and I'll be checking the library to see if I can find the full paper.

Humble opinions based on not enough data. Hopefully taken as conversation, not critique.