Critic's Poll

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I was reading either Jazz Times or Down Beat the other day and the top three "new" releases of the year were the Monk/Coltrane disc, the Coltrane at the Half Note disc, and the Gillespie/Parker recording from '45.

Interesting. A commentary on today's music scene or just a one-time accident?

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Interesting. A commentary on today's music scene or just a one-time accident?

Perhaps both.

[groover]

Those were also my top three, by sheer coincidence, I guess!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Kind of sad though. The "newest" recording is about 40 years old.

[Enforcer]

Sad, and yet very relevant to my own jazz attitudes right now. When it comes to the styles of jazz made by artists of a given time period, I find myself more and more listening to the original artists of that period. In other words, when I want to hear some hard bop, I go back to my old Clifford Brown CDs. I rarely check out the new stuff. It's not just by accident or because it's easy. I just find I like the music that was made when it was a new thing, by the artists who invented it, better than the new stuff.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Interesting. A commentary on today's music scene or just a one-time accident?

Perhaps more a commentary on the state of the major glossies.

[Frisco]

Well, there were plenty of new releases of truly new music this year. One can peruse the lists made here and find at least fifty different discs that us listeners thought were worthy of consideration. What was even more disturbing to me was "The Wire" list. The top jazz and improvised music cds? Maybe I'm lacking in some knowledge of music, but I didn't recognize half of their list. Of course their major contributions to avant-jazz lately have been remembering ESP artists.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Sergio,

You may have a point. The glossies would use mainly established (establishment?) critics. For instance, Giddens in his column selected the new Rollins disk as his fourth or fifth choice. I liked the disk, but a top 5 recording?

But, I'm kind of with Nagel on this one because I'm sort of going in the same direction myself.

[crawjo]

Well, at this point I don't think it's any secret that jazz's past is better than jazz's present or future. Anyone who maintains otherwise is probably deluding him or herself.

[Gary Sisco]

If you're talking hard bop, perhaps, but that's far from the whole of jazz in the present. There's never been more stylistic diversity than today -- so much that there's no mainstream even to talk about, unless retreads are to be considered mainstream. Which they're not, by me. If anything there are nearly as many approaches as there are cats playing. Which is a good thing, in my view. Dominant movements are necessarily composed of large numbers of acolytes.

Still, I had all three of those in my list, too. They may have been recorded long ago but they were issued this year. A new release is a new release. They're also very fine records by great artists.

The glossies are adrift at sea, though. They have been for many years. Like the record companies, the world has changed around them but they either haven't noticed yet or can't adjust -- plus, there's the payola, er, "advertising" factor at play in the glossies.

[Steve Reynolds]

to an extent, david

not true for me as of 6-7 years ago - I havn't been as in touch as I was back from 1995-2000 - but at that time, I would always disagree with the 'past is better' mindset.

and I am not delusional

still no better jazz band than Hemingway's Quintet from the 90's - never, some maybe on the same level - Mingus', Miles, Monk's - a few more - but those recordings stand the test of time - and I could list a bunch more that hold up to Ah Um, Monk's Music, Miles Smiles, Far East Suite - or any of the great classic jazz records

want me to start?

and I know so many here are jaded to the what's new game - but I don't buy it - or at least I didn't a few years ago - now with fewer young players doing stunning stuff within the jazz idiom, I might start to agree - but this has been one of my pet peeves for years

people might have a harder time liking Joe Maneri - and some may not like him at all - but a recording like Dahabenzapple stands up to any freely improvised jazz that has ever been made - even though it was recorded in 1993 and not 1965 - as fresh as this sort of thing could ever be


I'm with the listen to Clifford for hard bop - I always have been with that - but there are other aspects of jazz - anyone here now downgrading Thomas Chapin's recorded legacy vis a vis say Jackie McLean - but he isn't as historical figure as the legendary altoist?

I say listen to the records with a different minset and discover unknown brilliance once more



Ghostly Thoughts, baby

[Gary Sisco]

I'm sick of nostalgia, myself. That itself is a retread.

But, like I said, there's a case if hard bop is the measure. If I want to hear hard bop I turn to the masters from the days as well.

But I don't always want to hear hard bop.

A case could be made also for the kind of free jazz descended from the 60s, as well, but that's not the only kind there is.

What I do know, because I've heard it, live and recorded, is that there's plenty of great jazz being made today -- more than any one of us can ever buy or hear in one year. Hundreds of records, none of us will hear or only one or two of us. Let's face it. It can't be different with literally thousands of new releases every year.

[Steve Reynolds]

like where is the precedent for Thomas Chapin's Trio + Brass - maybe the tune Golgotham??

where does one go in the past to hear the earlier, "better" version of that jazz?


just because there is no easy label for this sort of thing

and Ghostly Thoughts itself - and DARESAY that old time free jazz outfit - Mujician - nothing else really like it - some would say it is a watered down version of what had been done before - but open ears might disagree

but one needs an open heart as well, I think,,,,


Clusone 3 is another, ICP is another - maybe *now* in 2005 ICP might be considered somewhat predictable and even mannered to an extent - but think about the perspective - this shit is sometimes pretty damn incredible if one is open to it - unless one just simply wants something of an old style - or on the other hand, wants someting completely *visionary* to borrow from another thread

[Gary Sisco]

Ghostly Thoughts is a good example of free jazz that isn't merely mimicking the New York style descended from the 60s.

[Rob C]

I think it just means the jazz "scene" is way more fragmented now than it was up to the early 60s. It's not that the music then was "better"--it's just that a lot more people agree on what was "great".

[Gary Sisco]

You can look at it as fragmented, I guess. But I look at it as more differentiated. The thing with nostalgia is that it's a false memory. We remember all of the great artists and records from the days but forget about the duds and mimicks, of which there were many. In fact, most. That's the trouble with artistic movements that get sparked by one or a small group's inspiration or innovation. The next thing that follows is a train of mimicks.

Take a look at the Fantasy catalogue, which holds a huge portion of jazz history from the days, by itself. Lots of great records and great artists, sure. Many more in the snooze category, however.

[clinthopson]

Hard bop was the apotheosis of jazz. All since hasn't reached that height.

Not that later jazz isn't very good, but there is a pinnacle.

[Gary Sisco]

How many of last year's thousands of new jazz releases did you hear, Clint?

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

You can look at it as fragmented, I guess. But I look at it as more differentiated. The thing with nostalgia is that it's a false memory. We remember all of the great artists and records from the days but forget about the duds and mimicks, of which there were many. In fact, most. That's the trouble with artistic movements that get sparked by one or a small group's inspiration or innovation. The next thing that follows is a train of mimicks.

Take a look at the Fantasy catalogue, which holds a huge portion of jazz history from the days, by itself. Lots of great records and great artists, sure. Many more in the snooze category, however.

Another excellent point. I mean, the releases in question are new releases by Bird, Diz, Monk, Trane... some of the greatest musicians ever. Not exactly Joe Schmoes.

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Hard bop was the apotheosis of jazz. All since hasn't reached that height.

Not that later jazz isn't very good, but there is a pinnacle.

IYO.

[Frisco]

Ok, I might be delusional. In fact, I do a radio program called 'Delusions and Furies", loosely taking off on the Partch piece 'Delusion of the Fury".

But I find a hell of a lot of fresh and honest expression, free of any bullshit corporate pressures or psuedo-hip pressures, in today's creative free-jazz music. I mean, if you could've heard the veterans Gayle, Parker, and Ali tearing it up and still finding a means of fresh and common ground to explore, you may have a different take on the state of jazz today. It don't have to be genre-busting or incorporate sine-waves to be great. Many of us who know this music could point to hundreds of artists who have something very worthwhile and exciting to say in jazz and improvised music today.

My feeling is that those who say that nothing is happening in creative jazz today probably didn't have a whole lot invested to begin with. I get the feeling that some people liike it if it sounds "new" and once it gets to be established, they tend to want to move on to something newer. To me, today's jazz and free-improv can still be very exciting when played from the heart and living in the moment. Visionaries surround us!

[Nate Dorward]

The presence of the discs on the yearends has nothing to do with the relative merit of current jazz. It has to do with the fact that the past is limited, the present is renewable. There is a finite amount of music by past greats of the music, since they're dead & most of their music went unrecorded; an unexpected addition to our stock of available music by these musicians justly is widely celebrated. Contemporary musicians tend to be extensively documented & tend to be ALIVE & so producing more music all the time.

[crawjo]

Steve,

I don't know. I wish I could agree with you, but the only disc I heard this year that made my top 15 that I would consider jazz was Cooper-Moore's Beautiful. Everything else that I heard sounded so-so or downright tired.

And while I will allow that it is possible that there are groups working today who could go toe to toe with the biggest legends in jazz, that's not really the issue. What I said was jazz's past is better than its future. Think about all the great jazz that came out in 1959 or 1965. In fact, just take that whole period of the '50s and '60s, with all the great hard bop, post bop and free jazz records that were made during that time. Is jazz ever again going to reach that summit? I don't think it has in the 40 years that have passed since then, which says something, I think.

But I do think that for most people, if you made a list of the ten best jazz records for any individual year from 1955 to 1965, it would blow any similar list from the last ten years out of the water.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Frisco

Ok, I might be delusional. In fact, I do a radio program called 'Delusions and Furies", loosely taking off on the Partch piece 'Delusion of the Fury".

That's one of my favorite pieces of music!

[Frisco]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

That's one of my favorite pieces of music!

My friend, who I began the program sharing Sundays with, got me into Partch's music. Harry is one of his favorites, along with Moondog. I've yet to fully grasp Moondog's music.

[mke]

But I do think that for most people, if you made a list of the ten best jazz records for any individual year from 1955 to 1965, it would blow any similar list from the last ten years out of the water.

That would be an interesting JC collective project, I think.

[John L]

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

But I do think that for most people, if you made a list of the ten best jazz records for any individual year from 1955 to 1965, it would blow any similar list from the last ten years out of the water.

1959 might certainly do that.

Ironically, I tend to agree with both points of view that are being expressed here. We are pretty spoiled. There is a tremendous amount of fine new jazz being made today. Whether or not a lot of it can be compared favorably to what was made on a regular basis during the extraordinary period of 1920-1970 is not really the point.

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

Steve,

I don't know. I wish I could agree with you, but the only disc I heard this year that made my top 15 that I would consider jazz was Cooper-Moore's Beautiful. Everything else that I heard sounded so-so or downright tired.

And while I will allow that it is possible that there are groups working today who could go toe to toe with the biggest legends in jazz, that's not really the issue. What I said was jazz's past is better than its future. Think about all the great jazz that came out in 1959 or 1965. In fact, just take that whole period of the '50s and '60s, with all the great hard bop, post bop and free jazz records that were made during that time. Is jazz ever again going to reach that summit? I don't think it has in the 40 years that have passed since then, which says something, I think.

But I do think that for most people, if you made a list of the ten best jazz records for any individual year from 1955 to 1965, it would blow any similar list from the last ten years out of the water.

I completely agree with this evaluation excepting that I'd extend the golden era back to the end of the 1948 recording ban. By that time the LP had been invented, tape mastering had been introduced and virtually all the pioneers were still alive and mostly in their prime, though it is also true that jazz artists and producers didn't really get the hang of the LP and essentially produced LPs as singles compiliations until a more conceptual view of jazz albums developed in the mid 50s. Before that time jazz recordings were still pretty much produced as singles for the juke box market.

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

If you're talking hard bop, perhaps, but that's far from the whole of jazz in the present. There's never been more stylistic diversity than today -- so much that there's no mainstream even to talk about, unless retreads are to be considered mainstream. Which they're not, by me. If anything there are nearly as many approaches as there are cats playing. Which is a good thing, in my view. Dominant movements are necessarily composed of large numbers of acolytes.

Still, I had all three of those in my list, too. They may have been recorded long ago but they were issued this year. A new release is a new release. They're also very fine records by great artists.

The glossies are adrift at sea, though. They have been for many years. Like the record companies, the world has changed around them but they either haven't noticed yet or can't adjust -- plus, there's the payola, er, "advertising" factor at play in the glossies.

I think it's fair to say that mainstream jazz today is what most people (not just hard core fans) think of when they hear the term jazz. It's probably bop influenced swing, which frankly would encompass both Marsalis andwhat is characterized a smooth jazz, along with the piano trios, quartets and vocal acts that one encounters in middle brow restaurants around the nation.

[RedJazz]

I can remember back in the 50s when people waxed nostalgic about the demise of the big band era. Ironically thought the big bands were much more alive then (and well into the 1970s) than is the case today when they appear to me as truely dead. The handful of ghost bands still left play amost exclusively concerts. Big band jazz dance music is a true historical anachronism.