How often do you listen to mainstream albums? What are the albums that you find your self returning to often.

Reid, you are a thread-startin' MADMAN. :)

I give you credit for trying to start some new discussions of music, man.

I listen to something relatively "mainstream" pretty much everyday - not b/c I consciously try to, but because I dig it all, and in the course of a day's listening, at least one release of a category as broad as "mainstream" is bound to get into the player.

The albums of which I do not tire are pretty numerous, Lord, I don't even know where to start.

One of my favorites, though, is Michel Petrucciani's "Plays Petrucciani." I come back to that pretty frequently, and it always puts a smile on my face. And I never tire of "Porgy and Bess". Not ever.

Just curious - what's considered mainstream these days? Not trying to be a wiseguy, I really don't know. I mean, INTERSTELLAR SPACE is, what, 35, 36 years old, and has been out for mass consumption for about 27-28. To me, that's mainstream now. But not everybody agrees, which is why I ask.

Go with your own interpretation, Jim. If you think IS is mainstream, then list it. There isn't some High Council of Jazz Definitions that dictates what these terms mean (I don't think there is, anyway). Judging by what some folks listen to around here, IS probably *is* pretty mainstream by comparison ;).

Didn't "mainstream" used to have a quite specific definition in jazz lingo: Vic Dickenson, Buck Clayton, and others who continued to develop small group swing during the time of bop?

"Mainstream" is a pretty vague term.

Categorization of the music is a pretty slippery slope. What was "avante-guard" years ago may be considered mainstream today.

To me it's jazz that isn't Trad, bop, hard bop, third stream the like.

Certain players could, IMHO, be considered mainstream, i.e. Coleman Hawkins, Ben Webster, Roy Eldridge, Hank Jones. But that's not always accurate either.

I'm slipping down the slope.

Hard to say what "mainstream" means... I guess people's definitions will differ. I wouldn't call "Interstellar Space" mainstream. My idea of mainstream involves song form and a regular beat.

Mainstream makes up the meat of my jazz listening. There are many artists I return to regularly. Armstrong, Ellington, Rollins, Konitz, Jim Hall, Miles, Steve Swallow, Monk... that's off the top of my head. Among singers: Ella, Billie, Carmen, Betty, Sheila...

Under my (very) broad categorization, I'd include pretty much anything not AG. Bop, hard bop, swing, whatever. YMMV as always. I'm probably closer to Tom's idea of mainstream than that of including IS, but, again, I don't own a monopoly on the term.

'There isn't some High Council of Jazz Definitions that dictates what these terms mean'

Well there *is* some kind of general consensus on these matters - bordered by grey areas - can't be denied; but it hardly matters anyway: I can't think of a single use I have for categories.

At this moment I have Mat Maneri's Sustain paused in the living room while I visit the kitchen where I have Mingus' 1945-49 Uptown disc playing. Actually, more than anything else, that's just an example of me making the most of the limited listening time I have. Even in the middle of an Evan Parker fascination, I'm giving major time to Sonny Clark.

Thanks, Tanager.

I'm curious to hear what makes that Petrucciani disc so good. When you say *Porgy and Bess*, I'm assuming you mean the Miles Davis recording. That's a good one (although I think I prefer Miles Ahead).

I'm by no means the authority on jazz terms, but by "mainstream" I meant swing/bop/post-bop recordings.

<< Well there *is* some kind of general consensus on these matters - bordered by grey areas >>

I agree - what I meant is that each of us is free to push at those boundaries on a unilateral basis. I understand that, if you push too far outside the boundaries, then others will not understand your meaning, and the term becomes meaningless or gets redefined altogether. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, IMHO.

Reid: see the new Michel Petrucciani thread. And yep, I meant the Miles disk.

>>And I never tire of "Porgy and Bess". Not ever.>>

Amen! Still my favorite Miles studio recording.

My jazz listening is about 90-95% "mainstream" (meaning non-AG). Too many favorites to list.

John L,

"Didn't 'mainstream' used to have a quite specific definition in jazz lingo: Vic Dickenson, Buck Clayton, and others who continued to develop small group swing during the time of bop?"

Could be... but now we're further down the main stream. Actually, that definition fits the strange French term "middle jazz," which means exactly what you described. It's no longer much in use, but twenty years ago the jazz section in smaller record stores would often be divided by style: New Orleans, Middle Jazz, Swing, Bop. That used to throw me. Middle jazz? What?

>How often do you listen to mainstream albums? What are the albums that you find your self returning to often.

>I'm by no means the authority on jazz terms, but by "mainstream" I meant swing/bop/post-bop recordings.

Reid, that seems so broad that you might as well just consult the current WAYLT thread to find answers.

>>by "mainstream" I meant swing/bop/post-bop recordings<<

Ok, I gotcha, and will reply within those parameters.

How often? It varies. I go off on extended "non-jazz" tangents sometimes, and can go weeks, months even, without going there. I'll get wrapped up in, for instance, a Hard Gospel exploration, and that'll be all I listen to.

OTOH, sometimes that's ALL I listen to, and yet other times, it's merely part of a well-rounded creative music breakfast. ;)

I don't really return to albums as much as I do artists - all the "usual suspects" as well as a few relatively obscure ones (Ernie Henry, for instance). I've got a fairly large collection, so I can, and do, often get into one cat and just groove on checking out his/her recorded musical biography, listening and learning along the way. And, I'm beginning to explore the world of "unofficial" live recordings, because to me, that's usually, but by no means always, more "real" than a studio recording. Sonny Rollins, Miles, Trane, a few others, the live stuff goes places the studio stuff doesn't. Making a record and making music are similar but not always identical procedures, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, two albums of the "mainstream" classification that I continually come back to that are by artists I don't normally return to on a larger scale are IAPETUS by Hadley Calliman (a trippy little affair that's one of the few (the only?) logical extensions of FILLES DE KILLAMANJARO) & FACE TO FACE by Baby Face Willette, especially the cut "Whatever Lola Wants", where the group is totally deep into each other's pockets, and Fred Jackson sings a cheerfully melancholy song of eternally soulful beauty. Now THAT'S as good as anything gets, "mainstream" or otherwise!

<< Sonny Rollins, Miles, Trane, a few others, the live stuff goes places the studio stuff doesn't. >>

I thought it was interesting that someone, I think it was Miles, said (writing about his early recordings, I think) that he always viewed the studio as the more exploratory venue, and the road gigs were to pay the bills. Doubtless not always the case, but an interesting viewpoint nonetheless.

Well, the studio affords you the opportunity of retakes, splices, etc., so in that sense, ther is more freedom to explore. If you screw up, nobody needs to know - it's either fixed or eliminated. But live doesn't afford you that luxury, so you either coast or go for it, failing or succeeding (or both) along the way.

It's not so much a case of better or worse as it is different, I suppose. I just know that there's some Sonny stuff captured live that in some regards blows away even the best of the studio recordings, and that the live recordings of Miles' "lost quintet" are something that hopefully will someday be made available on a large scale basis, because it's music of the highest quality, and there's nothing remotely like it in Miles' "official" catalog, except for the Filmore thing thing that Columbia put out in 2001. And technically, even THAT'S not the "lost quintet" becasue Airto's on board!

Tanager,

Did Miles say that? I found myself agreeing with that, except with the Bitches Brew album. BB the album is tame compared and "safe" compared to the live recordings around that time.

Jim,

Still have not heard that Calliman album. (If you have time, maybe you should do a review in the record review section.)

-------------

I've been getting into the swing oriented musicians (love Stan Getz's Roost recordings). I found myself listening to Scott Hamilton's Organic Duke, too.

I've been listening to the Miles and Trane box set from Columbia. Those Columbia sides with the Sextet are some of my all-time favorite music. I don't think I'll ever tire of it.

I *think* it was Miles. I'm not 100%. There are enough folks around here who know way more than I do that someone will doubtless recall :).