[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoFiveOne /img/forum/go_quote.gif I continue to be amazed at how little anyone here knows anything substantive about Stan Getz.

Surprised you didn't mention Sweet Rain or Nobody Else But Me, two classics that followed the bossa-nova period and proved that Stan had a pretty good view from that new mansion of what was happening elsewhere in jazz—especially on Rain. You mentioned People Time and The Lost Sessions, but pretty much all the late-career records Getz made with pianist Kenny Barron are excellent. Voyage, the fantastic one from the '80s, is about to be reissued, but Anniversary and Serenity are fine, too.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaduffy007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't see much of an argument for the 1928-1938 period. Quite weak actually.

I guess that shows how much you know about the explosion of trad jazz and the birth of swing. That's the period when jazz became the music of the American people, not just the music of an elite group of music critics.

See ya
Steve

 

[jaduffy007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess that shows how much you know about the explosion of trad jazz and the birth of swing. That's the period when jazz became the music of the American people, not just the music of an elite group of music critics. See ya Steve

First...I agree...there were some serious contributions during that period, but otoh...as you rightfully point out.. "when jazz became the music of the American people" is the big story of that period. Exactly...it hit the mainstream. Popularity does NOT play much of a role in *my* "measuring stick". The musical complexity of Bebop was an intentional response to that "mainstreaming" of jazz. Thelonious Monk and Dizzy have spoken about this...in detail. For me, their opinions carry a great deal of "weight".

Secondly...Just a suggestion. In the future, if you disagree with someone on some issue...I suggest you simply make your case versus attacking them personally. By making your case, it becomes educational rather than a pissing contest. You have NO IDEA what I do or do not know about jazz and its history. I will resist the egoic temptation to give my music resume.

Kind of a nasty attitude Steve...so yeah..."see ya"

 

[jaduffy007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Voyage, the fantastic one from the '80s, is about to be reissued

"Voyage" reissue...cool! Thanks for the "heads up".

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaduffy007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Popularity does NOT play much of a role in *my* "measuring stick". The musical complexity of Bebop was an intentional response to that "mainstreaming" of jazz. Thelonious Monk and Dizzy have spoken about this...in detail. For me, their opinions carry a great deal of "weight".

Amen. Benny Carter used to say that, in terms of innovation, nothing that happened in jazz later surprised him as much as Charlie Parker had. And I've had folks who teach jazz-history courses tell me that to this day it's Bird's music that generally seems the most disorienting (at first, at least) to new listeners.

 

[Know Talent]

If you want to dip into some cool avantgarde checkout offerings on AUM Fidelity and Riti labels...

Aum Fidelity - featuring the vanguard works from some of today's masters of music

I really got hooked on Joe Morris and Whit Dickey!!!

Age of Everything

A Cloud of Blackbirds

Prophet Moon

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaduffy007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Popularity does NOT play much of a role in *my* "measuring stick".

What I was referring to you doesn't have anything to do with you. It has to do with jazz.

When jazz was the music of the people, rather than the music of snobby music critics, it was on every street corner and in every movie and on every radio. It was a part of society. This made it possible for a huge tide of innovation to take place. Instead of being isolated to just a few musicians in smokey underground hipster clubs, jazz was being explored, experimented with and expanded by just about every living musician at the time, from the whitest of Paul Whiteman to the blackest of the jungle bands in Harlem. Jazz had no color. Jazz was the first equalizer between black and white, rich and poor, powerful and weak... it was American through and through.

This all inclusive societal permeation is why jazz went from a combination of tin pan alley, military band and ragtime to dixieland to the Blues, to traditional jazz, to big band to swing, to bop in such an amazingly short period of time. Everyone was a part of it, and everyone was contributing to the mix. During the 30s, 40s and 50s, jazz was alive and growing and expanding. After bop, jazz became isolated, fragmented and esoteric. It turned its back on entertainment value and it turned its back on the bulk of its audience... the American people as a whole. It became the music of a favored few "boppers" and the "cogniscenti" who followed them. It wasn't reflecting the joy and bustle of the American people any more. It became a specialized exercise that only university professors and professional musicians could relate to.

Jump blues was the sole remaining offshoot of jazz that didn't reject entertainment value and audience identification. It took some of the best aspects of jazz (the core root of jazz- the Blues) and evolved into rock n' roll, which exploded onto the scene and ended up shoving jazz out of the way, like a child pushes his father aside when he becomes a man. In its weakened state, all jazz could do is weakly absorb some of the worst aspects of rock and roll and combine it with the noodley meandering of the post bop era. Being neither fish nor fowl, it became a largely irrelevant subset of rock music.

When you know about the thirties, and how vital a cultural revolution jazz was across all levels of life in America, you realize what a tragedy the sixties and the seventies were.

See ya
Steve

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you know about the thirties, and how vital a cultural revolution jazz was across all levels of life in America, you realize what a tragedy the sixties and the seventies were.

Without writing a treatise, I'll just say that that explanation seems a bit oversimplified, and doesn't address the current acceptance of acknowledged major figures like Miles Davis, John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk. Just because the general public had other things on their minds doesn't necessarily mean that jazzers "rejected entertainment value." Otherwise there'd be absolutely no basis for current interest in stuff like, say, Art Blakey and "Giant Steps"; also, contemporary producers and DJs wouldn't be raiding the Blue Note catalog for things that are sample-worthy. Believe it or else, there could be something to that phrase "ahead of your time."

As for swing, it's true that something about the socio-cultural context of the Swing Era attracted a wide range of listeners (though it wasn't colorblind, despite the surface perception). But a star bandleader like the late Artie Shaw would tell you that a large percentage of those people had very little taste—which is why he quit the business a few times (even at the height of his popularity) rather than play the dreck he knew they wanted to hear. He hung up clarinet for good in the late '40s.

 

[bigshot]

Miles, Blakey, Coltrane and Monk all did their best work more than four decades ago. Since bop, jazz has been progressively going downhill. (It could be argued that jazz hit its peak in the late 30s and it's all been downhill from there.) Modern Jazz was a fine alternative and very innovative at the beginning, but it essentially killed jazz as a mainstream art form. Entertainment value is not a sin. In the thirties, jazz managed to be both innovative AND popular with audiences.

Don't get me started on those sampled Blue Note remixes. You REALLY don't want to hear my opinion of those!

See ya
Steve

 

[jaduffy007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Amen. Benny Carter used to say that, in terms of innovation, nothing that happened in jazz later surprised him as much as Charlie Parker had. And I've had folks who teach jazz-history courses tell me that to this day it's Bird's music that generally seems the most disorienting (at first, at least) to new listeners.

The first time I heard Parker on record, my jaw dropped. Improvising over very complex harmonic progressions... at incredibly fast tempos. VERY intimidating stuff to try to play. The "harmony theory" he created(!) is now the "textbook" for students of jazz (Berklee, Manhattan, etc.).

I got curious..."googled" Parker... and even Wiki gets it right....

About Parker: "personifying the conception of the jazz musician as an uncompromising artist and intellectual, rather than just a popular entertainer."

I think the above quote addresses the last several posts as well.

 

[jaduffy007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Miles, Blakey, Coltrane and Monk all did their best work more than four decades ago. Since bop, jazz has been progressively going downhill. (It could be argued that jazz hit its peak in the late 30s and it's all been downhill from there.) Modern Jazz was a fine alternative and very innovative at the beginning, but it essentially killed jazz as a mainstream art form. Entertainment value is not a sin. In the thirties, jazz managed to be both innovative AND popular with audiences. Don't get me started on those sampled Blue Note remixes. You REALLY don't want to hear my opinion of those! See ya Steve

Hey Steve...well, it was pretty clear to me that we saw jazz and its history through different "glasses", but with these comments I see we're UNIVERSES apart. And that's cool with me.

I think it should be pointed out though...(especially for people new to jazz like the OP)...as entitled to your opinions as you are Steve...the views you hold true are not held by any jazz scholars or historians *I* have read...and I've read a LOT. As far as jazz musicians today...no way, no how. I studied with Bill Holman, etc...and even those guys would be left speechless by your comments. Dizzy definitely wouldn't agree with you. Honestly, as a student, player and teacher of jazz for 30 years, you're the first person I've ever heard express such an opinion...in words or print.

Again...I just want to be clear. I'm not challenging what you *enjoy* to listen to the most....nor challenging that there was some great music created in the late 20s thru 30s.

Yes indeed...sadly...one can "argue that jazz hit its peak in the late 30s and it's all been downhill from there"...and I can argue that the world is flat. I would be wrong.

 

[fuzydice]

This was a thread on suggestions for good jazz... throw in your suggestions and save the arguments over jazz history for another thread.

 

[tpc41]

Bob James & David Sanborn - Double Vision
Bob James & Earl Klugh - Cool

two of my personal favorites if you are into modern smooth jazz

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Know Talent /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you want to dip into some cool avantgarde checkout offerings on AUM Fidelity and Riti labels... I really got hooked on Joe Morris and Whit Dickey!!!

I tend not to recommend avant-garde stuff to newbies unless they ask for the genre specifically, but since the door is open, here's an excellent one:

Rob Brown, Joe Morris and Whit Dickey - Youniverse - Alto sax, guitar and drums, respectively. The improvisations are freewheeling indeed, but what always gets me is how remarkable the tunes are. I think it might rate among the Top 20-30 jazz records of the '90s.

It might be interesting to hear if the OP has been digging anything recommended thus far. That helps posters know what direction to go in.

 

[jaduffy007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzydice /img/forum/go_quote.gif This was a thread on suggestions for good jazz... throw in your suggestions and save the arguments over jazz history for another thread.

Point taken.

My last post on the topic...

My issue is...precisely that this *was* a thread about jazz music for someone new to the genre. For someone to suggest that the OP and others *begin* their journey into jazz by listening to the music of the late 20s thru the 30s..versus the 50's-mid60s as I did...no problem. While I obviously disagree, a good argument *can* be made for that. BUT for someone (big shot) to suggest... that the 20s/30s period is the most influential and historically significant as well as simply the best of what jazz has to offer is just plain...flat out WRONG. To do so, misleads all who may read this thread. *I* think it's important to point this out.

To stick with TruBlu's use of Artie Shaw as an example... maybe people enjoyed listening to the sections of his big bands playing parallel octaves and fifths...but from a musician's perspective...it's CRAP. It's just absurd to compare that music to Parker's extension of harmony (9,11,13), use of passing and substitution chords..all coming at you at the speed of light! It's equally absurd to compare the 20s/30s to Miles' modal explorations or Coltrane's "sheets of sound" or what Coltrane did post 1964. Next up, Bill Evans' innovations. Monk's compositions...and on and on. The level of musicianship *required* to play the later forms of jazz were (are) FAR greater. This cannot be disputed.

I firmly believe there are grey areas in discussions where diverse opinions are to be welcomed, but this disagreement is NOT a grey area.

Also, as entitled as anyone is to their opinions and mutual respect....I believe we have a responsibility to share opinions that are "informed".

peace

EDIT: I want to clarify. Artie Shaw was an incredible musician, but as TruBlu pointed out, Artie also had the integrity to say publicly that some of the music he was part of (swing era) was crap.

Duke Ellington on the Swing Era of Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller:

"Jazz is music, swing is business."



For me, to use *dance music* and the lindy hop as a measuring stick for jazz is "just wrong".