Books about jazz

[Artem]

Beneath the Underdog is another good, wild book to accompany your Mingus research. Do post about your chronological discoveries.

[Artem]

These are relatively new, I believe. Haven't read them myself, but I'm curious.

[T. D.]

These are relatively new, I believe. Haven't read them myself, but I'm curious.

Those look interesting. Will research the volume on Parker (I have more recordings with him then with Tchicai).
Currently reading this thin book (Karl Berger lives fairly near me, so I wanted to support him), not sure if it's strictly jazz. Might be too new-agey/"spiritual" for some:



This is on order. Isoardi's The Dark Tree about Tapscott was great, so I have high expectations.

[Artem]

Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like there's not as much good literature about jazz as compared with the field of Classical music. Is it because that jazz is new? Somebody should really write "The Rest is Noise" kind of book about jazz.

[T. D.]

Yippee! The William Parker book Universal Tonality is available through my interlibrary loan system. I put a hold on it. Currently checked out, but I should get it within 3 weeks. 

[T. D.]

Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like there's not as much good literature about jazz as compared with the field of Classical music. Is it because that jazz is new? Somebody should really write "The Rest is Noise" kind of book about jazz.

Nate Chinen's Playing Changes?

OK, I haven't read it (nor the Alex Ross book), but they seem somewhat similar.

Jazz literature is kind of a weird field. Many excellent specialized books and biographies, but general/overview books always seem to catch a lot of flak. Maybe because so many jazz fans are cantankerous boomer (or even more, uh...mature) old farts. Another weird thing: some of the attractive specialized books, e.g. Ian McDonald's biography of Tadd Dameron, were published in super-limited quantities. (I tried to find that for years, eventually settled for Paul Combs's Dameronia...turned out Tadd was so enigmatic that little concrete can really be said.)

Sooner or later I'll read Ted Gioia's How to Listen to Jazz...Reviews a bit mixed, but I liked his West Coast Jazz. Can't comment on his History of Jazz Just realized I read Gioia's History of Jazz some 15 years ago; I guess it didn't impress.    Most of the jazz books I read are biographies.

[San Antone]

Picked this up the other day and am looking forward to starting it:



Has anyone here read it or know of the book?

I have it and have read it, twice.  It is a good book based on documentary evidence of Bolden's life: primary records.  It is also frustrating because we don't have anything of his music, no recorded examples of his playing. But this book is the best we can have of getting an idea of who he was.

[SimonNZ]

I have it and have read it, twice.  It is a good book based on documentary evidence of Bolden's life: primary records.  It is also frustrating because we don't have anything of his music, no recorded examples of his playing. But this book is the best we can have of getting an idea of who he was.

Thanks for that. I'll now have to find it in whatever pile of more recent purchases its been buried under.

[San Antone]

I think the best books about Jazz are the autobiographies, collections of interviews, and some surveys like Jazzmen, Gunther Schuller's books on Early Jazz and Swing Era (although these are bit academic and dry but chock full of information).

To Be or Not to Bop - Dizzy Gillespie
Good Morning Blues - Count Basie
Music is My Mistress - Duke Ellington
Music on My Mind - Willie the Lion Smith
Swing That Music - Louis Armstrong
The Jazz Tradition - Martin Williams

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like there's not as much good literature about jazz as compared with the field of Classical music. Is it because that jazz is new? Somebody should really write "The Rest is Noise" kind of book about jazz.

Some nice books.

[Mirror Image]

When I first got into jazz, this book was an important one for me:

[San Antone]

Jazz: A History of America's Music
by Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns



The companion book for the 10 part documentary about Jazz by Ken Burns, it is a valuable text - and IMO the single best history of Jazz.  I am re-watching the film and going through the book along with watching.  While the film offers a wealth of information and history, the book offers much more.

[Mirror Image]

Jazz: A History of America's Music
by Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns



The companion book for the 10 part documentary about Jazz by Ken Burns, it is a valuable text - and IMO the single best history of Jazz.  I am re-watching the film and going through the book along with watching.  While the film offers a wealth of information and history, the book offers much more.

The main problem I have with the Ken Burns' Jazz documentary is how there were limited perspectives brought into the film by those of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch. My biggest beef is there were several shots made at giants like Ornette Coleman and the whole free jazz scene, which was completely unnecessary --- not to mention the dismissal of anything Miles did post-Kind of Blue. I like some free jazz, but I'm not going to degrade the innovators of the style in order to elevate my own point-of-view. I hate metal, but I wouldn't make a comment on it on a documentary that's dedicated to the genre. Also, I seem to recall very little mention of Bill Evans in Jazz, which was a slap in the face to all of those piano trios out there who obviously owe this man a huge debt.

[San Antone]

The main problem I have with the Ken Burns' Jazz documentary is how there were limited perspectives brought into the film by those of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch. My biggest beef is there were several shots made at giants like Ornette Coleman and the whole free jazz scene, which was completely unnecessary --- not to mention the dismissal of anything Miles did post-Kind of Blue. I like some free jazz, but I'm not going to degrade the innovators of the style in order to elevate my own point-of-view. I hate metal, but I wouldn't make a comment on it on a documentary that's dedicated to the genre. Also, I seem to recall very little mention of Bill Evans in Jazz, which was a slap in the face to all of those piano trios out there who obviously owe this man a huge debt.

I think the film, and especially the book, struck the right balance and focus on the truly important figures and styles/periods.  Personally, I agree with the perspective of Marsalis in centering the history on the contributions and accomplishments of Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Monk, Mingus, Coltrane, and Miles Davis.  Ornette Coleman is treated respectfully, IMO, and given his due and accorded his place in the overall history.

IIRC Bill Evans is mentioned vis a vis Kind of Blue, and with a nod to his style and legacy.  A lot of time is given to Bix Beiderbecke, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, and even John Hammond - so one cannot make a convincingly case that the film/book ignored the contributions of white musicians/personalities.

But as far as "free Jazz'" is concerned (as well as fusion Jazz), IMO it was an unfortunate detour which I don't think deserves much attention.  The positives brought out in the film regarding Ornette Coleman is that he retained the primary ingredients of Jazz: Blues and swing, and was comfortably in the tradition.  When those elements are removed from the equation you might have very good improvised music - but not Jazz.

This history, both the film and book, is told by a variety of musicians and authors and is nuanced, balanced, as well as, accurate.

[SimonNZ]

They should have had a stated cutoff date of 1965-ish for the documentary which is really where they give up, offering only the last half of the last episode for a confusingly selective list of shout-outs to complete the story.

And no mention of the ECM label or any of their artists - who I would have thought were carrying the torch in the later 20th century.

[San Antone]

They should have had a stated cutoff date of 1965-ish for the documentary which is really where they give up, offering only the last half of the last episode for a confusingly selective list of shout-outs to complete the story.

And no mention of the ECM label or any of their artists - who I would have thought were carrying the torch in the later 20th century.

I saw an interview with Ken Burns and he responded to this issue. 

He said as a historian his subject must be limited to the past, and long enough ago to have a period close so as to be able know what happened and who were the important personalities.  Since the period since the 1970s (the film was made in the 1990s) was too recent and still developing to make any definitive conclusions; it is too early to know who or what styles will be the most important.

So the last part is more of survey of what is happening since the 1970s to the then present.

[SimonNZ]

I can't really agree. I've seen it three times now and each time it feels in that last segment that they are obliged to follow Wynton's very outspoken and unbending verdicts about what is and is not Jazz, and that ECM artists are in his estimation Not Jazz. And by 2001 when it was screened, or whenever the project was started, it should have been clear that many were, are and will continue to be important.

[San Antone]

I can't really agree. I've seen it three times now and each time it feels in that last segment that they are obliged to follow Wynton's very outspoken and unbending verdicts about what is and is not Jazz, and that ECM artists are in his estimation Not Jazz. And by 2001 when it was screened, or whenever the project was started, it should have been clear that many were, are and will continue to be important.

Why are you upset that Marsalis does not consider some of ECM Jazz? 

It is clear throughout the film that Marsalis defines Jazz are music made up of three components: improvisation, swing, and music steeped in the Blues.  Since much of the ECM catalog only shares one element, improvisation, it is no surprise that Marsalis does not include it in the Jazz tradition.

He does say that improvised music that isn't Jazz can be and is very good music, just not Jazz.

I happen to agree, and listen to ECM recordings a lot. 

Labels are useful for a couple of reasons: 1) cataloging collections and 2) defining a tradition.  But ultimately they have nothing to do with quality.

[Mirror Image]

I think the film, and especially the book, struck the right balance and focus on the truly important figures and styles/periods.  Personally, I agree with the perspective of Marsalis in centering the history on the contributions and accomplishments of Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Monk, Mingus, Coltrane, and Miles Davis.  Ornette Coleman is treated respectfully, IMO, and given his due and accorded his place in the overall history.

IIRC Bill Evans is mentioned vis a vis Kind of Blue, and with a nod to his style and legacy.  A lot of time is given to Bix Beiderbecke, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, and even John Hammond - so one cannot make a convincingly case that the film/book ignored the contributions of white musicians/personalities.

But as far as "free Jazz'" is concerned (as well as fusion Jazz), IMO it was an unfortunate detour which I don't think deserves much attention.  The positives brought out in the film regarding Ornette Coleman is that he retained the primary ingredients of Jazz: Blues and swing, and was comfortably in the tradition.  When those elements are removed from the equation you might have very good improvised music - but not Jazz.

This history, both the film and book, is told by a variety of musicians and authors and is nuanced, balanced, as well as, accurate.

To the bolded text, I disagree. I didn't hear any variety in the opinions expressed. All I heard was the Marsalis/Crouch clan speak of their own personal biases. A mere nod to Bill Evans doesn't actually give accord to his accomplishments. I don't recall Dave Brubeck being mentioned or talked about to any great length and, again, this shows yet another oversight to this deeply flawed documentary series. In fact, I don't think the whole West Coast scene got much attention in general. And we won't even talk about the oversight of the European jazz musicians. Anyway, this series may be important to you, but to me it hardly measures up to anything of remote substance. I agree with what Claude Debussy said about the tradition in music "I love music passionately. And because I love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it." The same ideology applies to jazz. This music isn't for the museum as depicted in the Ken Burns' series. It's a living, breathing musical organism that will never find its' footing, because of its inherent adaptability to change with the times. This is something that the Marsalis/Burns clan have continued to fail to acknowledge.

[T. D.]

To the bolded text, I disagree. I didn't hear any variety in the opinions expressed. All I heard was the Marsalis/Crouch clan speak of their own personal biases. A mere nod to Bill Evans doesn't actually give accord to his accomplishments. I don't recall Dave Brubeck being mentioned or talked about to any great length and, again, this shows yet another oversight to this deeply flawed documentary series. In fact, I don't think the whole West Coast scene got much attention in general. And we won't even talk about the oversight of the European jazz musicians. Anyway, this series may be important to you, but to me it hardly measures up to anything of remote substance. I agree with what Claude Debussy said about the tradition in music "I love music passionately. And because I love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it." The same ideology applies to jazz. This music isn't for the museum as depicted in the Ken Burns series. It's a living, breathing musical organism that will never find its' footing, because of its inherent adaptability to change with the times. This is something that the Marsalis/Burns clan have continued to fail to acknowledge.

[Emphasis added.] Recall that Bill Evans was known for rarely playing blues tunes.  🤣
Multiple 👍 to the museum statement.

Disclosure: I've no time for Wynton and his pretentious preaching, nor interest in his music. Apparently he feels that hard bop is where it's at; well, I also like hard bop and there are countless exponents thereof who I prefer to listen to.