Jazz, c. 1950-1970: Recommendations (and jazz in general)

[bhodges]

After being wowed by Martial Solal last night, I got a few of his CDs, including The Complete Vogue Recordings, Vols. II and III (all from the 1950s), Portrait in Black and White with trumpeter Éric Le Lann, and his most recent, Exposition Sans Tableau.



--Bruce

[locrian]

After being wowed by Martial Solal last night, I got a few of his CDs, including The Complete Vogue Recordings, Vols. II and III (all from the 1950s), Portrait in Black and White with trumpeter Éric Le Lann, and his most recent, Exposition Sans Tableau.

Must be nice to live in NY and be able to pick up such (what I assume are) rare CDs.

[bhodges]

Must be nice to live in NY and be able to pick up such (what I assume are) rare CDs.

Actually (perhaps surprisingly) they don't appear to be that scarce.  The two Vogue releases were just $12.99 each, and the others are still in print, since they came out in 2006 and 2007, and were at the "usual" price of $18.99.

--Bruce

[locrian]

Actually (perhaps surprisingly) they don't appear to be that scarce.  The two Vogue releases were just $12.99 each, and the others are still in print, since they came out in 2006 and 2007, and were at the "usual" price of $18.99.

I have an iTunes card burning a hole in my wallet. Maybe he has some stuff in the iTunes store. I might check tonight after dinner.

[Grazioso]

Yeah, but all that applies to artists in ANY idiom though. Whether it be rock, jazz, indian, classical etc..
Every artist of note (in any art form) has a unique voice, personal nuances, inflections, approach etc...
Whether it be Edgard Varese, Glenn Gould, Jimi Hendrix, Ravi Shankar, Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong.
And it should be noted that dumping your personality into the music doesn't necessarily make it great.
It should be more about serving the music. In my opinion - the depiction of the ego/self in music is ultimately inferior.
Which doesn't mean I don't love lots of that and think it has great worth, but it should aspire (& be valued) above mere considerations of personality, self...

The essence of jazz is; blues and swing. Without these 2 things there certainly isn't much jazz left.
And a good song must be in place from the get go, or it will never get off the ground for the listener...
Doesn't matter who the performers are, the emphasis should always be on the music and the quality of it, not them as performers.
Quality control is something that a lot of jazz performers lack...players often are too wound up in themselves & their experiences as performers instead. With jazz, I'm more often than not blown away by the scale of this self-indulgence, not the musical result.
Most jazz is quite literally ephemeral in nature...

Many of the most beautiful things are the most ephemeral, and indeed all things ultimately fade and pass.

There are times when the performer can or should be the emphasis: personality can make a statement and be beautiful in itself. Look at someone like Rahsaan Roland Kirk. Is his music as good as that of his great jazz contemporaries? Not always, but he sure was magnetic and entertaining!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqXYAcVPDD4

Yet no one is claiming that good jazz results from self-indulgence or from putting one's ego ahead of the music, but good jazz does result when the players/composers have something uniquely personal and powerful to say, when they have the technical skill and imagination to let their head, heart, and soul say the right thing at the right moment.

As for a good song being needed to get a jazz performance off the ground--not really. Good groups can really go to town on simple blowing tunes, though I for one prefer more characterful, atmospheric pieces as the launching point.

As for the essence of jazz: blues is certainly a key strand of jazz's DNA, but it's not essential to make something jazz. Much jazz draws on the blues only indirectly, and when jazzers explicitly play the blues, they tend to player a rather more complex version of it than a "real" bluesman might. I think it's safer to say that some degree of both swing and improvisation are jazz's defining hallmarks, but ultimately it comes down to family resemblances based on the extent to which the music in question falls within what is perceived to be the jazz tradition of theory, performance, history, aesthetic values, instrumentation, etc. Something is "jazz" because it (seemingly) has something vital in common with what people have previously deemed "jazz." Did Ornette's famous early albums sound like Count Basie in the 30's? Not exactly, but most everyone calls both jazz.

[Bogey]

Grabbed these from the used bin today:

     

[Bogey]

Spinning this right now.  Pretty straight forward early 'Trane.  Only flashes of what is to come.

[KevinP]

Ballads is really good.
I'm sure Standard Coltrane is of the same quality (he always doesn't wonderful ballad albums), but I just never picked it up, for no particular reason. I am eyeing the SACD though.
The one with Don Cherry I had on LP but never replaced or listen to it since. Not sure how I'd like it now as the avant garde appeals to me less these days.
Bags & Trane. Have it, very rarely listen to it. In fact, most of the albums that Milt Jackson collaborated on fit in this category. I appreciate his musicianship but I tend to lose attention with vibes. The exception is the Christmas Eve session he did with Miles and Monk. That, in fact, is better to hear as a session rather than split on to the various albums it made.  (Went to see him twice though.)

[Bogey]

Ballads is really good.
I'm sure Standard Coltrane is of the same quality (he always doesn't wonderful ballad albums), but I just never picked it up, for no particular reason. I am eyeing the SACD though.

When sampling at the shop I thought they were very similar in approach.  However, this is said with only minor sampling.

The one with Don Cherry I had on LP but never replaced or listen to it since. Not sure how I'd like it now as the avant garde appeals to me less these days.

Again, with minor sampling, I found this to be pretty straight forward....but then again, straight forward 'Trane can be not so straight forward. 

Bags & Trane. Have it, very rarely listen to it. In fact, most of the albums that Milt Jackson collaborated on fit in this category. I appreciate his musicianship but I tend to lose attention with vibes. The exception is the Christmas Eve session he did with Miles and Monk. That, in fact, is better to hear as a session rather than split on to the various albums it made.  (Went to see him twice though.)

I enjoyed the Getz/Hampton cd I recently purchased, so I thought I might enjoy this as well.  However, I hear what your saying about the vibes.

[KevinP]

Again, with minor sampling, I found this to be pretty straight forward....but then again, straight forward 'Trane can be not so straight forward. 

Yeah, I don't remember it being too out there, which is why I consider that I might like it.

[Bogey]

Yeah, I don't remember it being too out there, which is why I consider that I might like it.

Giving it a spin right now....and enjoying it quite a bit.  Great memory....not too out there at all Kevin.  Definitely a bit different "sounding" than any of my other 'Trane cds, but if I heard this one on the radio, I would be trying to track it down.

[Grazioso]

Simply not true.
Truly great & beautiful works of art stand the test of time.

I'm not just talking about "works of art"--have you never been thrilled by the last moments of a sunset or a lover's glance at just the right moment? And you seemingly work from the false premise that art is all about formal "works" that have in some way been set down for preservation. And what truly lasts? A century is the blink of an eye in the large scheme of things.

ouch! beautiful statement, magnetic, entertaining even ...    naaaa
& musically earthbound to me, a non-starter from the get-go...

If you don't have the ability to appreciate Rahsaan, what can I say? You need some soul, brother

Yeah, I know this, doesnt make it great music or good even, because they can do that...see my above comments, same applies to any groups of musicians "going to town" on a "simple blowing tune"...that's facile, empty etc...this creative leeway they allow themselves rarely extends to this listener, and its never music of the highest aspiration & quality...it's appeal is limited and dull. If the backing music isn't there from the get-go nothing will save it, a non-starter...so yeah, we're back to junk composition & indulgent soloing. Which plagues much jazz. What about quality control? restraint? intelligence? real substance? FOCUS?

Why do you assume those things are absent? And you certainly have an idiosyncratic view of jazz: ask other fans and jazz musicians whether or not they can appreciate great musicians playing a simple jazz blues or blowing tune, and they'll all be answering "yes" while you curmudgeonly shake your head in the corner. I'm sorry you dislike jazz or lack the ability to appreciate it, but don't assume from that that you have its measure.

Yeah, those are nice ideals but very little jazz meets them im afraid...it's hard to do, and the results of even the greatest of the great were very variable & patchy...and when exhilirating, on the edge, a base vocabulary combined with 'not knowing exactly what they are doing' and just going for it, taking a chance ...means making lots of mistakes as well....

Why do you assume they don't know what they're doing? Because you don't understand jazz theory and practice? Because you haven't learned to hear what others have?

The swing beat is the evolution of the African 6/8 rhythm and was brought to America by the African slaves. It eventually became the blues. So the 2 are intertwined. Blues and swing are present in Ornette & Basie. Jazz and rock & folk musicians all inherit - to various degrees - an oral tradition (a base vocabulary), and then they practise lots of stuff ... the stuff they later "improvise" live !

If you think the blues is just a swing beat (and jazz and blues tend to swing differently), you need to study the blues. Here you can find some of the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues

And I'm sure you're aware that improvisation is not a jazz invention, it has existed since the earliest music was made.
All great music swings in it's own way. Jazz's swing has it's own distinguishing characteristic & roots...

Indeed I am aware. A lack of improvisation in music is probably the exception to the historical rule. Yet extensive improv is nonetheless a hallmark of much jazz.

All great music does not swing: "swing" refers to a specific rhythmic device and associated feel/groove, and you can listen to a lot of great classical music without ever hearing it.

But as you get older, how much do you expect to get from listening to jazzers play/practice thru/over jazz songbook legacy chord changes, and ting-ting-a-ting etc ? It's virtually all homophonic, easily digestible etc...

sure it can be a blast of joy ... & adrenalin ... even nostalgia ... but spiritual sustenance ... ? solace? ... the breadth & depth of great art music? ... even some meat for existential & philosophical rumination? .... Hmmm not sure about that.

There's plenty of polyphony in jazz, and what's wrong with homophony? If you think jazz is all easily digestible, I recommend again that you take the time to study it seriously, not just listen to it casually and assume you have the tools for deciphering it. Have you ever really read up on its theory or tried playing it? Have you ever analyzed a solo in depth?

I find no "meat for existential and philosophical rumination" directly inherent in any music, outside of the texts of some vocal works. Music is organized sound, and it may move me physically/emotionally or make me think about how it's structured, but it doesn't traffic in intellectual abstractions and concepts the way a work of philosophy or literature might. By chance, it may serve as a springboard for a train of thought that leads me to ponder the mysteries of existence, but that's nothing inherent in the music itself.

As for what you find spiritual sustenance or solace in, that will of course be unique to you. Yet if you can only find those in classical music, that's your loss. Part of spiritual growth is learning to truly see the spiritual nature of, or in, all things, not just one brand of music.

If you've tired of jazz or feel you've outgrown it, no problem. We all change. But does that not perhaps say something about you, as opposed to the music? And are you not concerned that one day classical music will similarly lose its ability to succor you emotionally or spiritually?

[E d o]

It's often hard for me to find contemporary jazz that I get on with but the Tord Gustavsen Trio fits the bill. If you are a fan of Bill Evans check it out. I heard a bit of Anat Fort's recent disc on ECM the other day and it was very much in the same spirit. I'll have to pick it up one of these days.

[Bogey]

On Kevin and Alan's rec., I picked this one up this afternoon: 



Very nice.  Smooth and introspective.  'Trane does not venture too far here.  However, the highlight after one listen is the piano playing of McCoy Tyner....Evans-esque at points.  Lonnie's Lament already a favorite.  Definitely one to have on the shelf.  Thank you gentlemen for the rec.

[KevinP]

I'm not seeing any picture, but I figure you must be talking about Crescent. :-)

[Bogey]

I'm not seeing any picture, but I figure you must be talking about Crescent. :-)

Indeed I am Kevin. 

[Grazioso]

It's often hard for me to find contemporary jazz that I get on....

I really dig Tom Harrell, a very strong composer who plays trumpet and flügelhorn beautifully--a bit like a latter-day Miles in his fiery brand of introspective lyricism. An interesting man, too: he suffers from severe schizophrenia and can apparently just get by even when he's on his meds. Everyone says that when he starts playing, he's totally transformed. I watched a segment about him on 60 Minutes, and I believe it based on what I saw.


etc.

[George]

Indeed I am Kevin. 

I thought you were Bill. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Grazioso, much of your last reply isnt worth the time replying to im afraid, you havent really thought or read closely enough...

On the contrary...

i stand by what i have said, most jazz (or improvised) music like most pop, rock is ephermera and not a lot of it will survive in 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years  ...

You mean all that jazz I listen to from the 50's and 60's doesn't have staying power?

[Bogey]

From the used rack: