best selling non-vocal all-acoustic jazz albums

[Rooster_Ties]

It's widely regarded by jazz conservatives, that "real" jazz's darkest hours were in the 70's, before sales picked as a result of the Wynton phenomena.

But more to the point of this thread -- when sales of "real jazz" albums (all-acoustic jazz, with no vocals) were at their very worst -- all through the 70's -- what were the best-selling supposedly "real jazz" albums of that era. Minimal and meager though their sales might have been, were there any big or even moderate standouts, in terms of sales alone??

Why?? No reason. Just curious. Not having discovered jazz until about 1989 or 1990, I have no perspective on this era except in looking back from at least 10 or more like 20 years after the fact. And what I know of that era is colored by what we think is important now, which is also related to what's been released on CD from that era (and what hasn't).

What were people interested in "real jazz" really buying back then??

(Take my "real jazz" nomenclature with a HUGE grain of salt. That phrase only supposed to be a sort of shorthand in this thread only for "all-acoustic" non-vocal jazz that swings or grooves or burns. In other words, "hardbop-approved" jazz.)

Discuss...

EDIT: This discussion ISN'T about reissues. I'm ONLY talking about albums recorded and released for the first time during the 1970's.

Edited January 13, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Free For All]

It's widely regarded by jazz conservatives, that "real" jazz's darkest hours were in the 70's, before sales picked as a result of the Wynton phenomena.

The definition of "real" jazz could certainly be debated, but having come of age in the 70s I was able to hear nearly every major big band. In Iowa!!

Kenton, Basie, Rich, Ellington, Woody, Maynard, even Don Ellis! Plus Chase, Return to Forever, Matrix (remember them?) and other more commercial groups.

Not all of it hardcore jazz, but all of it was new to my ears and pretty much all of it filled me with lust for more. I decided during that time that this is what I want to do with my life.

Maturity and education brought about a refinement in tastes and I "graduated" more small-group exploratory recordings, what I assume, RT, you probably mean when you say "real" jazz. I "discovered" players that I didn't get the first time around. Got to hear Dexter, Bill Evans, Johnny Griffin, DeJohnette's Special Edition w/David Murray and Arthur Blythe, Woody Shaw all at the "Jazz at the Maintenance Shop" series at Iowa State University.

I do miss being able to listen with that youthful naivety. I seldom hear something totally new that affects me as it did when I was a teenager.

I know this isn't exactly where you were going with this, RT, but I sometimes feel like defending the maligned 70s. Perhaps not the greatest decade in jazz history, but I certainly learned a lot!

Edited January 12, 2005 by Free For All

[danasgoodstuff]

Probably Kind of Blue, just like now. If you discount reissues, maybe one of Dexter's on Columbia or something on CTI if that's 'real jazz' enough for you...

[Rooster_Ties]

FWIW, FFA, I wasn't trying to personally rag on the 70's --- hell, MANY of my all-time-favorite recordings are from the 70's, and the 1970's is my 2nd all-time-favorite "jazz decade" (the 1960's is my favorite decade). I also think jazz from the 70's is WAY under appreciated, though thankfully not nearly as much on this board (praise the lard).

I should have simply said something to the effect that sales of "traditional" jazz went south in the 70's, but what "traditional" jazz from that era did sell?? (if any).

Also, while I'm at it, I'm only asking about sales. Not "what was important or high-quality that also sold well", but rather simply "what sold well"?? (Good or bad.)

Edited January 12, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Rooster_Ties]

Probably Kind of Blue, just like now.  If you discount reissues...

Yes, please don't count reissues. I'm only talking about albums actually recorded during the 1970's.

Edited January 12, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

The Columbia Dexter & Woody stuff sold pretty good, iirc, as did the McCoy Milestones, the Gato Impulses, Charles Earland on Prestige, Bill Evans on Milestone, and on a smaller scale, lots of things on Muse (notably Houston Person, Etta Jones, Richie Cole (yuck)) & Inner City (not BIG sales, but enough for the labels to keep craking out product on quite a regular basis).

Claims that the 1970s were some sort of commercial Dark Ages for jazz are highly overstated, I think, perhaps even revisionist history for self-serving ends on the parts of some. The decade got off to a slow start, still shell-shocked from the rock thing, but gathered steam as it went along. Once Newport moved to NY, things seemed to pick up. Sure, the whole fusion/disco thing resultedin a lot of disposable music getting made, but there was other good stuff going on, and it was not without a market. Plus, there were plenty of smaller indy labels getting reasonable enough distribution. Don't know that they SOLD all that well, but they were out there, new music (not just new product) was getting into the stores, in the press, and into at least some listeners' homes. All things considered, I'd say the overall state of jazz was actually healthier in the 1970s than it is now.

In other words, don't believe the hype.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Agree about the 1970s vs. now. The natural evolution was still happening, even if some experiments turned out to be dead ends. With the introduction of WM, it was "play it safe" and "turn back the clock" - and quite a bit of jazz still hasn't recovered.

Mike

[JSngry]

The natural evolution was still happening, even if some experiments turned out to be dead ends.

That's how evolution is supposed to work, right? (rhetorical question)

And if evolution is natural, then not evolving, or trying to reevolve by starting over or some such is unnatural. And if natural=living, what does unnatural equal? The answer is obvious, I think.

The musical equivalent of genetic engineering came to town. They killed the music in order to save it. How fucking charming.

Better quit. I feel a rant coming on.

[couw]

The natural evolution was still happening, even if some experiments turned out to be dead ends.

That's how evolution is supposed to work, right? (rhetorical question)

yes, and Wynton's is yet another experiment, nothing more, nothing less.

[GregK]

wasn't Keith Jarrett selling a ton (relatively, of course) of records in the 70s?

[ghost of miles]

Rooster, just curious--did you restrict it to all-acoustic because that's your preference? Generally mine, too, but such a restriction shuts out a lot of jazz that did sell well during the 1970s--Weather Report, for example, or even (dare I say it) Mangione.

Off-topic, but I'm also intrigued by what the contemporary reaction to Miles' 1970s work was. The prevailing narrative of the past few years seems to be, "This material was greeted ambivalently/negatively etc. and only now have we wise moderns come to realize how good it was." Haven't done any research, but I find myself a bit skeptical of that formulation.

[JSngry]

Off-topic, but I'm also intrigued by what the contemporary reaction to Miles' 1970s work was. The prevailing narrative of the past few years seems to be, "This material was greeted ambivalently/negatively etc. and only now have we wise moderns come to realize how good it was." Haven't done any research, but I find myself a bit skeptical of that formulation.

Not too far off, actually, at least as far as "mainstream" reaction went.

Most jazz people weren't ready and/or didn't have the frame(s) of reference to get it.

[JSngry]

The natural evolution was still happening, even if some experiments turned out to be dead ends.

That's how evolution is supposed to work, right? (rhetorical question)

yes, and Wynton's is yet another experiment, nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, but it's an experiment that has sucked up a lot of time and money that ain't gonna be replenished any time soon.

Time will tell if the "meteor" really did kill the dinosaurs. If not, I hope I live to find out. If so, hey, it was fun while it lasted. Tell your grandkids to smile when they put me in their tank. I'd want it that way.

[.:.impossible]

That's how evolution is supposed to work, right? (rhetorical question)

And if evolution is natural, then not evolving, or trying to reevolve by starting over or some such is unnatural. And if natural=living, what does unnatural equal? The answer is obvious, I think.

Is the answer unliving?

[Rooster_Ties]

Rooster, just curious--did you restrict it to all-acoustic because that's your preference?  Generally mine, too, but such a restriction shuts out a lot of jazz that did sell well during the 1970s--Weather Report, for example, or even (dare I say it) Mangione.

Far from it. Frankly I'm way more into some electric jazz in the 70's, than I am accoustic. Electric Miles is high on my list of favorites, as are a number of other related things -- Eddie Henderson's first two albums, much of Herbie's early 70's output, etc... Electric Ornette scores good marks in my book, and even things like Charlie Rouse's "Two Is One", with electric bass and guitar, are favorites of mine.

I was only initially trying to limit the discussion of this thread to acoustic jazz, only because it appeared to suffer the most from the lag in jazz sales in the 70's. Or, more accurately (maybe?), I'm guessing it was perhaps the sale of various fusion/jazz-funk type projects, that reduced the sales of acoustic jazz --- and perhaps sales in general, of all jazz-related musics, was more constant that is widely realized (again, just guesswork on my part).

Didn't really know where this topic was going when I started it, but I knew that the folks on this board would do it justice, probably in several directions. Lead on!!

EDIT:

...such a restriction shuts out a lot of jazz that did sell well during the 1970s--Weather Report, for example, or even (dare I say it) Mangione.

In other words, we all know Weather Report and Mangione sold well in the 70's. But what, if anything, from the 70's sold well that DIDN'T add any more "electricity" to the mix, than was already present in the 60's.

THAT'S what this thread was trying to get at. Thanks!!

Edited January 12, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

That's how evolution is supposed to work, right? (rhetorical question)

And if evolution is natural, then not evolving, or trying to reevolve by starting over or some such is unnatural. And if natural=living, what does unnatural equal? The answer is obvious, I think.

Is the answer unliving?

Or on it's way to it.

[JSngry]

I was only initially trying to limit the discussion of this thread to acoustic jazz, only because it appeared to suffer the most from the lag in jazz sales in the 70's. Or, more accurately (maybe?), I'm guessing it was perhaps the sale of various fusion/jazz-funk type projects, that reduced the sales of acoustic jazz --- and perhaps sales in general, of all jazz-related musics, was more constant that is widely realized (again, just guesswork on my part).

Or maybe sales of electric jazz were so (relatively and suddenly) high that they made the (relatively) normal and consistent sales of accoustic jazz suddenly seem "small" by comparison.

Chuck, Chris, and Bill Fenohr would be the guys to go to for a really accurate answer. They were actually selling records then, I was just buying them.

[couw]

The natural evolution was still happening, even if some experiments turned out to be dead ends.

That's how evolution is supposed to work, right? (rhetorical question)

yes, and Wynton's is yet another experiment, nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, but it's an experiment that has sucked up a lot of time and money that ain't gonna be replenished any time soon.

obviously, there are some powerful forces at work that keep the approach viable. sux indeed, but hey, watcha gonna do about it? Maybe our kids will understand what it is all about and laugh at us for not taking part in it.

nah!

[JSngry]

In other words, we all know Weather Report and Mangione sold well in the 70's. But what, if anything, from the 70's sold well that DIDN'T add any more "electricity" to the mix, than was already present in the 60's.

"well" is a relative term. Fusion and disco-ish jazz raised the bar as far as what "jazz" sales could and should be.

Look at a label like Muse (or Concord, for that matter) - no "big sellers" in "conventional" terms, but they sold enough units to stay in business for a good long while.

Consider this - if Wynton and al the other "Young Lions" REALLY? "revitalised" mainstream jazz sales, where's the money, where's the contract extensions, where's the local club scenes, where's the non-allstar touring bands, where's the major label mainstream jazz programs, and WHERE'S THE MUSIC?

Like I said, don't believe the hype.

[Rooster_Ties]

Or maybe sales of electric jazz were so (relatively and suddenly) high that they made the (relatively) normal and consistent sales of acoustic jazz suddenly seem "small" by comparison.

Hadn't thought of this before, but it does make some sense. BUT...

I've always assumed that as the jazz-related music scene(s) diversified in the 70's, that so too did the interests of jazz audiences. And in the process, a fair number of the people who were either previously interested (or who would have been interested) in purely acoustic jazz, moved off into listening as much or more to fusion, jazz-rock, jazz-funk, and other related musics.

In other words, fewer listeners of more traditional, acoustic jazz. And more listeners to fusion and the like (some of whom were former acoustic jazz listeners, and some who were previously unfamiliar with jazz).

The only evidence I have for this is the fact that SO many jazz clubs dried up in the late 60's and on through the 70's. Don't know if this is related or not, but it would seem that having far fewer performing venues would be an indication of a lack of record sales – the two would seem to go hand-in-hand. Then again, there may have been a whole host of other economic factors at play here, driving clubs out of business.

And then again perhaps some cultural factors were at play too (maybe??) -- warning, LOTS of speculation ahead....

For instance, many of the clubs that dried up were in the "Little Harlem" type neighborhoods, like here in Kansas City around 12th and Vine, and 18th and Vine – and in similar neighborhoods in Chicago and other big cities. These were, as I understand it, almost like self-contained Meccas for the Black community, including a what was originally a thriving nightclub scene during the 30’s, 40's, 50's, and (though to a lesser degree), on into the 60's (and to a much lesser degree, as the 60's went on). But then, by the mid-to-late 60's, some Blacks became somewhat more 'affluent' (a word I'm using with some degree of caution). I mean to say, at least Blacks began to break into the middle-class, economically speaking. (Whether they were accepted into the larger “middle-class” is another story, I realize.) Plus, then in the 60's, the restrictive racial-zoning patterns began to break down (at least somewhat), and we began to see a little greater degree of integration (some places more than others, I'm sure). And wasn't it in the 50's and/or the 60's that racially restrictive covenants began to topple in the courts?? (Restrictive covenants tied to property, handed down from owner to owner, much like an easement is legally binding on future owners of a property.

I realize that there may be some holes in my logic (I'm just shooting from the hip here, so feel free to correct me where my assertions are wrong). But at the same time, I think there is at least some evidence for there having been a real decline in jazz record sales (as opposed to just a perceived decline), probably starting in the late 60’s, and on into the 70’s.

Edited January 12, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[RDK]

Someone already mentioned Jarrett, but don't forget Metheny.

How 'bout those disco-y Turrentine albums? Very dated now, but one presumes that they sold a few copies. I seem to recall seeing a lot of those (Milestone?) McCoy Tyner albums around...

[GregK]

Someone already mentioned Jarrett,

Yes, that was me. Didn't he sell a lot of records? His 70s records certainly are acoustic jazz (some of his records were even non-vocal!)

Edited January 12, 2005 by GregK

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Someone might want to do some statistics on the longevity of jazz clubs. Were the clubs that closed up in the late 1960s an anomaly or was it just their time to go? Maybe there just aren't many clubs that last longer than - say, 5 years. Thinking about say, San Francisco, there seems to have been a string of "main" clubs - Black Hawk, Jazz Workshop, Both/And, Keystone Korner. The first two were concurrent, but the Black Hawk died earlier, I believe. It seems to me that the others were more of a succession. If this is accurate, it would show that the city could support a jazz club, but maybe not a lot of clubs. Or maybe there are "tiers" of clubs and to succeed, you need to "know your place" and not be too ambitious.

Mike

[Guy Berger]

Rooster, just curious--did you restrict it to all-acoustic because that's your preference? Generally mine, too, but such a restriction shuts out a lot of jazz that did sell well during the 1970s--Weather Report, for example, or even (dare I say it) Mangione.

Off-topic, but I'm also intrigued by what the contemporary reaction to Miles' 1970s work was. The prevailing narrative of the past few years seems to be, "This material was greeted ambivalently/negatively etc. and only now have we wise moderns come to realize how good it was." Haven't done any research, but I find myself a bit skeptical of that formulation.

Are you including In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew here? I imagine that these were probably more successful with the jazz public than what came later.

Guy

[medjuck]

I'm just looking at my cd collection and it's amazing how few of them were recorded in the 70's-- and of those that were, few are acoustic and most are on Sackville.

Edited January 13, 2005 by medjuck