Top 10 2005

[RonF]

So, Carmen McRae and Jon Hendricks raped Monk's tunes on Carmen Sings Monk? According to your theory they did.

No, but using a criticism of one artist to create a generalization about an entire genre seems a bit, uh.... weird.

Missing the point, perhaps?

Come on, Jim. An entire genre? No. I simply asked you, If Lorraine Feather is a rapist, why isn't Carmen? Is Carmen evil?

Weird Ron.

[JSngry]

So, Carmen McRae and Jon Hendricks raped Monk's tunes on Carmen Sings Monk? According to your theory they did.

No, but using a criticism of one artist to create a generalization about an entire genre seems a bit, uh.... weird.

Missing the point, perhaps?

Come on, Jim. An entire genre? No. I simply asked you, If Lorraine Feather is a rapist, why isn't Carmen? Is Carmen evil?

Weird Ron.

Because Carmen/Hendricks didn't try to co-opt Monk to promote an agenda that had nothing to do with him.

FWIW, I think that the show "Sophisticated Ladies" is only marginally less rapistic, but no less insidious.

[John Tapscott]

What does it say about us as jazz listeners, aficianados, lovers and advocates when the majority of the ten best discs come from dead artists?

Not to take away the importance of newly found material, but shouldn't these lists celebrate the new rather than rehash the old?

Well, it's not old if it's being released legitimately for the first time. And where would you start/stop? What is considered old? Something recorded in 2000 but not released until 2005? Where is the cut-off point? In terms of competing against dead atrists - of course, in a sense that's true, when it comes to CD sales. But Parker, 'Trane, Gillespie, Monk, et al, aren't going to suddenly rise up and start competing for your gigs at your local jazz club or next summer's festival. As far as CD sales go, I don't think to myself, "Well now, I'm buying Live at the Half Note, so I won't buy a CD by a living artist." As it is I have far more music to listen to than I have time to listen to it - if that makes sense. In fact, if it's something I want by any artist, I usually find a way to get it. I am not totally convinced that these historical CD's take away all that much from current, living artists. In fact, in the long run, they may increase the overall interest in jazz music.

In terms of listing the top ten, the only responsibility should be to list and celebrate your favorite ten or best ten as you hear them, from whatever era. Sorry. Maybe 2005 was just one of those years when there happened to be a overlload of very significant historical recordings that couldn't be ignored.

Edited January 6, 2006 by John Tapscott

[sal]

I think this board could be used as very strong evidence that re-issues (excluding undisovered material) absolutely cut into the market of new jazz artists. I mean, when a (insert number here) re-issue of Blue Train or Kind of Blue generates more positive discussion than the new release from (insert name of a living, breathing talented jazz musician), there is absolutely an issue there. There is nothing wrong with having a preference for older jazz over newer jazz, but there are ALOT of very talented cats out there putting out important material, but they'll never get the discussion time that Hank Mobley does.

[kh1958]

I would normally buy all things Mingus-related, but this one gave me pause. Thanks for saving my $15.

And worse than worst, it's the new LCJO Mingus album, upon which I'm constrained by doctor's orders from commentating...

I heard much of that last week.

What a abomination!

Wynton should be ashamed.

[RonF]

Because Carmen/Hendricks didn't try to co-opt Monk to promote an agenda that had nothing to do with him.

Jane and Leonard w/Duke Ellington

I still see no difference. Co-opt to promote an agenda that had nothing to do with him? She grew up with these people. She has the utmost respect for Waller and Ellington. You make her sound like a dizzy broad who just discovered a gimmick. That ain't it.

I don't know Jim. There are a lot of pretty savvy jazz folks who believe she's a genuine talent. Clearly you don't and that's fine. If you completely disagree with the practice of writing lyrics to established instrumentals and believe there's no place for it - that's one thing. But to condemn someone whom you don't respect or dislike for doing it, then turn around and say it's different or okay for someone you like and respect, well..........

Happy New Year. Peace.

[Lazaro Vega]

Like I said, there's no defense for choosing Lorraine Feather as a top ten, but those were some thoughts on why. So, pick a swing/big band/or vocal record from last year. Perhaps a worthy effort was Jack Sheldon's big band date of Tom Kubis charts on Butterfly Records, especially for Sheldon's tribute to Louis. But I went with the Feather instead.

Regarding the past verses the present -- you know, English departments need to have this discussion, too: to hell with Shakesphere's work, we have W.S. Merwin and Robert Bly to celebrate. Write your bookstore! Clear the shelves! Let's help feed some real poets. What a ridiculous arguement to make.

Today's jazz players aren't merely compeating with some past artists, they're compeating with the BEST past musicians, people who rose through the competition of Cass Tech High School in Detroit, for example, or the amazing musical education system in Philly, for instance, then went through a period of seasoning in the minor leagues (where their personhood evolved hand in hand with their music), maybe got on the bus with a major big band and then emerged as recording artists and touring musicians (often constant touring, not just "project" or occasional run-outs) with powerful musical conceptions as bandleaders and instrumentalists.

Today's system has levels of accomplishment, but they are not the same criteria as in the past, and, like it or not, it shows. And the public can tell. Musicians are projecting differently now.

The undiscovered music of Bird and Trane deserves our fullest attention and surprise, surprise it received it this year. That may be sour grapes to some but to me that's fine wine.

What's being missed here, too, is the public. The public went for Coltrane this year, and even without the giant marketing machine the Bird and Diz, too. What new artist connected with the public with such daring music on that level this year? You can't "blame" that on marketing, really, because there wasn't much for the Bird and Diz. Buzz is more organic than mere marketing. Same thing happened in classical music this year with the discovery of an unknown manuscript.

Gregg Osby's trio record is very creative. The bassist Matt Brewer is the son of Paul Brewer who teaches at Aquinas College in Grand Rapids and Interlochen, so there's plenty of political reasons for someone from here to pick that as a "best of" (and Tain certainly had a day on that Osby date "Channel Three.") However, it pales in comparison to Bird and Diz at Town Hall. Or, it just doesn't offer the same level projection of ideas. The impact of Bird and Diz's music is still being felt, jazz wouldn't be the same without it. Gregg is developing on a different level. An excellent musician, a broad mind (his appearance on the Yo Miles date Upriver was a treat) yet that Blue Note recording will never have the impact of Monk's Quartet with Coltrane. If it did when that trio plays New York there'd be the same hullabaloo that greeted Monk at the Five Spot. You have to, ultimately, credit Monk's music for making that happen.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Lazaro Vega

[JSngry]

She grew up with these people. She has the utmost respect for Waller and Ellington...

If you completely disagree with the practice of writing lyrics to established instrumentals and believe there's no place for it - that's one thing. But to condemn someone whom you don't respect or dislike for doing it, then turn around and say it's different or okay for someone you like and respect, well..........

What I disagree with is turning Duke Ellington into Tommy Tune. Or trying to. It's Jazz Colonialism, and it's Evil.

I don't condemn because I don't respect or dislike the person. I do it because i detest the results. If I want to explore Beautiful Whiteness, I got Sinatra, Brian Wilson, Warne Marsh, Fred Astaire's repertoire, and plenty of other examples that are more than a little legit. I don't need to take "Rockin' In Rhythm" and recast it as White Hat & Tails & all that crap.

Part of becoming a Universal Human is realizing that your Beauty & somebody else's Beauty may be Totally Equally Beautiful, but that doesn't make them Exactly The Same. The same thing isn't necessarily the same thing. If it was, why would there be both? The Equality can't be fully appreciated unless the Difference is as well.

Respect & understanding are two different things. A lot of mistakes are made by people who don't realize this.

The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions...

Edited January 7, 2006 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

So, make something better. I'm sure we'd all follow.

That's an unfair statement, though.

You're never going to do better than Diz and Bird or Trane and Monk. You can only do different, and maybe you'll be lucky enough to do different at their level. But, by definition, you can't do better than the best.

And here is the real problem.

Do you think Pops, Duke, Bird, Diz, Ornette, etc ever thought "You're never going to do it better?

What you can do is "become the best"! If that is not your goal, I'll keep that in mind.

[Joe G]

I can't worry about being "better than" or "the best". All I can do is continue to better myself. The journey is the goal.

[Chuck Nessa]

I can't worry about being "better than" or "the best". All I can do is continue to better myself. The journey is the goal.

That's fine if you don't whine about the "competition".

[Joe G]

Personally, I don't. It is what it is.

[Chuck Nessa]

Personally, I don't. It is what it is.

Didn't mean to infer you did. I was still responding to Paul's post.

[RonF]

What I disagree with is turning Duke Ellington into Tommy Tune. Or trying to. It's Jazz Colonialism, and it's Evil.

The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions...

Okay, I feel dumber every time I do this but I'll take one more stab at it. With all respect, Jim, my question is, What's the difference between Lorraine's project and Carmen McRae's? You seem to imply that Carmen has your blessing but Lorraine has her head up her ass. Why? Did Carmen McRae turn Thelonious Monk into Tommy Tune? Is Carmen McRae evil? (for the 2nd time) Both had good intentions and both had respect for the composer. And, although it makes no difference, both have received critical acclaim. Or is any poor soul who dares to tamper with classic compositions or mess with the work of jazz icons past and present, simply a fool? Or a rapist? If that's the theory - if those are the ground rules, then jazz is a freaking ship of fools. The bigger question is what the hell's wrong with it? Being a purist is quite different from being an extremist.

[JSngry]

I don't know that I can say it any plainer than I already have.

Although, if you're old enough, you'll remember a CBS prime-time "tribute" to Ellington shortly before he died that featured The Biggest Names In Show Bizness. What transpired that evening was most definitely rape, not because of quality of the music (everything was strictly professional), but because of the total lack of understanding for who Ellington was, what his music was about, and the notion that these Great Names had conquered it and made it Their Very Own.

The more things change...

[JSngry]

What's the difference between Lorraine's project and Carmen McRae's?

I don't know that I can say it any plainer than I already have.

And yet I will try - Feather likes/loves/respects/whatever Ellington. As do we all.

Carmen & Hendricks get Monk. Maybe not profoundly deeply, buth they get it nevertheless. As we all don't.

Big difference.

And of course, just my opinion.

[marcello]

That's it !

[Lazaro Vega]

Jim: "I don't need to take "Rockin' In Rhythm" and recast it as White Hat & Tails & all that crap."

Ahahahaha. Yeah, O.k. Soft shoe and shuckin, razzle dazzle. I get what you mean...Her song is about a summer resort having a dance which, sure, is manufactured nostalgia. It is.

And yet, Duke WAS all about that high society dicty life, to which Bubber replied, famously, "It's don't mean at thing if it ain't got that swing." Jim, you're Bubber! The Cotton Club and Ellington's image there was Top Hat, Tails AND theater. Looking at that scene and it's amazing Duke did was his own thing -- it's amazing that the conventions of musical theater didn't corrupt his music with limitations but inspired a radical approach to voicings and functionality. He played the social card right into the bank, too. There's an aspect of that which is all People Magazine and celebrity based attention, two dimenstional, like an advertisement, but by now that's, hopefully, faded away. Then again, uptil the day he died Cab Calloway's press agents advised when setting up a phone interview with him to NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ask him about his first night M.C.ing at the Cotton Club. That's pretty shallow to even ask Cab about, you know, when you could talk about running from an angry mob in Memphis (or whatever that story was he told on Milt Hinton's Chairoscuro CD) or Ike Quebec or Cozy Cole or Chu Berry or where DID he buy his pot, anyway, was it Mezz?

[RonF]

Carmen & Hendricks get Monk. Maybe not profoundly deeply, buth they get it nevertheless. As we all don't.

Big difference.

And of course, just my opinion.

Glad you added the last line. The evidence is there, the talent and personal connection are there and I would simply argue that Feather "gets" Ellington as much as McRae and Hendricks "got" Monk. We'll have to agree to disagree. And, I might add, I could give a crap if anyone likes or listens to Lorraine's music. You appear to have dismissed her for who she is, not for what she does. I don't think most serious lyricists try to make songs "their own". Maybe "stars" on a badly produced TV special do, I don't know. My point, and I haven't made it right yet, is that it's not fair to damn, criticize or dismiss the overall practice of taking on the music of great names in jazz and then make small exceptions. Just my opinion too, but I don't think you can have it both ways. Either it's all evil or it's all okay...some good, some bad.

[JSngry]

And yet, Duke WAS all about that high society dicty life, to which Bubber replied, famously, "It's don't mean at thing if it ain't got that swing." Jim, you're Bubber! The Cotton Club and Ellington's image there was Top Hat, Tails AND theater. Looking at that scene and it's amazing Duke did was his own thing -- it's amazing that the conventions of musical theater didn't corrupt his music with limitations but inspired a radical approach to voicings and functionality.

If Ellington was "all about" any one thing (other than presenting his unique world view to a mostly unsuspecting world), I've yet to figure out what the hell it was. The guy had so many layers the he makes Wayne Shorter seem one-dimensional!

For a reasoned examination (if one is in fact needed) of how Ellington "played" the Cotton Club image/gig to further his true ends, you might want to read Graham Lock's Blutopia (if you haven't already).

[JSngry]

You appear to have dismissed her for who she is, not for what she does.

I was pretty sure that I had made it crystal clear that

I don't condemn because I don't respect or dislike the person. I do it because i detest the results.

cf http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...ndpost&p=456962

Guess not.

My point, and I haven't made it right yet, is that it's not fair to damn, criticize or dismiss the overall practice of taking on the music of great names in jazz and then make small exceptions. Just my opinion too, but I don't think you can have it both ways. Either it's all evil or it's all okay...some good, some bad.

My point, and I believe that I have made it right (if not in this thread, then certainly elsewhere), is that I in no way "damn, criticize or dismiss the overall practice of taking on the music of great names in jazz". That's absurd.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Either it's all evil or it's all okay...some good, some bad.

Surely you jest.

BTW - does the "F" stand for Feather?

Edited January 7, 2006 by JSngry

[medjuck]

I don't condemn because I don't respect or dislike the person. I do it because i detest the results. If I want to explore Beautiful Whiteness, I got Sinatra, Brian Wilson, Warne Marsh, Fred Astaire's repertoire, and plenty of other examples that are more than a little legit.

Deos that mean Black musicians shouldn't play things from the repertoire of Sinatra, Marsh, Wilson or Astaire?

[JSngry]

Not at all, just as it doesn't mean that white musicians shouldn't play the works of black composers.

All I'm saying is that when you confront a work, anybody's work, it behooves you to have an understanding of what that work represents in its original form, and then do with it what you will. If you rape it for a reason, or if you bring it a little more in the realm of the "conventional" (as McRae/Hendricks did with Monk) then afaic, that's a "statement", and that's cool. Whether I (or anybody else) likes it or not is besides the point. You're doing what you do from the basis of knowing what it is you're working with and, in one form or another, adding commentary to it. Since you know what you're dealing with, that commentary has validity imo.

But if you confront a work without having that understanding, and just go about doing what you will with it, you're not adding commentary. You're just appropriating somebody else's stuff for your own "glorification". No matter how much you call it a "tribute", no matter how much you think you're "getting it", if you can't show at least a fundamental grasp of what the original was dealing with, you don't get it, and therefore, what's the point other than self-glorification of one type or another? It's pure vanity, and although vanity has its place as part of a Well-Balanced Personality, in it's pure form...

And yes - there are tons of "jazz tribute albums" that fall into this latter category (actually, any "tribute album" is particularly prone to this syndrome, just by the nature of the beast. It's a rare one that escapes totally undamaged.) and by no means are all of them by white artists. And yes - they are every bit as evil (a loaded word to be sure, but evil comes in the abstract as well as in the concrete, I believe. But if we must avoid the word, let's settle for "esthetically ill-advised") as Feather's.

This stuff is everywhere, not just on Feather's album, and not just in jazz. It's the nature of our world today. Reflected/stolen glory co-opted w/o a clue and then used to fuel god knows what ends. If being bothered by this makes me some sort of loon, then so be it.

Edited January 7, 2006 by JSngry

[RonF]

All I'm saying is that when you confront a work, anybody's work, it behooves you to have an understanding of what that work represents in its original form, and then do with it what you will.

And of course, it's the job of critics to guess or make judgements (sometimes snap) about who understands and who doesn't. And we know that critics are always right. Well, 50... 30....... 10% of the time? If they're lucky.

Is your last name ANGRY?

[JSngry]

It's the job of critics and fans alike to have a clue. Obviously that system doesn't always work.

Oh well..