Top 10 2005

[RonF]

Obviously that system doesn't always work.

You ain't wrong.

[JSngry]

I know!

[ghost of miles]

Haven't read BLUTOPIA yet, but I had Locke's Braxton book in mind today, thinking about the Desmond-Braxton connection.

I think we're going to see variants of this argument play out even more as DJ culture influences jazz more and more. (Not that DJ culture has anything to do with Lorraine Feather--at least, on the surface...) And that ties in somewhat to the desire for "new sounds" that most of us claim that we want. If and when those new sounds really start making an impact, I'll bet that a good 85-90% of the folks here won't like them. I'm not dissing--I'm here in part because I'm fascinated by the 1945-1975 era in jazz, and this board is probably the best place on the Internet to discuss those times. When it comes to the "New Releases" forum here, though, a quick glance shows that nearly half the most recent titles are actually archival releases by older or deceased artists. Again, not anything wrong with that... just that outside of our resident working musicians and a few other folk, I'm not sure we're going to be picking up the signals of imminent change here, or--if we do--appreciating them in one way or another.

Those signals have been coming IMO for the past few years from DJ and hiphop music, and even if some of the earlier meldings/fusions sounded contrived, awkward, and unsuccessful, it's the musical culture that younger musicians grew up with, just as surely as Tatum and Monk grew up with church, stride, and swing. If you merely try to appropriate Monk and Tatum and bypass all the music and experience that you actually grew up with--if you don't bring your own life to your attempt to interpret somebody else's art--then you are a sort of aesthetic vampire. Maybe that's a backwardsass way of getting at the same meaning that I think Jim's putting across here.

[jazzypaul]

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.

To clarify, THIS is what I'm thinking: Dave Douglas, Brad Mehldau, and Katahdin's Edge each put out albums that could have redefined what jazz is in the past year. Greg Osby, Joe Lovano, Organissimo and Tierney Sutton all put out incredibly fine albums this year. And I don't think any of them got so much as a mention from any of these 10 best lists thus far.

Why?

Because a bunch of rediscoveries took all of the thunder away and made these guys and their great albums a moot point.

We SHOULD be thrilled and surprised by new music from Bird and Monk. There's no arguing that point. But to not celebrate our artists that are making great music NOW is a slap in the face to everything that I thought jazz was supposed to be about in the first place.

As for me, I do aspire to be the best I can be. By honing my technique and stealing from the best and recasting that which I've taken in new and interesting ways, I certainly hope to put myself one day in the drumming pantheon that includes Elvin, Tony, Max, Roy, Philly Joe, Papa Jo, Buddy Rich, Tain and Bill Stewart. But I can't ever get there if everyone's too busy listening to stuff recorded 40, 50 or 60 years ago to hear me in the first place.

[RonF]

To clarify, THIS is what I'm thinking: Dave Douglas, Brad Mehldau, and Katahdin's Edge each put out albums that could have redefined what jazz is in the past year. Greg Osby, Joe Lovano, Organissimo and Tierney Sutton all put out incredibly fine albums this year. And I don't think any of them got so much as a mention from any of these 10 best lists thus far.

Why?

Because a bunch of rediscoveries took all of the thunder away and made these guys and their great albums a moot point.

We SHOULD be thrilled and surprised by new music from Bird and Monk. There's no arguing that point. But to not celebrate our artists that are making great music NOW is a slap in the face to everything that I thought jazz was supposed to be about in the first place.

Good points. It's what jazz radio continues to struggle with - playing currents versus playing the music of the previous generation. I saw several top ten lists this year with Monk and Coltrane at number one and I must say, I don't understand it. Obviously, it's the archival discovery of the year. The sound is good, it's a great piece of jazz history and I've listened to it numerous times but, jesus, it was recorded 49 years ago. Is that the best of 2005? I don't believe so.

Public radio jazz stations face an annual dilemma in that a sizable percentage of membership practically insists on hearing jazz classics. And when fundraising time rolls around stations have to listen. It's always been a balancing act but more so now, I think. And in fairness, more jazz stations are beginning to program more currents. There are so many terrific players making music today and still, damn little of it ever gets heard.

You could add to JP's short list: Marc Johnson, Joshua Redman, Charlie Haden, Sara Lazarus, Fred Hersch, Alan Pasqua, Gerald Wilson, Eddie Palmieri, Mulgrew Miller, Terence Blanchard, Jessica Williams, Jan Garbarek, Bill Charlap, Dianne Reeves, Avashai Cohen.

[Lazaro Vega]

Again, 10 is not enough.

Yes, the Diz and Bird/Monk and Trane were the best releases of the last year. The music is ageless. Imagine if the Bird and Diz would have been available in it's time, or the Monk and Trane. They would have come down as classics of their time. Both releases give a clearer picture of the time period from an aesthetic, musical point of view.

And so did the Sonny Rollins disc from last year. That Rollins allowed a "bootleg" to be issued thereby giving us one of his incredible live performances is big news.

Fred Hersh's "Leaves of Grass" would have been my other pick for "vocal" album (the Sutton record is pretty and listenable and the band swings but her delivery is so dominated by classical perfection that there are reservations on my part). The list included the Feather because I was trying to find a swing album. And though what Jim and Ness are saying is true, Feather's is just a record I liked on it's own terms. Face it, Abby Lincoln and Cassandra Wilson didn't make records this year and Shirley Horn's 'best of' included some performances that were, you know, she forgot the words. It was touching the way the crowd let her off the hook.

When people start talking about how music is better because it's new I'm reminded of the dixieland crowd who forego the classic recordings of Johnny Dodds, for instance, in favor of recreations because the new players, they say, play "better" and the sound quality it better. That's just bunk.

The Bird and Diz, Monk and Trane are aesthetically, historically and musically head and shoulders above this past year's new releases. Those recordings will be studied for years, probably by the same people who made new records this year.

As far as radio goes, we program a jazz retrospective every night to feature an historic artist (about 20 minutes an hour) and then get into new releases. Our Saturday morning program from 7 to 10 is primarily new records (the Arno Marsh over the weekend used historical music to set up his newest stuff).

If the promotional wing of the record industry today has its way jazz radio would ONLY play new music.

[JSngry]

The list included the Feather because I was trying to find a swing album.

Why?

[JSngry]

Jazz is forever, but "Jazz" has for the most part been dead (or on its last legs) for about 20 or so years. If somebody like Joshua Redman, Brad Mehldau, or Dave Douglas are to "redefine" jazz, I suppose it's all but evident that things ain't what they used to be. Which is not to say that things are bad, just that the rules have changed, the game is different, and so's the object of that game.

Which, again, is all well and good, but how many layers of "reference" can you have before they start blocking self-reality altogether instead of illuminating it? Or has living in a hall of mirrors, some straight, and some of the fun-house variety, become our inescapable lot? Is there really no other way? Or way out?

I think we're beginning to find out, whether or not we realize it.

[jazzypaul]

Jazz is forever, but "Jazz" has for the most part been dead (or on its last legs) for about 20 or so years. If somebody like Joshua Redman, Brad Mehldau, or Dave Douglas are to "redefine" jazz, I suppose it's all but evident that things ain't what they used to be. Which is not to say that things are bad, just that the rules have changed, the game is different, and so's the object of that game.

Which, again, is all well and good, but how many layers of "reference" can you have before they start blocking self-reality altogether instead of illuminating it? Or has living in a hall of mirrors, some straight, and some of the fun-house variety, become our inescapable lot? Is there really no other way? Or way out?

I think we're beginning to find out, whether or not we realize it.

Jazz hasn't been dead for a lack of trying. It's been dead because jazz's own listeners don't give a damn about the here and now. Kurt Rosenwinkel's The Next Step sold 1500 copies. I think Mark Turner's Dharma Days sold even less. To my ears, those were hands down two of the best albums of the new millenium, so far, regardless of genre. And to see those CD's get such a tepid response from the jazz arena at large is telling. It doesn't tell me that jazz is dead. The creativity is there, the energy is there and the restlesness is there. But the jazz fans aren't. It's not that jazz is dead, it's that its listeners aren't awake. We wonder why jazz labels keep cutting back. Look in the mirror. We wonder why jazz clubs close. Look in the mirror. I wonder why I just got an offer for my trio to play for $100 and dinner on a Thursday and I'm considering it. Fuck. Look in the mirror. When was the last time people actually asked each other about their music here? On a forum that's probably FILLED with musicians! WHY?

Because we, as a whole, don't care about what's going on now. And why should we when even the critics don't care about the here and now? And why should we when the radio hosts don't care about the here and now? And when jazz musicians do come up with an album crackling with energy and buzzing with creativity, it's either mocked, or worse yet, ignored. If jazz is dead, or dying, look no further than the bloody dagger being held by jazz fans themselves.

[Chuck Nessa]

Paul blames the audience. Way to go Paulie.

[marcello]

Well Paul, Chuck does have a point.

I'm pretty sure if you could look back to "the good old days' and count how many releases there were in a given year and compare them to today, you would find out that there is just too much product for the amount of buyers that are available today.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that the focus should be on living and breathing artists, both in polls and on the radio.

I don't mean to hijack this thread but here is a interesting note from Harry Abraham from the 70's regarding programing, with the bold paragraph of particular interest in this discussion:

Programming Jazz Radio

from Jazz Notes 7/2 1995

by Paul Baker

Copyright © 1995, Paul Baker

While in college in the mid-1970s, I was a jazz music radio programmer. I took inspiration not only from the music but also from Harry Abraham's show "The Best of All Possible Worlds." Broadcast over the clear channel WHAM 1180 AM from Rochester, NY, Abraham's show signed on at midnight and ran till 5 a.m. He featured new releases and spanned all conceivable styles. I'd listen to Harry driving home from doing my show during the wee hours.

Impressed by Abraham's catholic taste and imaginative programming, I wrote a fan letter, and he responded thoughtfully.

Not long after, WHAM went to a country music format and Harry's show was ditched. I don't know what happened to Harry, but his letter to me included some good ideas. Even though it was written in 1976 or `77, his letter is still current:

There are three things that are most important to a jazz broadcaster (all statements should be assumed to be preceded by the qualifier: "In my opinion"). In order, they are the audience, the artists, yourself.

1. The audience: Forget, for the moment, all the people who are jazz buffs, for they will listen as long as you don't offend them. Who else might be listening? What can you play to keep them tuned, get them back next time, and recommend you to their friends? In other words, Harry Abraham, doing a five-hour show on your station, would do a program structured entirely differently with some different music, because the audience would be different. WHAM is commercial radio and even though I'm outside of the norm of their broadcasting, I wouldn't be here if I offended their regular listeners. Without playing commercial music, I manage to garner 50 per cent shares with 6 to 8 stations in the market on all night. (That does not take into account people like yourself, out of the area.) Find another jazz program in the last 25 years of broadcasting with that kind of support.

The closest that you will come to hearing commercial music is at the very beginning and very end of the program. These are transition periods, when that "other" audience is at its peak. The closest to avant-garde will come between 2:30 and 4:00 a.m. because "they" are minimal at those times. (I assume that you were kidding to include Miles Davis as "avant-garde" - Miles has more in common with Donny Osmond than he does with Anthony Braxton. Miles, at his best [which means prior to his current rock- n-roll stage] was in front of the mainstream, but never avant-garde.)

2. The artists. These cats don't get a lot of exposure so I feel that one of the burdens of being a jazz broadcaster is to try to give as much exposure as possible to the cats that need it the most. I can put together five hours of good music without Herbie Mann, Dave Brubeck, Chick Corea (recent guitar-rock stuff), Mahavishnu, Weather Report, George Duke, Ponty, etc. Also without repeating an artist (as leader) and still get enough variety in.

I lean toward the current releases because those are the ones that most benefit the artist and are most representative of where he is at this moment. If I know Miles is coming to town and I play Kind of Blue ,someone who is unfamiliar with his present garbage is going to be pissed. Kind of Blue , is great music but it bears as much relevance to 1975 as the tooth fairy. I play it because it is good music, but aren't I better off playing Woody Shaw? Who needs the exposure more?

3. Yourself. Play something you dislike intensely and you'll lose your entire audience. If they don't believe that you like it, they can't justify listening to it, either. So it's up to you to broaden your tastes as widely as possible. There is no artist whose records I've received that haven't had some exposure on my program. But some artists require a lot more digging to come up with something decent. And sometimes, quite unexpectedly, you find your own tastes turning around.

Serenity,

Harry Abraham

[Nate Dorward]

Hm, I continue to be amazed: we have 2005, a year which was rich in excellent new releases, in reissues, & in several momentous archival finds. You'd think jazz fans would be happy. & yet, start a thread on this & the usual complaints about belatedness, audience indifference, &c surface yet again.

[JSngry]

I keep hearing names like Kurt Rosenwinkel, Mark Turner, Brad Mehldau, etc. etc. These are all fine musicians with "something to say", but I'm not excited or particularly interested in any of them (overall, anyway. All of them have made a few things that I enjoy immensely. Just not enough, and not ongoing enough, for me to "invest" in their music).

Why? It's simple - there's too much "reference" in their music. I feel like I'm listening to "music about music" rather than music about life. Maybe that's what thier lives are, and if so, then they're doing what they should be doing. But don't blame me if I find Trane at the Half Note more alive, more relevant to the actual living I've done and hope to yet do than endless contemplations and permutaions on the music with the end result being (it seems to me) nothing more than....contemplations and permutaions on the music. That ain't what I want, and it damn sure ain't what I need. It's the difference between driving a car to get somewhere and driving a car because you have a car and since you have it, why shouldn't you drive it? I need to know that I'm going somewhere (even if it's not perfectly clear where). I don't need to take a long ride to nowhere in a really comfortable car with all the bells and whistles.

The "real stuff" still exists, definitely. But since it's so damn real, it son't look, smell, or sound too much like that of yore. It's free, it's electric, it's all sorts of stuff that makes "jazz purists" cringe, and rightfully so. And it's also heard in the voices of old fucks who have managed to stick around long enough to see their herd thinned to the point where their unorthodoxy no longer causes them to be dismissed or ignored. It's in lots of places, but what it all has in common is that it's music in the service of life, not music in the service of music.

Our world today, and jazz is but one small portion of that world, is one in which too many people are so concerned with the possible effects of inevitable change that natural ®evolution is subject to an often fear-based analysis by both those who would evolve and those who would buy into the evolution. And if evolution ain't natural, is it really evolution?

Myself, I'm waiting for the next Henry Threadgill record, and hoping that it don't cost $45.00...

[DukeCity]

I keep hearing names like Kurt Rosenwinkel, Mark Turner, Brad Mehldau, etc. etc. These are all fine musicians with "something to say", but I'm not excited or particularly interested in any of them (overall, anyway. All of them have made a few things that I enjoy immensely. Just not enough, and not ongoing enough, for me to "invest" in their music).

Why? It's simple - there's too much "reference" in their music. I feel like I'm listening to "music about music" rather than music about life. Maybe that's what thier lives are, and if so, then they're doing what they should be doing. But don't blame me if I find Trane at the Half Note more alive, more relevant to the actual living I've done and hope to yet do than endless contemplations and permutaions on the music with the end result being (it seems to me) nothing more than....contemplations and permutaions on the music.

Too true, too true! I heard someone use the description of the Rosenwinkel/Turner, etc. camp as being "heady" music. While I admire thier technique, and to a certain extent, thier thoughtful approach; and while I don't doubt thier sincerity for a moment, I find that the music that results very rarely grabs me in the gut/heart in the way that a lot of the old dead guys do.

[Chuck Nessa]

Too true, too true! I heard someone use the description of the Rosenwinkel/Turner, etc. camp as being "heady" music. While I admire thier technique, and to a certain extent, thier thoughtful approach; and while I don't doubt thier sincerity for a moment, I find that the music that results very rarely grabs me in the gut/heart in the way that a lot of the old dead guys do.

Because of their reputations I purchased "Dharma Days".

Sorry.

[RonF]

I find that the music that results very rarely grabs me in the gut/heart in the way that a lot of the old dead guys do.

Jesus christ, Rosenwinkel, Turner and Mehldau are but a fraction of the jazz happening right now. Granted, if your radio station isn't playing it, you don't know that, but seriously, you need to make an effort to listen to some more UNDEAD guys. They can make you feel alive too. Doubtful, but you might be surprised.

[jazzypaul]

Paul blames the audience. Way to go Paulie.

seriously, Chuck, who else is there to blame? If someone puts out an amazing recording, (take the aforementioned Kurt Rosenwinkel for example) and it gets ignored because people would rather listen to an old disc, whose fault is that?

Is it the fault of the artist for making music that he or she thinks is important? Nope.

Is it the fault of the record company for putting it out? Nope, at least they had the balls to do so. That's sadly a mistake that they won't be repeating in this age of downsizing. And they might as well downsize labels and make the bulk of their market re-issues, after all, that's all anyone will ever buy.

Is it the fault of the radio stations who need to cling to listener support to stay alive, especially now that the government is barely supporting public radio? Not at all. They need to play music that they know will keep businesses and yoga instructors tuned in.

That leaves only the listener that thinks that jazz stopped in 1965 or so, you know, with the exception of Wynton Marsalis.

That leaves the listener that only wants to hear standards instead of something that means something to an artist. That leaves the listener who thinks that a honking saxophone is distracting instead of blissful. That leaves the listener who thinks that no record collection is complete without Kind of Blue, but only listens to it twice a year.

And when the guy who convinced Bob Koester to unleash Anthony Braxton on us decides that new music isn't worth listening to, well, then God help us all...

[DukeCity]

I find that the music that results very rarely grabs me in the gut/heart in the way that a lot of the old dead guys do.

Jesus christ, Rosenwinkel, Turner and Mehldau are but a fraction of the jazz happening right now. Granted, if your radio station isn't playing it, you don't know that, but seriously, you need to make an effort to listen to some more UNDEAD guys. They can make you feel alive too. Doubtful, but you might be surprised.

There are plenty of very alive players that really touch me. I was commenting only on that particular Rosen-Turner fraction. Easy does it...

[Chuck Nessa]

Paul blames the audience. Way to go Paulie.

seriously, Chuck, who else is there to blame? If someone puts out an amazing recording, (take the aforementioned Kurt Rosenwinkel for example) and it gets ignored because people would rather listen to an old disc, whose fault is that?

Is it the fault of the artist for making music that he or she thinks is important? Nope.

Is it the fault of the record company for putting it out? Nope, at least they had the balls to do so. That's sadly a mistake that they won't be repeating in this age of downsizing. And they might as well downsize labels and make the bulk of their market re-issues, after all, that's all anyone will ever buy.

Is it the fault of the radio stations who need to cling to listener support to stay alive, especially now that the government is barely supporting public radio? Not at all. They need to play music that they know will keep businesses and yoga instructors tuned in.

That leaves only the listener that thinks that jazz stopped in 1965 or so, you know, with the exception of Wynton Marsalis.

That leaves the listener that only wants to hear standards instead of something that means something to an artist. That leaves the listener who thinks that a honking saxophone is distracting instead of blissful. That leaves the listener who thinks that no record collection is complete without Kind of Blue, but only listens to it twice a year.

And when the guy who convinced Bob Koester to unleash Anthony Braxton on us decides that new music isn't worth listening to, well, then God help us all...

TONS of misreading of history, aesthetics and facts above. I don't even know where to begin so I won't. I suggest you "write me off" and ignore anything I write in the future.

[jazzypaul]

I keep hearing names like Kurt Rosenwinkel, Mark Turner, Brad Mehldau, etc. etc. These are all fine musicians with "something to say", but I'm not excited or particularly interested in any of them (overall, anyway. All of them have made a few things that I enjoy immensely. Just not enough, and not ongoing enough, for me to "invest" in their music).

Why? It's simple - there's too much "reference" in their music. I feel like I'm listening to "music about music" rather than music about life. Maybe that's what thier lives are, and if so, then they're doing what they should be doing. But don't blame me if I find Trane at the Half Note more alive, more relevant to the actual living I've done and hope to yet do than endless contemplations and permutaions on the music with the end result being (it seems to me) nothing more than....contemplations and permutaions on the music. That ain't what I want, and it damn sure ain't what I need. It's the difference between driving a car to get somewhere and driving a car because you have a car and since you have it, why shouldn't you drive it? I need to know that I'm going somewhere (even if it's not perfectly clear where). I don't need to take a long ride to nowhere in a really comfortable car with all the bells and whistles.

That's an interesting point. And maybe it's a point that proves that I need to get out more often. But being that my two day jobs involve music, I teach music and I play music, a LARGE portion of my life revolves around it. So, music about music doesn't seem to be that bad of an idea to me. And I'll agree to a large extent that Rosenwinkel and Turner are definitely musicians that seem more concerned about craft than anything else. And I would agree about Mehldau being in the same space, up until Day Is Done. For me, that was a revelatory listen for me. Musically, I heard what I'd been hearing in my head for the past year and couldn't get out. I heard a rhythm section really locking and booming, and I heard a piano player playing shit that made me scream out loud. I finally got a chance to go through what I went through the first time I heard Ornette's Change of The Century, Wayne's Speak No Evil (the album, not the tune), DKV's Trigonometry, Dolphy's Out To Lunch or Monk's Misterioso. So, forgive me if I'm a little biased on that one.

If anything, I guess that it's a bit of "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."

And, for another case of "while the jazz world was sleeping..." I present the Dan Cray trio. Their latest on Blujazz was another killer side that I thought really went out of its way to say something.

[jazzypaul]

TONS of misreading of history, aesthetics and facts above. I don't even know where to begin so I won't. I suggest you "write me off" and ignore anything I write in the future.

Well, I'd much rather find out where I'm wrong so I can right the course than continue to be wrong. A little effort never hurt anyone.

[Free For All]

Jesus christ, Rosenwinkel, Turner and Mehldau are but a fraction of the jazz happening right now.

Haven't heard Jesus' new side. How is it? I hear he thinks he's Brad Mehldau.

Sorry Ron, couldn't stop myself.

[JSngry]

That leaves only the listener that thinks that jazz stopped in 1965 or so, you know, with the exception of Wynton Marsalis.

I am but one of some people who think that the advent of Mr. Marsailis is precisely when "jazz" began to die.

[Chuck Nessa]

Well, I'd much rather find out where I'm wrong so I can right the course than continue to be wrong. A little effort never hurt anyone.

Please excuse me if I decide your education is more than I can offer right now.

[Joe G]

Too true, too true! I heard someone use the description of the Rosenwinkel/Turner, etc. camp as being "heady" music. While I admire thier technique, and to a certain extent, thier thoughtful approach; and while I don't doubt thier sincerity for a moment, I find that the music that results very rarely grabs me in the gut/heart in the way that a lot of the old dead guys do.

Because of their reputations I purchased "Dharma Days".

Sorry.

SHoulda went with The Next Step. Kurt as leader turns me on way more than Mark.