Justin V

Thoughts on the Ahmad Jamal Mosaic?

48 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

Do you also buy used mattresses and pick up sofas left on the curb? XD

No. Bodily fluids are not the same as record scratches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

The old-timey sound quality was initially the hurdle that prevented me from listening to early jazz, but eventually I learned to hear the music behind the recording. But if I have the choice between new, clean, well-done digital transfers with judicious noise reduction, and a dirty, scratchy old LP that's been laying on a garage floor for the past 40 years, I'll take the former, thank you very much.

Agreed but there may be some music that may never make it to CD or other forms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JSngry said:

No. Bodily fluids are not the same as record scratches.

But it's certainly documentation of parties and seductions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, so are all kinds of people.

There's a limit to what materials I'm willing to let into my life in the interest of sociological recreation research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The set (well, the 2/3 of the set) arrived today.  I am looking forward to diving in. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine arrived last week . # 2476. I wonder how many copies were really made.

I am missing a note at the end of the booklet about the arrangement of the music over the discs: If I am not mistaken, they kept LP sequence in most cases and separated live and studio sessions. The three CDs that Orrin Keepnews compiled for reissue are closer to performance sequence, which is quite as covincing. although I respect that Ahmad Jamal conceived the sequencing of at least part of the LPs. 

I will keep the three CDs previously avaialable, they sound better in my ears, one session sounds rather muffled, which of course is due to the sources available. Keepnews might have had better tape sources. Cuscuna notes that the first LP with Walter Perkins was from a digital source which was an LP dub - my LP sounds a lot better and has no wow and flutter - seems I was lucky when I bought that at Crocodisc in Paris 40 years ago ...

What really surprised me the most was how much they were swinging - Crosby and Fournier were one of the all-time great bass-drums teams!

Edited by mikeweil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikeweil said:

What really surprised me the most was how much they were swinging - Crosby and Fournier were one of the all-time great bass-drums teams!

word. they danced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. This:

R-1611535-1305024871.jpeg.jpg

spent over two years on the US pop albums chart from the start of '58 to mid-January 60, rising to #3. And I dare say the seven minutes groove of 'Poinciana' had more than a bit to do with it.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interview with Kenny Washington that's in the booklet for the box Jamal says it stayed on the charts for 109 weeks! Must be the jazz album longeveiry record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite possibly! What about Time Out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JSngry said:

Quite possibly! What about Time Out?

'Time out' was on the pop album chart for 164 weeks. But er...

Kenny G's 'Breathless' was on for 214 weeks.

However, in Ahmad Jamal's period the album charts started off with fifteen places and, by the time 'But not for me' disappeared, it had fifty places. 'Time out' was in a 100 place chart and Breathless in a 200 place chart. So they ain't the same thing at all.

Oh, and 'But not for me' was only 107 weeks on the chart, not 109.

And there were a good many not quite but almost jazz albums on the chart a long time by the likes of Sinatra, Cole, Bennett, Connick, as well as Henry Mancini's 'Peter Gunn' which was not far off contemporaneous with the Jamal LP and was on for 119 weeks.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Magnificent Goldberg said:

Oh, and 'But not for me' was only 107 weeks on the chart, not 109.

My fault, I quoted from memory as I was too lazy to get up and pull the box from the shelf ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long was Getz/Gilberto on the charts?

I knew that Time Out sold well and for a long time, but I did not know that it had gone Platinum (or at least Shishkabobedia says it did).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pulled out my handy Joel Whitburn "Billboard Top Pop Albums 1955-1996" book.  The Jamal album charted 107 weeks and topped out at #3.  The Brubeck charted 164 weeks and topped out at #2.  Getz/Gilberto 96 weeks and topped out at #2 (special recognition that it did that in 1964, at the height of Beatlemania).  The Getz Jazz Samba album went to #1, and charted 70 weeks.  The two Coltrane albums that charted?  Why, of course "Expression" and "Sun Ship", each 3 weeks, neither above 186.   The top Miles Davis album was 'Bitches Brew', reaching #35 and charting 29 weeks.  'Kind of Blue' and 'A Love Supreme' never charted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, felser said:

Just pulled out my handy Joel Whitburn "Billboard Top Pop Albums 1955-1996" book.  The Jamal album charted 107 weeks and topped out at #3.  The Brubeck charted 164 weeks and topped out at #2.  Getz/Gilberto 96 weeks and topped out at #2 (special recognition that it did that in 1964, at the height of Beatlemania).  The Getz Jazz Samba album went to #1, and charted 70 weeks.  The two Coltrane albums that charted?  Why, of course "Expression" and "Sun Ship", each 3 weeks, neither above 186.   The top Miles Davis album was 'Bitches Brew', reaching #35 and charting 29 weeks.  'Kind of Blue' and 'A Love Supreme' never charted.

Interesting that "KInd of Blue" never charted. Despite that, it's still the best-selling jazz album of all time, right? Better than Goodman's Carnegie Hall Concert?

 

 

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gmonahan said:

Interesting that "KInd of Blue" never charted. Despite that, it's still the best-selling jazz album of all time, right? Better than Goodman's Carnegie Hall Concert?

 

 

gregmo

Yes, according to a 2009 Newsweek article that says it has sold 4x platinum.  Link and excerpt from the article below.  And I will say, it's the jazz album I recommend as a starter to people who "don't know that they like jazz".  That being said, I'm more likely to pull out and listen to one of the Miles albums with HancockCarter//Williams, like "Four and More" (Coleman) or "ESP" (Shorter):

https://www.newsweek.com/how-kind-blue-became-best-selling-jazz-album-ever-77791

 Meanwhile, the record kept selling, and selling and selling. Today, 50 years after it was released, "Kind of Blue" remains the bestselling jazz album of all time. More than 4 million copies have been sold, and the album still sells an average of 5,000 copies a week. If you have a jazz album on your shelf, odds are it's "Kind of Blue."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, felser said:

Yes, according to a 2009 Newsweek article that says it has sold 4x platinum.  Link and excerpt from the article below.  And I will say, it's the jazz album I recommend as a starter to people who "don't know that they like jazz".  That being said, I'm more likely to pull out and listen to one of the Miles albums with HancockCarter//Williams, like "Four and More" (Coleman) or "ESP" (Shorter):

https://www.newsweek.com/how-kind-blue-became-best-selling-jazz-album-ever-77791

 Meanwhile, the record kept selling, and selling and selling. Today, 50 years after it was released, "Kind of Blue" remains the bestselling jazz album of all time. More than 4 million copies have been sold, and the album still sells an average of 5,000 copies a week. If you have a jazz album on your shelf, odds are it's "Kind of Blue."

Interesting--thanks for the link!

 

 

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep catalog, what a concept!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, felser said:

Yes, according to a 2009 Newsweek article that says it has sold 4x platinum.  Link and excerpt from the article below.  And I will say, it's the jazz album I recommend as a starter to people who "don't know that they like jazz".  That being said, I'm more likely to pull out and listen to one of the Miles albums with HancockCarter//Williams, like "Four and More" (Coleman) or "ESP" (Shorter):

https://www.newsweek.com/how-kind-blue-became-best-selling-jazz-album-ever-77791

 Meanwhile, the record kept selling, and selling and selling. Today, 50 years after it was released, "Kind of Blue" remains the bestselling jazz album of all time. More than 4 million copies have been sold, and the album still sells an average of 5,000 copies a week. If you have a jazz album on your shelf, odds are it's "Kind of Blue."

I have a jazz album on my shelf, and it's NOT 'Kind of blue' :)

(not any of 'em)

MG

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, felser said:

Yes, according to a 2009 Newsweek article that says it has sold 4x platinum.  Link and excerpt from the article below.  And I will say, it's the jazz album I recommend as a starter to people who "don't know that they like jazz".  That being said, I'm more likely to pull out and listen to one of the Miles albums with HancockCarter//Williams, like "Four and More" (Coleman) or "ESP" (Shorter):

https://www.newsweek.com/how-kind-blue-became-best-selling-jazz-album-ever-77791

 Meanwhile, the record kept selling, and selling and selling. Today, 50 years after it was released, "Kind of Blue" remains the bestselling jazz album of all time. More than 4 million copies have been sold, and the album still sells an average of 5,000 copies a week. If you have a jazz album on your shelf, odds are it's "Kind of Blue."

I suppose you wanted to say that it's for people who "don't know that they like THAT style of jazz", i..e modern jazz (if you want to use a WIDE term and to split it into further sub-categories).
Jazz is a stylistically very, very wide field and I know more than one who are quite into other styles of jazz but would RUN from KOB et al. Which is perfectly legitimate as it works the other way round too with those who will consider anything BEFORE KOB just "old hat" too. (NO, those who do not stand in awe before KOB are NOT missing any point of what "jazz" is all about, it's just that they explore other areas of jazz with more interest, just like those do who get all excited about jazz rock, avantgarde (whatever ...) etc. as the ultimate in jazz. Different tastes in a wide field that can accommodate them ALL)

 

3 hours ago, The Magnificent Goldberg said:

I have a jazz album on my shelf, and it's NOT 'Kind of blue' :)

(not any of 'em)

MG

I see what you mean and understand. I bought my copy of KOB only about 6 months ago (not saying which reissue :D) on a sudden impetus but had never really missed it during the 43 years of jazz record buying before. Had heard it here and there before but as this is one of those you could always get if you wanted to through the decades there never was any urge, particularly since my main and deeper focus is in several areas of jazz elsewhere (just like yours is, I presume).

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I suppose you wanted to say that it's for people who "don't know that they like THAT style of jazz", i..e modern jazz (if you want to use a WIDE term and to split it into further sub-categories).
Jazz is a stylistically very, very wide field and I know more than one who are quite into other styles of jazz but would RUN from KOB et al. Which is perfectly legitimate as it works the other way round too with those who will consider anything BEFORE KOB just "old hat" too. (NO, those who do not stand in awe before KOB are NOT missing any point of what "jazz" is all about, it's just that they explore other areas of jazz with more interest, just like those do who get all excited about jazz rock, avantgarde (whatever ...) etc. as the ultimate in jazz. Different tastes in a wide field that can accommodate them ALL)

 

I see what you mean and understand. I bought my copy of KOB only about 6 months ago (not saying which reissue :D) on a sudden impetus but had never really missed it during the 43 years of jazz record buying before. Had heard it here and there before but as this is one of those you could always get if you wanted to through the decades there never was any urge, particularly since my main and deeper focus is in several areas of jazz elsewhere (just like yours is, I presume).

Yes. And elsewhere than jazz - also like yours, I recall.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mjzee said:

50th anniversary? Seems a bit late since it was recorded 60 years ago next year. :rolleyes:

Joking aside, it seems to be a re-release of a set from 2008.

Edited by Daniel A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.