Neo-bop / Young Lions records that you still listen to

[Larry Kart]

7 minutes ago, kh1958 said:

I don't know; I think he was saying that he thinks everyone on the list I posted is worthless; hasn't he expressed the opinion that everyone who is not avant garde in jazz at this point is worthless?; further, I should agree because he has a bunch of CDs and records (as if everybody here doesn't have the same qualification). It's fine; he can listen to what he wants, it's not my business; I just find it annoying to see living musicians dismissed so cavalierly; my opinions were formed based on seeing all of the musicians live, most of them multiple times. I do find myself getting testy in this pandemic isolation, so pardon me for being grumpy.

"hasn't he expressed the opinion that everyone who is not avant garde in jazz at this point is worthless?"

In this you are very much mistaken.

[Dan Gould]

5 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

"hasn't he expressed the opinion that everyone who is not avant garde in jazz at this point is worthless?"

In this you are very much mistaken.

Unfortunately true ... Chuck has as wide a set of ears - figuratively - as anyone possibly can. KH said he's testy in this pandemic situation - and I know I get that way too - so hopefully everyone just moves on.

[kh1958]

9 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

"hasn't he expressed the opinion that everyone who is not avant garde in jazz at this point is worthless?"

In this you are very much mistaken.

Okay; it wouldn't be the first time my assumptions are completely wrong.

[ejp626]

1 hour ago, Rabshakeh said:

Feels like a very different type of music.

I do agree, but at some point someone (with questionable judgement perhaps) stuck Osby in such a list.  He laughs about it in this interview: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VE0KuENK5akJ:www.jazzweekly.com/interviews/ndpt1.htm+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-d

(I knew I wasn't completely imagining this.)

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

8 hours ago, JSngry said:

I used to go back to this one on occasion, but god, it's been maybe 5-10 years since the last time.

Yeah, I've got that too. Didn't know it was neo-bop. 

MG

[JSngry]

It's not, which is one of the reasons I like it. But Donald Harrison was definitely part of that "Young  Lion" camp in terms of marketing, at least initially.

[BillF]

On 30/12/2020 at 7:11 PM, BillF said:

I think the people I listen a great deal to are from a slightly later generation: Eric Alexander, Jim Rotondi, David Hazeltine, John Webber, Joe Farnsworth, Kenny Washington, Peter Washington, Dmitry Baevsky, Mike DiRubbo, Dwayne Burno, Grant Stewart, John Swana, Peter Bernstein, Vincent Herring, Mike LeDonne, Joe Magnarelli.

 

In the past I have used the term "neo-bop" for the music of these people. The way this thread has gone suggests this was erroneous as "neo-bop" denotes the music of an earlier generation. Am I right?

[Rabshakeh]

2 hours ago, BillF said:

In the past I have used the term "neo-bop" for the music of these people. The way this thread has gone suggests this was erroneous as "neo-bop" denotes the music of an earlier generation. Am I right?

I was wondering about this too.  Do people differentiate? 

[BillF]

57 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

I was wondering about this too.  Do people differentiate? 

Well, it looks like they do. Many musicians have been named in this thread, but no one other than me has mentioned the ones in my list. They are, as I've said, of a later and younger group.

[John Tapscott]

Maybe it's already posted somewhere, but I've always liked this Hargrove CD and still listen to it occasionally.

 

[Pim]

Don’t know if Kenny Garrett is among the young lions but he is one I really dig. Especially the works with Mulgrew Miller, Bobby Hutcherson etc. His last 2 albums not so much though.

[Dub Modal]

Does the baggage of trash talk and hard line musical perspectives (from some of these artists) taint some of this work from decades past? Honest question because I'm not sure although it seems like part of the equation. I think it does for me in some respects, although I enjoy some records from one of the biggest trash talkers of all - Branford M. - who to this day can't stop slinging mud at current jazz artists. Sometimes I wonder if listening to these tracks divorced from that baggage would possibly open it up a bit more to those who may have sworn it off...again, not sure. I didn't get into this music until much later, so that hindsight helps a bit with that separation of the two. 

[JSngry]

12 minutes ago, Dub Modal said:

Sometimes I wonder if listening to these tracks divorced from that baggage would possibly open it up a bit more to those who may have sworn it off...

Why would you think that? 

Plenty of trash talking throughout the history of this music. Plenty of assholes too. Big deal.

Anybody who is into - or not into - any type of music primarily because of the extracurriculars is into the noise around the music, not the music itself.

It's like people who can't deal with Brian Wilson because of Mike Love. Perfectly acceptable emotional reaction, piss-poor musical evaluation.

 

 

[Dub Modal]

1 minute ago, JSngry said:

Why would you think that? 

Because these dudes not only talked a lot of shit but also endorsed some harsh actions toward some well regarded and revered artists, artists that were still contemporary and definitely had some contemporary, dedicated fans. And because they did so, fans might have said fuck all their shit I don't want to hear any of it. It just seems tighter wound with the emotional aspect of it because from what I can tell, jazz fans felt like they were being told to like certain things, etc. I don't know, not saying that it's a definite that people wouldn't be able to discern good from bad. Sure, plenty of shit talk all through the ages, but modern era press, payola and other things make it seem like this was more of a divisive issue. 

[JSngry]

Let me put it this way - hot talk in the service of cold music just warns up the leftovers. I eat leftovers, but not when the kitchen is still open.

[Dub Modal]

Gotcha. And good way to put it. 

[JSngry]

Lest I paint too broadly...

Still waiting for another Kenny Garrett record this good (and not just this one cut).

[GA Russell]

I think of the Young Lions as guys who were born in the early '60s, and who were signed by major record labels.

I think of it all as a marketing thing rather than a music thing.

Anyone disagree?

[danasgoodstuff]

10 minutes ago, GA Russell said:

I think of the Young Lions as guys who were born in the early '60s, and who were signed by major record labels.

I think of it all as a marketing thing rather than a music thing.

Anyone disagree?

I think some of them were actually born in the '50s, but close enough.

[BillF]

1 hour ago, GA Russell said:

I think of the Young Lions as guys who were born in the early '60s, and who were signed by major record labels.

I think of it all as a marketing thing rather than a music thing.

Anyone disagree?

Well, that's Young Lions defined, so what is neo-bop?

[GA Russell]

4 minutes ago, BillF said:

Well, that's Young Lions defined, so what is neo-bop?

Darned if I know!

[Rabshakeh]

1 hour ago, danasgoodstuff said:

I think some of them were actually born in the '50s, but close enough.

Middle aged lions, now getting on in years.

[Rabshakeh]

56 minutes ago, GA Russell said:

Darned if I know!

I am probably wrong about this, and no doubt someone who was there at the time is better placed to explain what is meant by the term, but I always thought that "neo-bop" was a slightly pejorative term to distinguish (1) the revivalist stream of the early '80s onwards (e.g., the family Marsalis, but also someone later like Joshua Redman) that was self consciously reviving the music, performance style and often dress of '50s Art Blakey or Miles Davis' second quintet, as opposed to (2) the earlier streams of "straight ahead" music in the later '60s through to early '80s, that were an actual linear continuation of that earlier music, but which lacked the later revivalists' strictures (e.g., Woody Shaw / Keith Jarrett). 

I confess that I associate this type of music as a whole with the musicians marketed as the "Young Lions" in the mid-80s, rather than the later 90s musicians who people seem to enjoy more (judging by the comments here). Hence the probably inaccurate title of this thread.

I think that I need to revisit that recent "90s straight ahead" thread from a few months ago.

[Dan Gould]

My 2 cents:

Neo-bop was the style played by the "young lions" which was more of a marketing term.  Neo-bop can also easily be used to describe the music recorded by artists on the earlier list of "slightly later" folks (Eric Alexander, Mike LeDonne, Rotundi et.al.) Just because the battles over what was jazz and what wasn't probably weren't quite so intense, they were still (mostly) all playing an earlier style that ignored most musical developments from the 60s on.

On 12/31/2020 at 5:47 AM, JSngry said:

I used to go back to this one on occasion, but god, it's been maybe 5-10 years since the last time.

Now I'm curious if that "Uptown Ruler" track is the Marsalis composition from one of those "Soul Gestures" volumes.

[Big Beat Steve]

13 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Just because the battles over what was jazz and what wasn't probably weren't quite so intense, they were still (mostly) all playing an earlier style that ignored most musical developments from the 60s on.

Not wanting to get deeper into the Young Lions or Neo-Bop aspect (due to insufficient personal exposure) but as for these "musical developments", that's something I am rather wary of.
Are these "deveopments" a one-way street one HAS to walk, or aren't they rather ONE BRANCH of various different developments that you can decide to follow or not (or choose which of these you want to follow)?
Personally I still feel (just like with earlier "developments") that this is not a linear, one-way thing but a matter of branching out in an increasing number of different directions that you can explore or not, take up or discard (ignore). As with all other musics, it is a matter of what you like and not a matter of what you MUST go along with (in the - very relative - name of "progress"? - to the exclusion of what developments had their origins in earlier periods?). Some developments are more radical than others but is this to say that only the most radical ones are the legitimate ones and everything else automatically is "moldy fig-ish"? IMO there is a wealth of nuances in between that may be much more satisfactory to many (based - again - on personal musical preferences which is all that this all about anyway).