All Activity

Original LP

It's an all-star band featuring Melissa Aldana, Nduduzo Makhathini, Linda May Jan Oh and Jeff Tain Watts in addition to Lovano... Quite a band imho even though it can't quite imagine them all together...

Agreed that the borderline areas of what is or isn't jazz, such as the genres you mention, ought to be included at least in passing in any open-minded discussion or historical overview of jazz. As to the depth of coverage, YMMV. However, among the genres you mention, it would be useful to define "R&B" a bit more exactly. I have a hunch what you mean is not what I understand to be R&B in the first place (stylistically speaking, without any real limitations to its timeframe): post-Swing era, mostly pre-Rock'n'Roll and clearly pre-Soul Black Music of the danceable, popular variety and as a subcategory of Blues. I.e. broadly in the way that Tad Richards argues for its recognition as part of jazz in his "Jazz With a Beat" book. I realize R&B is used in different, more recent meanings too so it would be useful to clarifly which is which in any given context. As for how and when the appreciation of certain styles of jazz or artists may change over time, a word on this statement of yours: You may be surprised to learn that Hugues Panassié clearly and outspokenly praised the recordings of Jimmy Smith in his publications of the 50s and early 60s! Yes, him, the eternal "moldy fig" and bebop hater! So would this "seal of approval" have devalued, in turn, Jimmy Smith in the opinions of all-out modernists, I wonder?

I've noticed that Joe Lovano is (not surprisingly) doing several concerts honoring Coltrane; I think the first is in a few days in St. Louis. I have enjoyed Lovano's takes on Coltrane, which are found in most sustained form on Steve Kuhn's Mostly Coltrane and Compassion (co-led with Dave Liebman). I believe Joe is using a quintet, rather than the more expected quartet. Anyone know who's in this band with Lovano?

To give my own response to the post, I have always been impressed by the approach taken by the likes of the Jazz Wax blog, which takes a very expansive approach to "Jazz". It includes big band pop, R&B, mambo records and easy listening, for example, as a part of Jazz's story. Having said that, I am not really sure that it would be necessary to include those musics in a historical overview of Jazz, despite the very substantial and natural overlap they have with the jazz most of us enjoy. Such a book or course would be bloated. I think that in many cases the commercial jazz of the late seventies through mid nineties has less in common with "Jazz" than the likes of Bacharach or Perez Prado. Despite that, I do think that the radio friendly "jazz" of that period should be recognised as a very substantial chapter in the history of Jazz, as a whole. It was the artistic terminus of many trends that had existed in jazz (and specifically but not exclusively fusion) up to that point. More importantly, it was extremely popular among people who regarded themselves as jazz fans. Extremely popular to the point that it absolutely outsold the music most of us enjoy. It was also the form of jazz that probably most influenced non-jazz genres, like R&B, acid jazz, gospel, neo-soul etc. As such, I think that it does probably need a chapter or a lecture or a podcast, as one of the key trends of that two decade period that still shapes the music. (The other three key trends that would need to be included in this notional book or course for the years 1977 - 1995, in my view, would be the acoustic jazz revival; the emergence of an international and institutionalised avantgarde improvisation; and the explosion of retrospective reissues, with its black hole effect). All of this is without prejudice to the fact that, as I assume is the case for most of us, I do not really like 90% of the music in this category. There are some exceptions there (Winelight is great. Sanborn was good at times. I like Whalum) but I don't think it was a particularly fruitful period for jazz, artistically. In due course this view may become old fashioned, just as 1950s views of Jimmy Smith or the criticisms of modal jazz look old fashioned. But I am not really all that sure and any revival of interest in this area would need to take an unexpected form, in my view.

Maria Schneider: Data Lords

Op.18, Op.32, Op.36

An old favorite -

It is full of zingers.

I have to add something here as a cautionary tale. I have Ubuntu running on several laptops & have installed it on quite a few more for family & friends. Dell laptops make it pretty easy. You just press F2 or F9 after you press the power button, go into the bios screen and change the boot order, boot from the USB drive and install Ubuntu. Hp laptops on the other hand, can be a huge pain in the ass. Some Hp computers have the bios "locked" to a Windows operating system. I managed to hack a couple of these to get Ubuntu onto them but it was incredibly difficult. It took me days to figure it out. Installing & re-installing Ubuntu with different configurations in the bios until I finally got it to stick. I have little interest in doing that again. The worst thing about it, is that I managed it on one, duplicated the process on a second, and it didn't work. Ha ha ha.

I can like Incognito, and have definitely enjoyed Bluey's remixesm but I've never really thought of them as "jazz". That's just good pop music, full of hooks and Easter eggs , and yes, there were dance clubs in 1975 (and later) where this was the groove, and people called it "jazz" . But you know..

Currently listening to some of these recordings by the London Haydn Quartet.

😆 Mel Jablonski lol

Welcome aboard, Europeans in particular!

Not until today ... 👍- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cellar_Door

Welcome aboard!

This is a good album that I found sealed in Stereo Jack's dollar bin years ago. I still laugh when I see the cover picture because I thought it was a sunny side up egg at first.

I don't believe that you can download Ubuntu onto your computer as an operating system. What I have had to do is download the .iso file and "write" that to a USB thumb drive making it "bootable", using something like Rufus. Then, you boot off of the thumbdrive and you can try it for a bit or install it. I would recommend trying it first. When you install it, you can make your PC capable of "dual boot", which will let you choose which operating system to boot into (Windows or Ubuntu) but I have never done that so I can't tell you if it works well. If you choose to use dual boot, you might need to worry about how much memory you allow Ubuntu to use, as Windows runs using "virtual memory" that grabs extra hard drive space to run smoothly. If you take too much of your hard drive for Ubuntu, you Windows system might run very slowly.

Starting off this cold winter day wtih the sixth cd in the "Tales from Topographic Oceans" Super Deluxe box set, instrumental mixes from the second LP in the original release. These instrumental mixex are fun to here.

Rather an animated discussion in such a brief span of time, so you touched on a subject that either is a bone of contention to many or a log-felt oversight to others. Personally I'd side with the basic statements made by Dan Gould, Niko and Kevin Bresnahan further up in this thread about how things ought to be weighted when the WIDE field of jazz is discussed. But OTOH I have to admit that while I'd never add anything typically "smooth jazz" to my collection there are such recordings out here that when listening to them accidentally you sort of get at least a "jazzish" vibe that is not off-putting. And besides, aren't the limits of this "smooth" genre rather fluid? I'd wager a bet that some of the MUCH more commercial efforts from the output of Wes Montgomery or George Benson, to name just two, would not be a million miles away from what is commonly labeled "smooth jazz" elsewhere. As can be seen from the track listings on many compilation "smooth" or "lounge" or "for lovers", etc. jazz CDs that have been thrown on the market since the 90s. An inevitable trend, of course, in all this is that once such a genre on the outskirts of straight-ahead jazz is admitted into "jazz" then there will be many who claim this now is what jazz is all about and what all jazz fans will have to embrace in order to be with it and this is where all the marketing clout goes under the flag of "jazz". Happened with jazz rock and then fusion in the 70s, etc. And of course this does not sit well with many. Rightly so. Not to mention that there has been quite a lot of music during recent decades that tried to sail under the banner of "jazz" because "jazz" always had a "hip" enough marketable image to it but all that seemed to have been "jazz" about that music was that it audibly was neither rock nor pop nor Black Music nor folk/ethno. So what remains as a tag to paste on? Jazz. For what good? To ACTUAL jazz and to jazz listeners, in particular? So IMO in the end it all depends on how you emphasize a "borderline" subcategory such as "smooth jazz" vs outright "straight-ahead" jazz in the overall presentation. And this is where I think many jazz listeners, fans and collectors willl sternly disagree in accordance with their personal preferences and preconceptions of what is jazz and what isn't. It seems to depend on what kind and degree of "crossover" (which means "dilution" of jazz to hardcore jazz followers anyway) you are prepared to accept. I remember the outcries or horror by many purists when Neo-Swing was all the rage througout the 90s (before abating to a trickle that goes on to this day but is under the radar of most). Visibly this kind of "crossover" cross-pollination of swing-era jazz, R&B and lounge pop with various styles of rock (from rockabilly to punk) did not sit well with many. Though Neo-Swing never claimed to be what "jazz is all about now" (contrary to jazz rock and fusion way back then ...). I always found and still find quite a bit of it enjoyable and entertaining WITHIN my jazz listening (when the time is right ...), contrary to all that fusion stuff, for example. In short, different strokes . .. and a debate that probably can never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.