A Lark Ascending Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 (edited) I'd agree that it might be possible (and quite fun) to create a list of 100 albums that act as markers in the history of jazz. The only problem is that everyone's would be different depending on their own interpretation of what was significant. (I don't imagine Wynton and Evan Parker would come up with the same list!). There might be some points of consensus...but many more of dispute. But 'essential'? This implies you 'must have' this album. Lists like that are quite interesting just to see what other people think matters. They're certainly a cheap way of filling magazines or TV schedules at present (we get a '100 best...' virtually once a week in the UK. They're currently obsessed with sitcoms!). They raise awareness. But I don't like the idea of a newcomer to jazz feeling there are a certain 100 albums you 'must' have. Half the fun is finding your own little nooks and crannies. Edited February 20, 2004 by Bev Stapleton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Well, that's why I think 100 is too many. I do honestly feel that every jazz fan should be exposed to certain artists. Armstrong, Parker and Dizzy, and Ornette at least must be heard for their influence on the artform by any serious student of jazz. I would argue that, therefore, at least three discs should be in every jazz collection. Would I add more names to the list and expand the "essentials"? I don't know; have to think about it. I certainly feel one would be missing something without exposure to Ellington and Monk, but I don't know... Certainly, by the time you've gotten to Evan Parker and Wynton, you're too far down the list to say essential, at least essential for everyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Understand the aversion to vocalists, but I tell you - it's wrong. Just my opinion, but I'm right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 I do honestly feel that every jazz fan should be exposed to certain artists. Armstrong, Parker and Dizzy, and Ornette at least must be heard for their influence on the artform by any serious student of jazz. I would argue that, therefore, at least three discs should be in every jazz collection. Perhaps for any serious student of jazz. But most people who buy jazz records are enthusiasts not serious students. The last thing I'd advise most people to do is to approach jazz as a serious student. Approach it because you're going to have a good time. I'd hope anyone who found they were loving jazz would give those names a listen. I suspect the natural process of exploration would take them there pretty quickly (most of the signposts point that way!). But I'd not want anyone to feel obliged to have any musician or recording in their collection. There are plenty of genuine jazz enthusiasts who don't care for early jazz (so don't bother with Armstrong) or bebop (so don't bother with Parker) or jazz that parts from traditional jazz harmony (so don't bother with Coleman). I'd not like them to think their collections were lacking. On the Mingus issue - 'Ah Um!' is one of my favourites. On the vocal issue. My collection would be greatly diminished without Billie H., Ella or Norma Winstone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minew Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 The last thing I'd advise most people to do is to approach jazz as a serious student. Approach it because you're going to have a good time. For some of us, "being a serious student" of jazz is how we "have a good time." The listening is fun, but so is the learning. Lists can be fun because they provoke further study of or more thought about the music. The more there is to back up a listing/rating system, the more interesting it is (e.g., Cook and Morton or AMG) to consider. I agree, though, none can be conclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 For some of us, "being a serious student" of jazz is how we "have a good time." The listening is fun, but so is the learning. Perhaps. I'm not suggesting that there's anything inherently wrong (or "unfun") with exploring jazz (or anything else) in a systematic manner (which is what 'serious student' implies to me). Just that its not how I imagine most people listen to jazz. They go for enjoyment (which can happen on any number of levels, including the intellectual). They encounter it in a rather scattered way based on hearing things, individual recommendation, media articles, chance hearings at concerts. And they often sit and read about jazz to find out more. 'Essential' strikes me as wanting to alter this - it's a word I associate with the 'canon of jazz' approach. With so much jazz out there you are only ever going to hear a small part. One way is to be guided by someone elses idea of what is essential. Another is to follow a more random path and end up with a view of jazz that is more idiosyncratic. I suspect the idea of 'Essential Jazz' is probably more meaningful to enthusists in the States and people who like mainly American jazz than those who follow jazz beyond those shores. Everything is so diverse and in flux in Europe, for example, that the idea of 'essential' has very little meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Do I agree with this list? Hell, no! Do I want to waste time making additions or subtractions? Hell, no! Did I waste precious time responding to this thread? Hell, yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Do I agree with this list? Hell, no! Do I want to waste time making additions or subtractions? Hell, no! Did I waste precious time responding to this thread? Hell, yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 I know. It's silly really. I could be doing really useful things. Like telling everybody what record I'm playing at the moment! Or grumbling about Norah Jones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 OK, let's take a stab at this ourselves. And let's start with Miles, and I think we gotta limit ourselves to 5 Miles albums -- cuz it wouldn't make sense to have more than 5% of the "top-100" list go to just one person. Here's what I'd pick... "Kind of Blue" - impossible to not include, 'nuff said. "Birth of the Cool" - hard not to include this one too. "Miles Ahead" - gotta include a "Miles and Gil" album, though one could argue for "Sketches of Spain" instead, I suppose. "Nefertiti" - gotta have something by the 2nd great quintet, though you could argue for others too. (I think "Plugged Nickel" is a bit too 'out there' to include in a 'top 100' list, much as I dearly love it.) "Bitches Brew" - Gotta include somthing from his electric era, and for a number of reasons (yes, including sales), "Bitches Brew" probably is the best choice (even though there are other electric Miles titles I prefer over BB). Any arguments with these choices as the representitive "Miles" titles on our own "top 100" list??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Or maybe Coltrane. Giant Steps and a Love Supreme. But what do use as late period Coltrane? Interstellar Space or Meditations? B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Well...thanks for picking the artist that can get me in trouble, Rooster! First of all, as I said earlier, the idea of an "essential 100" doesn't work for me, as I'm so close to Bev's position that our discussion was like Catholics and Lutherans arguing while Islamists and Hindus listen in wondering what the hell we're talking about. I'm thinking ten (at the most) CDs to give everyone a wide exposure to the basics of the development, and then go with wheverever exploration takes you. I think several artists should be included in any jazz collection simply because they are so important to the development of jazz that you'd be missing a large portion of the picture without exposure to them. Miles, in my opinion, is not one of those artists. If forced to play the "top 100" game, I certainly wouldn't start with Miles first. (See how much fun this is? I haven't even touched on your selections; I start arguing the minute I see the name! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 I'm so close to Bev's position that our discussion was like Catholics and Lutherans arguing... You are completely wide of the mark there, Jazzmoose!!!!!!!! We are much more like General Baptists and Particular Baptists arguing over predestination!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Bev, why don't we just come out and say what's really wrong with this list? ... ... No Louis Stewart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 (edited) Well...thanks for picking the artist that can get me in trouble, Rooster! First of all, as I said earlier, the idea of an "essential 100" doesn't work for me, as I'm so close to Bev's position that our discussion was like Catholics and Lutherans arguing while Islamists and Hindus listen in wondering what the hell we're talking about. I'm thinking ten (at the most) CDs to give everyone a wide exposure to the basics of the development, and then go with wheverever exploration takes you. I think several artists should be included in any jazz collection simply because they are so important to the development of jazz that you'd be missing a large portion of the picture without exposure to them. Miles, in my opinion, is not one of those artists. If forced to play the "top 100" game, I certainly wouldn't start with Miles first. (See how much fun this is? I haven't even touched on your selections; I start arguing the minute I see the name! ) You wouldn't include any Miles in your "top 100" list??? Careful, Moose -- people have been banned for lesser offenses around these parts. But seriously, I'd think any "top 100" list worth even half a damn, would have to have at least 2, or probably 3 different Miles albums on it. How could you not at least include "Kind of Blue"?? And by the way -- I'm NOT saying that Miles should be THE place to start. I just thought that was a easy place for ME to start, in terms of suggesting titles for our own "top 100" list. Edited February 21, 2004 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 heheheh. I was almost gonna say that I don't even have "at least 2, or probably 3 different Miles albums," but that would be a lie. I own about 20. Don't ask me why, I don't like his playing ONE BIT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 okay, I DO like the early stuff. The REAL early stuff, when he kept his socks on his feet and didn't stuff them in his horn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 No Louis Stewart? At last! Some sense! (Received 'The Gift' this morning after a real hunt!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Miles, in my opinion, is not one of those artists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 heheheh. I was almost gonna say that I don't even have "at least 2, or probably 3 different Miles albums," but that would be a lie. I own about 20. Don't ask me why, I don't like his playing ONE BIT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 heheheh. I was almost gonna say that I don't even have "at least 2, or probably 3 different Miles albums," but that would be a lie. I own about 20. Don't ask me why, I don't like his playing ONE BIT. Free, I'll see your " " - and raise you three more: " "!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 heheheh. I was almost gonna say that I don't even have "at least 2, or probably 3 different Miles albums," but that would be a lie. I own about 20. Don't ask me why, I don't like his playing ONE BIT. Free, I'll see your " " - and raise you three more: " "!!! I mean REALLY...come on now...you got some 'splainin to do.....WTF!......huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 I've started a new thread in the artists section: why I hate Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.