HutchFan

Agreed. He shapes the sound of that record every bit as much as she does.

More Betty Carter:

Oh yes. Love those too. Especially Manhattan Jazz on Musicmasters. Just figured one could start up near the front and work your way to the back. Which 3 would you choose, Ken? I'd venture a guess that you've got all (or, at least, very nearly all) of Braff's recordings -- both with and without Hyman -- so you're uniquely qualified offer up some suggestions! Put those cards on the table, amigo!

with Scott Colley (who's featured prominently) and Clifford Jordan

These are the first three that popped into my head: Ruby Braff, Ellis Larkins - Duets, Volume One (Vanguard) Ruby Braff, Ellis Larkins - Duets, Volume Two (Vanguard) Ruby Braff - Braff!! (Epic/Portrait) - with Coleman Hawkins on four cuts

My two faves from Vampi Soul: and I think both of these are no longer available.

Next up: There's no one else like Betty Carter. The best record by the Braff-Barnes Quartet? I think so. A classic.

Sorry to hear this terrible news. R.I.P.

and Farnsworth is playing here in ATL this weekend. I may go see him, depending on how my days shake out. With Mark Whitfield on guitar.

Yep, it's Wayne and Morgan with Art.

O.K. Fair enough.

TtK, You've said this before, and I still disagree with you. Jazz may have been finished by the 1980s from the perspective of its relevance to the culture at large -- and from the perspective of commerce. But to imply that it's finished or irrelevant in every respect is absurd. By that same logic, all sorts of artistic pursuits would "finished" by virtue of the fact that most people don't follow them or they aren't commercially impactful. Dance? Dead! Poetry? Gone! Art films? Over! Clearly, most of us on this forum don't listen to jazz because it's popular. Even so, it's not "finished" for us. Not in the least.

Betty Carter - Now It's My Turn (Roulette, 1976) with John Hicks, Walter Booker, and Eddie Moore and Jackie Cain & Roy Kral - A Wilder Alias (CTI, 1972) with Hubert Laws, Joe Farrell, et al

Now: Woody Shaw - Love Dance (Muse, 1976)

Thanks for sharing this, Ken!

Yeah. Well, to clarify: I think Shaw's pre-Columbia stuff on Muse (and Contemporary) is his MOST interesting music. Blackstone Legacy, Moontrane, Love Dance, and all those. I would put his post-Columbia recordings on equal footing with the music he recorded for Columbia. Excellent. But all of it a smidge below his work as a leader from 1970-76. That's a strictly personal & un-objective evaluation, of course! Ooops!

jazzcorner, Here's the discogs entry: https://www.discogs.com/release/9925022-Red-Rodney-Quintets-The-Red-Rodney-Quintets from that page: 1-12 originally released as Modern Music From Chicago (Fantasy 3-208); 13-19 released on Red Rodney & Kai Winding, Gerry Mulligan & Brew Moore/Broadway (Prestige 8306) (the actual original release of these tracks was the 10" The New Sounds).

You're right. A thematic approach would work, even if it's squishy and imprecise. ... I still need to read Shoemaker's book. That's an interesting thought. I hadn't really thought about the reasons for the re-assessment. I've just noticed that it was happening. But isn't this ALWAYS true?

If you're saying that it ain't gonna be what it was (and I think that you are), then I agree. It won't be.

Care to elaborate?

Is that a new narrative? I think you could make a strong argument that jazz became a global thing in the 1970s.

Totally agree with all you're stating here. It's almost as if history has stopped. The distant past is dissected ad nauseum, but the more recent past is ignored. It's strange. But why has history stopped? I think some of this has to do with the incredible diversity of music that now falls under the term "Jazz." In reality, Jazz is no longer one thing; it's a whole constellation of different things, various sub-genres, that are only connected via their shared history (and our imaginations). ... Of course, there has always been divisions in jazz -- think about the "moldy figs" vs. the modernists. But beginning in the 1970s, there was an explosive divergence -- with jazz heading off in myriad and (some would say) contradictory directions. And it's still true today. This "Jazz Genres" wikipedia page lists nearly 50 (!) sub-genres, and I'd be willing to bet that we could all come up with many more. So how do we make sense of it all? It's a challenge to come up with any sort of over-arching theme -- because there isn't one. Other than possibly, "Look at all this diversity." [Or, you do what I've done with my blogs: Make a list. Stop trying to tie it all together because there isn't any over-arching narrative anymore. There's just a bunch stuff and you've got to wade through it in a "one-at-a-time" way, rather than trying to make sense of it with of a set of universally-applicable principles -- because there aren't any measuring sticks that work anymore, aside from "good" (to me)" or "the other kind" (to me).] One other thing that I've observed in the midst of all this seeming incomprehensibility: What we might call middle-of-the-stream jazz -- stuff like the Pullen/Adams Quartet or Peterson's Fo'tet -- sometimes gets overlooked precisely because it's neither conservative enough for those who swim in more traditional, bop-oriented streams nor radical enough for those who swim in avant-leaning streams. And that's ironic, because I think it's this stuff that has the most potential to pull in new listeners. It will be very interesting to see whether the re-appraisal that has happened with 1970s jazz happens for 1980s jazz (and beyond). And, if some sort of re-appraisal does happen, what will the new narrative be?