HutchFan

You can feel the warmth in his sound, his music too. It's so soulful and personal. I totally dig those late-70s/early-80s Blakey bands that were anchored by Bobby Watson and James Williams. I think they're still underrated. Dennis Irwin was in there on bass, and then Charles Fambrough. Those were TOUGH bands.

Now spinning: Dick Wellstood - Live at Hanratty's (Chaz Jazz, 1981) Believe it or not, this 2-LP set opens with a ruminative and inward version of "Jingle Bells" -- a description that one wouldn't usually associate with that song! Otherwise, there's a raft of Fats Waller-associated tunes. But Wellstood again does his own thing with them. It's all good fun -- and living music through tunes that happen to be old.

Nice. I've never seen Bobby Watson live. Need to correct that! I think those two CDs with his Horizon band -- The Inventor and Post Motown Bop -- are among Watson's best.

I didn't notice that, Dub. But my 53-year-old ears ain't what they used to be!

Bobby Watson & Horizon - The Inventor (Blue Note, 1990)

Hard to go wrong with Bags and a program of the Blues. I think you'd dig it. Nice playing from Vinson too.

This again: Up next:

Ah, I see. That makes sense. Will keep an eye out for that Anita Brown Jazz Orchestra CD.

I was referring to the Village Voice Best Jazz of the 1980s Poll that happened back in 1990. I only ask because it would have been interesting to see your ten contributions. Plus you could have provided a "view from Chicago" perspective.

NP: Steve Turre - Viewpoints and Vibrations (Stash)

Clifford, Jim was baiting me. It's not like anyone needs to dig deep for "hidden" implications. That's pretty clear to me. I stand by what I've said.

What you're saying here, Jim, is insulting and hurtful. You act as if I've advocated some sort of total and absolute moral relativism. Questions of morality and politics are NOT what we were talking about. I said I enjoy Latin jazzer A and Euro jazzer B, along with American (both African-American and otherwise) jazzer C -- and there's nothing wrong with that. That's it. But you've now twisted what I said into something bankrupt and horrible. I do realize that -- on some level -- you're just joking. But you're also being an asshole. Thanks gents. I really appreciate the encouragement.

Fun discussion today. I'm grateful to be a part of this forum. As far as the one and the many stuff, I suppose lots of folks would be: "HutchFan, what the FUCK are you talking about?" And maybe some of you were. Anyhow, even if you were, I appreciate that I can share what's on my mind with y'all. Onward and upright, right?

I really like that one.

Pluralism doesn't mean that I have to like everything. Nothing is mandatory. It just means that I have the freedom to like -- or not like -- many things. I'm free to like the Swingle Singers. And I'm under no obligation to like The Singers Unlimited. Pluralism means that a personal, even idiosyncratic, perspective is totally cool -- because no ONE perspective is "correct."

Haven't started it yet. Still digging around, listening, doing "research." I hope to begin at the start of 2022. On this blog, I'll be collaborating with a friend. So there will be two perspectives this time, not just mine.

That's interesting, Niko. From my point of view, the 1970s are the beginning of the present jazz world, that is, a world of so much diversity as to cause a lot of confusion and NON-consensus as to what's "important."

You're probably right. Seems like the most interesting stuff often happens where there isn't consensus.

Rab, I couldn't agree more. It seems like jazz abruptly stops for many listeners at the end of the 60s. That's one of the biggest reasons that I wanted to build my 1970s jazz blog. I felt like there was SO MUCH "uncharted territory" beginning in the 70s -- relative to what came before it. ... Now, it seems like there's a broad re-assessment of the 1970s underway, and it has been happening for years. My blog was just a tiny speck in a very big wave. I hope that my 1980s blog can offer something similar for the decade after the 70s. If I can point listeners toward some interesting (and often overlooked) music, then I'll be happy.

OK, Jim. I intended no offence. All I was saying that some (many!) people believe that there is a jazz ideal or essence. That's Platonism, monism. But I don't think about jazz that way. I don't think that perspective makes me childish or foolish. It's just how I make sense of things. I'll leave it at that. Back to the topic at hand ... Yes! I was happy to see that!

I'm not saying that the lists are flawed without those other perspectives. To your point, given the circumstances, it wasn't gonna happen at the VV. On the other hand, I am saying that -- with the benefit of hindsight -- it would have made for a fuller, more well-rounded picture if those other perspectives HAD been included. Our sense of history -- an of what's important -- is always in flux, right? What we think is important now might be different that we what we thought was important then. That's all I'm talking about -- what WE are talking about -- here.

Totally agree with this sentiment, by the way. But why STOP there? One other thought: I am a pluralist by inclination and temperament. That means that I like to include ALL SORTS of stuff. Because a bigger picture -- even if it's messier -- is more accurate. If I were a monist -- like I think you are, Jim -- I would be more comfortable with excluding stuff that I might think is of "secondary" or of "peripheral" importance. That's also why you're comfortable saying things like, "XYZ is wrong, and ABC is right." To a monistic thinker, there aren't standards; there is a standard. So, I guess I'm saying that even the way we think about these sorts of lists is a reflection of our individuality, our way(s) of thinking about the world. Another way of thinking about it: Platonism = Monism. Aristotelianism = Pluralism. William James said that everyone, at heart, is either one or the other -- monistic or pluralistic. Not necessarily wholly but by tendency. I think it explains a lot of things. Sorry to take us down this quasi-philosophical rabbit hole. I hope it clears the waters rather than muddies them!

Larry -- Why weren't YOU represented on the list? Did you get an invitation to contribute? Well, I think they did leave stuff out -- things that you probably "don't share tastes with." Why not ask one or two aficionados of Latin Jazz to contribute? Why not ask some critics/authors based in other countries to contribute? What's the harm in that? I'm NOT saying that there's something "wrong" with these lists. I'm just saying that more perspectives would have made for a more well-rounded -- and, ultimately -- more interesting picture.