100 Overlooked Recordings Worth Listening To

[Hot Ptah]

Obviously Organissimo members are deep into jazz and its history. What I'm afraid of is that the people I listed are probably unheard by the vast majority of Down Beat readers and jazz-radio listeners.

It is interesting to me, how in this day when literally everything in music is available to masses of people via streaming services and Internet radio apps, and when jazz is now routinely played as background music in Starbucks and other public places, how it is difficult to determine how much of the history of jazz is really being absorbed by very many people.

I had to read books and old magazine articles at the library, and dream about hearing jazz albums which had not been reissued, when I became a jazz lover in the 1970s. It was a fight, a struggle, to find copies of the music, and took some unusual effort to learn about it. Now it is so much easier, but how many are taking advantage of it? If it is equally easy to hear everything on Spotify, do very many people take advantage of that to delve into Fletcher Henderson, or do they instead listen again to Beyoncé and Kanye?

Also, there are many more young musicians in jazz programs in high schools and colleges in America. How many of those musicians are taught about, and/or want to know about, Jabbo Smith, James P. Johnson, Sidney Bechet? I am not sure.

[Daniel A]

...

Hi Daniel,

thanks for your recommandations.

Been just streaming your selection. Frederiksson must have listened a lot to Long Tall Dex. I hear a lot of Gordon in it.

Now just listening to Staffan Abaleen Quintet. To me up til now totally obscure - but this is very good! Will come back to it again.

As a big admirer of Lars Gullin I know a lot of him and got a handful of his recordings. A gentle giant and real poet.

Next I will listen to Hallberg of whom I know only some pieces..

Now again my recommendations of Swedish jazz:

Arne Domnerus Favourite Groups 1949-1950 (Dragon) lots of beautiful clarinet in it.

Rolf Ericson Miles awaý 1950 -52 (Dragon) love his tone and phrasing

Thanks! Börje Fredriksson is a fascinating figure in Swedish jazz, both influential and neglected at the same time. He deserves a thread on his own (he is in fact only mentioned once on this forum, and that was in passing in a promotional post for something else), but I've hesitated to start such a thread because there is simply so very little recorded evidence of him. I may do so anyway, even though I expect meagre feedback.

[jeffcrom]

Also, there are many more young musicians in jazz programs in high schools and colleges in America. How many of those musicians are taught about, and/or want to know about, Jabbo Smith, James P. Johnson, Sidney Bechet? I am not sure.

Pardon me if I've related this story here before. I know I haven't posted my Lessons from Bechet before.

While working on my Master's degree (as an adult teaching public school and gigging), I had to take one performing class. Nothing appealed to me except the jazz combo classes - basically meeting once a week and playing tunes for a couple of hours. The instructor was one of Atlanta's first-call tenor players - he still is. After class he and I were talking about influences - he was very into middle-period Coltrane. I said that when I got home after work, I was more likely to relax with Braxton or Bechet. He said that he had never heard any Bechet. After picking my jaw up off the floor, I politely suggested that he might find him worth checking out.

Afterwards, I went home and wrote down this list of things I had learned as a musician from Bechet:

Know the melody, know the chords, and know how and why they fit together.

Don’t try to sound like anyone except yourself.

The descending tritone (six to flat three) is a powerful interval. (But don’t overdo it.)

Playing with conviction can paper over a lot of cracks.

Be your own rhythm section.

You can turn a note into a blue note by messing with the pitch, messing with the timbre, or both.

Whenever possible, play with musicians better than you. (Sidney was only able to do this when he played with Louis Armstrong, and maybe not even then. But his records with Louis certainly find him more involved than when he recorded with young revivalist bands.)

Whenever possible, sleep with Tallulah Bankhead. (Note to self: no longer practical. Ann Hathaway?)

Don’t run changes, improvise melodies. Although…

Sometimes running changes can be effective. (But don’t overdo it.)

Tuning is both absolute and relative.

Mix it up – long notes, fast notes, pretty notes, growled notes.

Always try to hold the last note of “Saints” longer than everyone else. (Okay, perhaps this is not Sidney’s best lesson.)

[paul secor]

"The instructor was one of Atlanta's first-call tenor players - he still is. After class he and I were talking about influences - he was very into middle-period Coltrane. I said that when I got home after work, I was more likely to relax with Braxton or Bechet. He said that he had never heard any Bechet. After picking my jaw up off the floor, I politely suggested that he might find him worth checking out."

I wonder if that this kind of thing might be what John L. was thinking about when he posted his list.

[Hot Ptah]

Here's another thing worth considering. After many years of not doing so, I have had to socialize, for my work, with a wide variety of people, of all ages, from around the country, in the past year. I have been struck by how virtually none of them have ever heard a jazz album, or have ever thought about jazz at all. A mention of jazz brings blank stares, in virtually every group of people.

In the 1970s and 1980s, I think that more people were generally aware of jazz, and had heard some of the leading artists of the day--Miles, Herbie Hancock, John McLaughlin, Keith Jarrett, Ella, Sarah Vaughan, Basie, Dizzy, Wynton, etc. Not so any more, with the masses, from what I can tell. There's a big difference.

So it is not so much of an issue that jazz collectors are not into pre-Bird music. It is more of an issue that so few people are jazz collectors at all now. If you find someone who collects 1990s post bop recordings, at least that person is collecting SOME jazz.

[Steve Reynolds]

Here's another thing worth considering. After many years of not doing so, I have had to socialize, for my work, with a wide variety of people, of all ages, from around the country, in the past year. I have been struck by how virtually none of them have ever heard a jazz album, or have ever thought about jazz at all. A mention of jazz brings blank stares, in virtually every group of people.

In the 1970s and 1980s, I think that more people were generally aware of jazz, and had heard some of the leading artists of the day--Miles, Herbie Hancock, John McLaughlin, Keith Jarrett, Ella, Sarah Vaughan, Basie, Dizzy, Wynton, etc. Not so any more, with the masses, from what I can tell. There's a big difference.

So it is not so much of an issue that jazz collectors are not into pre-Bird music. It is more of an issue that so few people are jazz collectors at all now. If you find someone who collects 1990s post bop recordings, at least that person is collecting SOME jazz.

I work with and associate with a fairly wide variety of people and very few have any idea about the music I listen to that falls broadly into the jazz/improvisation umbrella.

As far as the younger people - let's say under 35 - very, very few of them even have an idea of what jazz is or even might be. MAYBE they MIGHT have heard of Miles Davis, John Coltrane or Duke Ellington - but even that is unlikely.

How about Chick Corea, Pat Metheny, Herbie Hancock or John McLaughlin? Very doubtful

So what about a current jazz star who plays major clubs or festivals like Chris Potter, Terence Blanchard, Fred Hersch??? Never

They probably have heard of a Marsalis but they wouldn't even know what that means.

BUT I've found a music fan or two and brought them to a show or two and they are stunned every time that a music of this quality, verve and energy exists.

Then again, I pick very cool shows:)

[Big Beat Steve]

Well, no doubt that's true but part of that lack of awareness really is due to the sneering attitude of "pure" jazz fans themselves.

Remember how almost each and everybody sneered at the "retro" swing revival of the 90s? I remember some discussions about this maybe 8 years ago when I started out here and on the AAJ forum (where one or two very, very open-minded jazz connoisseurs tried to "blow the horn" for the positive aspects of this retro swing movement) and the reactions by the self-appointed "real" jazz fans on AAJ were, well, condescending to say the least. And this was at the TAIL end of the initial wave of the retro swing movement which was quite a bit stronger in the 90s everywhere, yet I cannot remember the "serious" jazz world was that much more receptive to this retro swing in the 90s.

OK, some of this mixture of swing and (Las Vegas) lounge AND punk is a bit cliché-laden, some of it leans a bit too heavily towards punk and is more punk than jazz (but hey, so what?? Why would a mixture of punk and swing be worse per se than a mixture of 70s rock and 70s electric jazz? It's just one brand of rock mixed with a certain brand of jazz serving as a relatively accessible introduction to bridge the gap between rock and jazz, then as much as now) but there were and are interesting bands out there that do add a new twist to the way swing has evolved through the decades.

The gist of it: All those retro swing bands did and do provide an introduction to jazz to a LOT of listeners who eventually found out about Basie, Jordan, Waller, Ellington, Armstrong, Goodman, etc., and later bands too. Yes, the Brian Setzer Orchestra or the Cherry Poppin Daddies or the Royal Crown Revue (or whoever ...) did accomplish that ... Happened often - I've witnessed it myself ... not that I am that much of an accomplished dancer but I am close enough to the Lindy Hoppers circles in many contexrts, for example, and there ARE bands that play live gigs in these circles and look beyond the classic big band sound and come up with very interesting combinations, e.g. incorporating gypsy swing, and strangely enough, the swing bands that play this (subculture) circuit include (from all I have seen on stage) musicians who quite evidently find playing to a DANCING audience (of ACCOMPLISHED dancers) definite fun compared to their other gigs playing to the typical seated audences in typical jazz clubs.

But then again, the kind of jazz that would attract this kind of listeners not yet imtimately aware of jazz would have to be DANCEABLE. I.e. a music that fills the prime and original purpose of jazz of providing straightforward entertainment. Not some "far out" music where you just sit and nod your head in pensive contemplation, marveling at your own sophistication for being there ... (that kind of listeners is out there too, make no mistake, all those of you who can rightfully claim to be part of the understanding, knowledgeable, appreciative fans of the more avantgardistic kinds of jazz ....).. Mind you, there is a place for contemplativeness and/or "far out" sounds in jazz too, of course, but if this is the kind of jazz that newbies are confronted with for the very first time then it is no wonder many of them are frightened away upon their first contact with jazz. It's just too inaccessible for an initial exposure to jazz.

Food for thought ... which needs to do away with any notion of which strain of jazz is obejctively "superior" or more "rewarding" than the other, though. Because, in the end, it is more a subjective matter of which kind of jazz does what for which jazz fan, and after all, one man's meat is another man's poison.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Big Beat Steve

[Daniel A]

I get the feeling that public jazz awareness, while still low, is higher in Europe (well, I can vouch for Sweden anyway) than in the US these days. It happens from time to time that I see copies of mainstream jazz albums in homes of "average" people. And even if some people cannot name any jazz musicians, many of them seem to identify that typical west coast, lounge or 40s-50s mainstream jazz is in fact jazz. Electric Miles - probably not.

I suppose that it helps having a few national heroes like Jan Johansson, Lars Gulin and Arne Domnerus. Most people seem to have heard of any or all of those.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Very nice post, Steve.

MG

[Hot Ptah]

Well, no doubt that's true but part of that lack of awareness really is due to the sneering attitude of "pure" jazz fans themselves.

Remember how almost each and everybody sneered at the "retro" swing revival of the 90s? I remember some discussions about this maybe 8 years ago when I started out here and on the AAJ forum (where one or two very, very open-minded jazz connoisseurs tried to "blow the horn" for the positive aspects of this retro swing movement) and the reactions by the self-appointed "real" jazz fans on AAJ were, well, condescending to say the least. And this was at the TAIL end of the initial wave of the retro swing movement which was quite a bit stronger in the 90s everywhere, yet I cannot remember the "serious" jazz world was that much more receptive to this retro swing in the 90s.

OK, some of this mixture of swing and (Las Vegas) lounge AND punk is a bit cliché-laden, some of it leans a bit too heavily towards punk and is more punk than jazz (but hey, so what?? Why would a mixture of punk and swing be worse per se than a mixture of 70s rock and 70s electric jazz? It's just one brand of rock mixed with a certain brand of jazz serving as a relatively accessible introduction to bridge the gap between rock and jazz, then as much as now) but there were and are interesting bands out there that do add a new twist to the way swing has evolved through the decades.

The gist of it: All those retro swing bands did and do provide an introduction to jazz to a LOT of listeners who eventually found out about Basie, Jordan, Waller, Ellington, Armstrong, Goodman, etc., and later bands too. Yes, the Brian Setzer Orchestra or the Cherry Poppin Daddies or the Royal Crown Revue (or whoever ...) did accomplish that ... Happened often - I've witnessed it myself ... not that I am that much of an accomplished dancer but I am close enough to the Lindy Hoppers circles in many contexrts, for example, and there ARE bands that play live gigs in these circles and look beyond the classic big band sound and come up with very interesting combinations, e.g. incorporating gypsy swing, and strangely enough, the swing bands that play this (subculture) circuit include (from all I have seen on stage) musicians who quite evidently find playing to a DANCING audience (of ACCOMPLISHED dancers) definite fun compared to their other gigs playing to the typical seated audences in typical jazz clubs.

But then again, the kind of jazz that would attract this kind of listeners not yet imtimately aware of jazz would have to be DANCEABLE. I.e. a music that fills the prime and original purpose of jazz of providing straightforward entertainment. Not some "far out" music where you just sit and nod your head in pensive contemplation, marveling at your own sophistication for being there ... (that kind of listeners is out there too, make no mistake, all those of you who can rightfully claim to be part of the understanding, knowledgeable, appreciative fans of the more avantgardistic kinds of jazz ....).. Mind you, there is a place for contemplativeness and/or "far out" sounds in jazz too, of course, but if this is the kind of jazz that newbies are confronted with for the very first time then it is no wonder many of them are frightened away upon their first contact with jazz. It's just too inaccessible for an initial exposure to jazz.

Food for thought ... which needs to do away with any notion of which strain of jazz is obejctively "superior" or more "rewarding" than the other, though. Because, in the end, it is more a subjective matter of which kind of jazz does what for which jazz fan, and after all, one man's meat is another man's poison.

I think that these are excellent points.

It all hit me when I was dragged to a Zac Brown concert last week, in a sports stadium. Over 10,000 people of all ages were happy, enthusiastic, attentive, just delighted to be there, hearing a mixture of rock and improvisation, and a bare hint of country, for what was billed as a country show. Zac had a nine piece band and the show featured many extended improvised solos, with only the barest hint of country content or tinge. There was a long electric bass solo for example, that would have fit in well at a jazz concert, His violin player had been with Dave Matthews and is a jazz player most of all. I could hear it in his solos. One of his guitarists played improvisations on the level of any top guitarist, The band played material by Stevie Wonder, Bob Marley and many other non-country covers.

This was not a jazz show per se, but it did feature a good amount of uncompromising improvisation. The 10,000+ people there loved it all. Zac was continually friendly and engaging onstage, and it was a fun time.

It hit me--when was the last time I had genuine fun at a jazz concert? When was the last time an audience at a jazz concert was smiling, happy, enthusiastic? Where and when did jazz take the turn it did?

You can bet that literally no one in the stadium was contemplating whether the Zac Brown Band was pure enough, or whether its extended solos and covers of other styles of music, made it something to sneer at.

Earlier in the year, I was dragged to an Alison Krauss concert, where I heard the best version of Chick Corea's "Spain" I ever heard, by Jerry Douglas on solo unaccompanied electric dobro. It was a truly virtuoso performance, up there with any jazz musician. I may have been the only person in the 7,000 seat outdoor theater who knew it was a Chick Corea song, but it was very well received by the crowd. How many jazz fanatics would turn their noses up at attending a bluegrass/pop show like that?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Hot Ptah

[A Lark Ascending]

Well, no doubt that's true but part of that lack of awareness really is due to the sneering attitude of "pure" jazz fans themselves.

Remember how almost each and everybody sneered at the "retro" swing revival of the 90s? I remember some discussions about this maybe 8 years ago when I started out here and on the AAJ forum (where one or two very, very open-minded jazz connoisseurs tried to "blow the horn" for the positive aspects of this retro swing movement) and the reactions by the self-appointed "real" jazz fans on AAJ were, well, condescending to say the least. And this was at the TAIL end of the initial wave of the retro swing movement which was quite a bit stronger in the 90s everywhere, yet I cannot remember the "serious" jazz world was that much more receptive to this retro swing in the 90s.

OK, some of this mixture of swing and (Las Vegas) lounge AND punk is a bit cliché-laden, some of it leans a bit too heavily towards punk and is more punk than jazz (but hey, so what?? Why would a mixture of punk and swing be worse per se than a mixture of 70s rock and 70s electric jazz? It's just one brand of rock mixed with a certain brand of jazz serving as a relatively accessible introduction to bridge the gap between rock and jazz, then as much as now) but there were and are interesting bands out there that do add a new twist to the way swing has evolved through the decades.

The gist of it: All those retro swing bands did and do provide an introduction to jazz to a LOT of listeners who eventually found out about Basie, Jordan, Waller, Ellington, Armstrong, Goodman, etc., and later bands too. Yes, the Brian Setzer Orchestra or the Cherry Poppin Daddies or the Royal Crown Revue (or whoever ...) did accomplish that ... Happened often - I've witnessed it myself ... not that I am that much of an accomplished dancer but I am close enough to the Lindy Hoppers circles in many contexrts, for example, and there ARE bands that play live gigs in these circles and look beyond the classic big band sound and come up with very interesting combinations, e.g. incorporating gypsy swing, and strangely enough, the swing bands that play this (subculture) circuit include (from all I have seen on stage) musicians who quite evidently find playing to a DANCING audience (of ACCOMPLISHED dancers) definite fun compared to their other gigs playing to the typical seated audences in typical jazz clubs.

But then again, the kind of jazz that would attract this kind of listeners not yet imtimately aware of jazz would have to be DANCEABLE. I.e. a music that fills the prime and original purpose of jazz of providing straightforward entertainment. Not some "far out" music where you just sit and nod your head in pensive contemplation, marveling at your own sophistication for being there ... (that kind of listeners is out there too, make no mistake, all those of you who can rightfully claim to be part of the understanding, knowledgeable, appreciative fans of the more avantgardistic kinds of jazz ....).. Mind you, there is a place for contemplativeness and/or "far out" sounds in jazz too, of course, but if this is the kind of jazz that newbies are confronted with for the very first time then it is no wonder many of them are frightened away upon their first contact with jazz. It's just too inaccessible for an initial exposure to jazz.

Food for thought ... which needs to do away with any notion of which strain of jazz is obejctively "superior" or more "rewarding" than the other, though. Because, in the end, it is more a subjective matter of which kind of jazz does what for which jazz fan, and after all, one man's meat is another man's poison.

Excellent post.

The only point I'd quibble on is the necessity for it to be danceable to make a connection. I'd agree that danceable will make it accessible to a much wider audience.

But jazz can cross over to those of us who do like to sit and nod our heads (because we're too self-conscious to leap about on a dance floor). I crossed into jazz via the British jazz-rock/jazz-aware Prog-Rock of the 70s which was anything but danceable. I think a sizeable audience came that way.

Your final point is exactly how I see it. We all hear jazz differently because we engage with it from such different contexts. I don't hear it like those who came of age in the Coltrane era or the Bebop era hear it. Once you are hooked you can gain nothing but further pleasure from listening to those other perspectives - they generally throw light on music you have either missed or previously been unreceptive to.

Edited September 18, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[Steve Reynolds]

Well, no doubt that's true but part of that lack of awareness really is due to the sneering attitude of "pure" jazz fans themselves.

Remember how almost each and everybody sneered at the "retro" swing revival of the 90s? I remember some discussions about this maybe 8 years ago when I started out here and on the AAJ forum (where one or two very, very open-minded jazz connoisseurs tried to "blow the horn" for the positive aspects of this retro swing movement) and the reactions by the self-appointed "real" jazz fans on AAJ were, well, condescending to say the least. And this was at the TAIL end of the initial wave of the retro swing movement which was quite a bit stronger in the 90s everywhere, yet I cannot remember the "serious" jazz world was that much more receptive to this retro swing in the 90s.

OK, some of this mixture of swing and (Las Vegas) lounge AND punk is a bit cliché-laden, some of it leans a bit too heavily towards punk and is more punk than jazz (but hey, so what?? Why would a mixture of punk and swing be worse per se than a mixture of 70s rock and 70s electric jazz? It's just one brand of rock mixed with a certain brand of jazz serving as a relatively accessible introduction to bridge the gap between rock and jazz, then as much as now) but there were and are interesting bands out there that do add a new twist to the way swing has evolved through the decades.

The gist of it: All those retro swing bands did and do provide an introduction to jazz to a LOT of listeners who eventually found out about Basie, Jordan, Waller, Ellington, Armstrong, Goodman, etc., and later bands too. Yes, the Brian Setzer Orchestra or the Cherry Poppin Daddies or the Royal Crown Revue (or whoever ...) did accomplish that ... Happened often - I've witnessed it myself ... not that I am that much of an accomplished dancer but I am close enough to the Lindy Hoppers circles in many contexrts, for example, and there ARE bands that play live gigs in these circles and look beyond the classic big band sound and come up with very interesting combinations, e.g. incorporating gypsy swing, and strangely enough, the swing bands that play this (subculture) circuit include (from all I have seen on stage) musicians who quite evidently find playing to a DANCING audience (of ACCOMPLISHED dancers) definite fun compared to their other gigs playing to the typical seated audences in typical jazz clubs.

But then again, the kind of jazz that would attract this kind of listeners not yet imtimately aware of jazz would have to be DANCEABLE. I.e. a music that fills the prime and original purpose of jazz of providing straightforward entertainment. Not some "far out" music where you just sit and nod your head in pensive contemplation, marveling at your own sophistication for being there ... (that kind of listeners is out there too, make no mistake, all those of you who can rightfully claim to be part of the understanding, knowledgeable, appreciative fans of the more avantgardistic kinds of jazz ....).. Mind you, there is a place for contemplativeness and/or "far out" sounds in jazz too, of course, but if this is the kind of jazz that newbies are confronted with for the very first time then it is no wonder many of them are frightened away upon their first contact with jazz. It's just too inaccessible for an initial exposure to jazz.

Food for thought ... which needs to do away with any notion of which strain of jazz is obejctively "superior" or more "rewarding" than the other, though. Because, in the end, it is more a subjective matter of which kind of jazz does what for which jazz fan, and after all, one man's meat is another man's poison.

"Sneering attitude of pure jazz fans themselves"

Huh?

"Not some 'far out' music where you just sit and nod your head in pensive contemplation, marveling at your own sophistication of being there "

Really???

You've experienced this at "avant-gradish" or "free" jazz concerts??

I don't know any listeners like this. The people who go and some go often - they go because the music is invigorating emotionally and yes - sometimes intellectually.

Fwiw, I never sit there pensively listening. Most of the music I see live has it's roots in older jazz - and most of it is easily enjoyed live by opn minded listeners.

Granted some of the free improvisation is not easy listening - for example a 2 weeks ago Friday a trio of Tyshawn Sorey, Kris Davis and Mat Maneri was, at times, rough spiky and even grating. But that is an exception. The trio the night before with Maneri, Craig Taborn and Ches Smith could have been appreciated and enjoyed by anyone who hadn't already decided that the "avant-garde" is some "far out" music that is only enjoyed by so-called sophisticated jazz listeners.

[Big Beat Steve]

@A Lark Ascending:

As for jazz being danceable, I just meant that jazz had/has to be danceable to that particular segment of "newbies" who got/get into swing (and, by extension, jazz) through other music where dancing is part (in fact, a key element) of the way the music is taken in. Inclusing the lindy hopper scene where, of course, swing jazz is there to provide music for dancing in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with just sitting and tapping your feet to the music (I am no all-out dancer myself either) but the music and the beat ought to get your feet tapping intensely and make you want to jump up and "move" (even if you are too "self-conscious" to do so as you put it). That's what I meant.

@Steve Reynolds:

Yes, I've experienced that sneering attitude vs the "retro swing" trend on that "other" forum and also in quite a few publications from the "serious" jazz set when they commented on that "new fad".

What I meant to get across in my initial sentence that you quoted needs to be seen in context with the paragraph that followed in my above post. To paraphrase it: Jazz people complain about outsiders being unaware of jazz and not being able to connect to jazz to increase the jazz audience, and now here would be a jazz-related style - that retro swing movement - that could get people introduced to swing-style jazz and maybe, hopefully incite them to explore what came/comes after swing, and the "serious" jazz public doesn't know better than to denigrate those who go for this style of swing.

Believe me - if, like I for one happen to be, you feel to be part of both camps (i.e. "serious" jazz listening AND the rockabilly/early rock'n'roll circuit where many of the "retro swing" bands came from) then you feel the vibes from the respective "other" camp very, very distinctly. Because you basically are very much involved in both sides and notice immediately if one side of what you are into sneers at the other side of what you are into just as much. Get it?

As for that "sitting and nodding your head", well ... of course you could easy blame me for over-generalization and I am not going to comment on the free or avantgarde public because I have never been into those events to a huge degree so I won't judge. But yes, I have come across a certain kind of public at jazz events of all sorts who IMHO more or less have been show-offs when exposed to jazz of the "post-danceable" styles of jazz, ... but even swing-oriented mainstream jazz played to a seating audience. I'll freely admit they are not the majority but they do exist and in my experience they are the jazz version of all those well-to-do "good citizens" here who attend classical music or "serious music" events etc. because they perceive it to be "part of what we owe to ourselves to engage in as culturally mature people". Hence that unfortunate tendency over here to try to assimilate jazz and classical music in order to get jazz to be "respectable".

Maybe it is hard to get this across to you in the US because the basic approach of the jazz public likely is different in the Us even today and I do not expect you to understand it in full but over here there is such a part of society. Typical of some representatives of what is referred to as the "Bildungsbürger" in German.

The somewhat younger version of those people, BTW, would be those who - and this is a true story I got straight from the horse's mouth - would ask a (local) record dealer specializing in jazz to compile them a selection of Blue Notes to go with the designer-style furniture they just had their apartment furnished with. Nuff said now?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Big Beat Steve

[A Lark Ascending]

@A Lark Ascending:

As for jazz being danceable, I just meant that jazz had/has to be danceable to that particular segment of "newbies" who got/get into swing (and, by extension, jazz) through other music where dancing is part (in fact, a key leement) of the way the music is presented. UP to the lindy hopper scene where, of course, swing provides the dancing music in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with just sitting and tapping your feet to the music (I am no all-out dancer myself either) but the music ought to get your feet tapping and make you want to jump up and "move" (even if you are too "self-conscious" as you put it). That's what I meant.

Appreciate that you were not excluding what I mentioned.

[Steve Reynolds]

Those sorts must go to Jazz @ Lincoln Center

No I'm not into retro swing or rockabilly.

I'm interested in music other than jazz, but those interests ever towards certain types of rock and electronic small form improvisation.

[Big Beat Steve]

I'm interested in music other than jazz, but those interests ever towards certain types of rock and electronic small form improvisation.

veer?

Actually, I was imagining from the outset your core tastes run in an essentially different direction but I hope I managed to get my point across to you at least somewhat better.

It just is so that I'd find it unfortunate if the problem of how to get people interested in jazz were limited to an approach that says "No you are not supposed to get into jazz this way - you need to get into jazz THAT way and no other way because if you don't then you won't see the light of what kind of jazz really is worthwhile". And this is an attitude that I unfortunately have come across ever so often when it came to getting people interested in jazz.

[Steve Reynolds]

I'm most interested in jazz as a living breathing music of the present. Living and working musicians plying their craft to carry the tradition forward.

Of couse it should go without saying that I love the music of the past and I owned or have owned much of the past music on CD that is of interest to me.

But I am totally uninterested in jazz as primarily a historical or museum piece or as a collectible based hobby. This is not what jazz is.

I'm a music fan who discovered jazz when I was around 31 years old and I found my way through the music through my inner motivations. From Bill Evans to Mingus to Ellington to Dunmall to Misha to Monk to Waldron to Braxton to Hemingway to Miles to Clifford to Mongezi Feza to Brotzmann to Shorter to Tony Malaby to Joe Maneri to Hamid Drake to Fred Anderson to John Stevens to Evan Parker to Hank Mobley.

It's all one music to a great extent to me - and it's always been at it's absolute best when performed and heard live. Of course we can't hear the musicians of the past in person but I do know that Giants Walk This Earth

Standing on a Whale Fishing for Minnows

Edited September 18, 2014 by Steve Reynolds

[xybert]

Not trying to be a dick, but in all honesty, as a teenager in the nineties the retro swing thing was the height of lameness. For me, definitely an example of something that hurt rather than helped. Just my experience, i'm sure there would have been other people that got into jazz through it.

[Hot Ptah]

Not trying to be a dick, but in all honesty, as a teenager in the nineties the retro swing thing was the height of lameness. For me, definitely an example of something that hurt rather than helped. Just my experience, i'm sure there would have been other people that got into jazz through it.

I saw a sad thing during that era. Illinois Jacquet and his big band were going to perform at the outdoor Kansas City Blues and Jazz Festival just when the retro swing thing was at its height. It was written in the newspaper that here was the real swing thing. I saw many young couples, probably early 20s, standing in front of the band, ready to dance. Then the band came out and played a set of mostly ballads, and otherwise low energy songs, unsuitable for the wild dancing of the retro swing fad. Plus, the park's ground was very bumpy and uneven, with sparse grass. Some of the couples gamely tried to dance anyway, but between the low energy level and the bumpy ground, they all gave up fairly quickly.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I'd have been happy to see Illinois under any circumstances, I think.

MG