"Formulaic" Hard Bop/Blue Note ...

[Dan Gould]

I've been thinking about this topic for a while ... and the recent threads about BN recordings that aren't reaching some people anymore, or comments about the BN "formula" for recordings makes me think this is a good time to bring it up.

If hard bop recordings got overly formulaic, with a "Sidewinder" type number, maybe a gospel-inflected number, a couple of standards, a modernist original or two, can the same be said of swing recordings? I think of the things Norman Granz put out, and you could say that there was a similar formula at work, just with different ingredients.

So - is it possible to get "bored" by those records too? Why is it that it seems that more people need breaks from hard bop but no one says "I listened to a Ben Webster Verve yesterday and it just didn't reach me."

Is it all individual taste or is there some qualitative difference?

I don't know what the answer is but it does seem that there is a difference in response, for those whose listening encompasses both sub-genres. Dyed-in-the-wool hard boppers never tire of it, but it seems like for some who've enjoyed hard bop in the past end up needing a break or suddenly come to the realization, like Vic seemed to, that the music isn't as special as they thought.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I had a conversation, which I've never forgotten, in 1967 (1967!!!!), with a colleague who was a jazz enthusiast in which he was bemoaning the state of jazz recordings. I said that Blue Note, for example, were churning out loads of great albums. His response was that churning was the right word - that it was all formulaic.

Of course, he wasn't listening to the John Pattons, Grant Greens, Freddie Roachs etc etc

But was that just a different formula?

At any rate, your thoughts ain't new, Dan.

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

An interesting topic , and I agree with your observation.

I've never considered myself a dyed in the wool hard bopper (but interested enough to add a representative cross-section to my collection through the years); at any rate, swing (and other jazz styles) rate higher among my personal jazz styles than hard bop does.

Some time ago I picked up a selection of BN CD's currently on special offer at my local Zweitausendeins store as they had a few items that you might want to have in your collection. But when I got home I couldn't really bring myself to listen to any of them right away (except Horace Silver's "Song For my Father, and "Dial S for Sonny" a bit later on). Somehow I just wasn't in the mood for any "hard blowing" at that moment, and I haven't yet pulled those CDs out since. But the time for a "hard bop blowing spell" in my listening preferences will come again, so what does it matter right now?

Overall, I'd say a lot of hard bop "all-out blowing" just gets to you in a way that's quite different from swing "all-out blowing". I know for sure Roy Eldridge's blowing (either his 30s Three Deuces or his 50s Verve material) won't wear me out in the way relentless hard bop horn blowing does from time to time.

Yet I don't think you can pin this down only to some jazz styles being more "demanding" than others. I know I'd not tire of mid to late 40s Bebop (certainly not an "easy" jazz style either) as rapidly as of mid to late 50s Hard Bop, so ...?

Maybe the formulaic, repetitive blowing character of many of those blowing sessions that Prestige has been blamed for wasn't just limited to Prestige but included a certain amount of BN's too?

Or was it the "angry" character of a certain kind of Hard Bop as conveyed by those "angry young men" of Hard Bop that is still getting to the listener today and might set off some neg vibes if you're just not in the mood for that angriness? I don't know ...

[Dan Gould]

MG, that may be true but I've never seen anyone post how they "can't stand to listen to another swing record - it all sounds the same to me" whereas that is a not untypical complaint about hard bop records.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Dan Gould

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

MG, that may be true but I've never seen anyone post how they "can't stand to listen to another swing record - it all sounds the same to me" whereas that is a not untypical complaint about hard bop records.

I'm just beginning to explore this era and haven't reached that point (yet). But I can see how one might get to that, though, as easily as Hard Bop. A lot of swing was formulaic. The rhythm sections, particularly, seem to be playing the same kind of stuff a lot of the time. What often make swing records more interesting for me are the songs and singers. You don't get that much in Hard Bop.

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

Actually. MG, it's pretty hard to compare these styles in such generalized statements (exceptions to the rule abound).

I'm not that the biggest fan of swing-style vocals, BTW, but what would make a lot of instrumental swing less tiresome for me than a lot of hard bop is the general feel, maybe. I may be wrong or not open-eared enough but there is quite a bit of hard bop the intensity of which DOES sound aggressive to me whereas even in intensely played tunes in swing and even R&B the general feel is not one of aggressiveness but of exuberance.

A lot of Lionel Hampton's 50s live recordings, for example, ARE formulaic but the mood and feel they convey just is vastly different from that of similarly intense hard bop.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Hot Ptah]

A simple answer is to get about 20,000 albums, and then you have enough variety so that you never have to get bored with one style or a group of albums.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Actually. MG, it's pretty hard to compare these styles in such generalized statements (exceptions to the rule abound).

I'm not that the biggest fan of swing-style vocals, BTW, but what would make a lot of instrumental swing less tiresome for me than a lot of hard bop is the general feel, maybe. I may be wrong or not open-eared enough but there is quite a bit of hard bop the intensity of which DOES sound aggressive to me whereas even in intensely played tunes in swing and even R&B the general feel is not one of aggressiveness but of exuberance.

A lot of Lionel Hampton's 50s live recordings, for example, IS formulaic but the mood and feel it conveys just is vastly different from that of similarly intense hard bop.

Well, you're probably right - I'm new at this swing thing. Ask me in twenty years

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

A simple answer is to get about 20,000 albums, and then you have enough variety so that you never have to get bored with one style or a group of albums.

Well, you can still get bored with one genre, but you have a lot of other things to turn to.

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

A simple answer is to get about 20,000 albums, and then you have enough variety so that you never have to get bored with one style or a group of albums.

On the contrary ... if you have that many albums you invariably will end up being a completist of many, many artists and styles (!) (unless you have EXTREMELY eclectic tastes and will listen to a bit of literally EVERYTHING).

And if you have 50 or 60 or 70 albums' worth of material of any "name" artists you either have to be a dedicated fan (and then repetitiveness won't matter all that much to you because in each case you invariably discover a bit that's new to you) or you will start wondering if maybe once you've heard the 10th album of this or that artist (that you appreciate but are not an all-out fan of) the 11th or 12th (or 50th or 70th) album will sound the same all over again and you just will tire of it?

Edited November 18, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Popkin]

Isn't any music, or any other art form, that fits into a specific style automatically going to fit a certain "formula." Of course any hard bop record is going to sound a lot like other hard bop records, otherwise we woudn't call it "hard bop." Similarly any film noir is going to have to follow a certain formula, otherwise we're not going to call it "film noir."

[Peter Friedman]

What works for me is to listen to a variety of jazz styles. Though I am an avid fan of Hard Bop, I also listen to a lot of other styles as well. It is not uncommon for me to play a CD by Johnny Griffin followed by an Eddie Condon session followed by a Dave Brubeck album, followed by Johnny Hodges, followed by Jimmy Smith, followed by Buck Clayton, followed by Bill Evans, followed by Louis Armstrong, followed by Charlie Parker, etc.

That sort of listening prevents a sense of boredom with a particular formula associated with one style.

[Ted O'Reilly]

What works for me is to listen to a variety of jazz styles. Though I am an avid fan of Hard Bop, I also listen to a lot of other styles as well. It is not uncommon for me to play a CD by Johnny Griffin followed by an Eddie Condon session followed by a Dave Brubeck album, followed by Johnny Hodges, followed by Jimmy Smith, followed by Buck Clayton, followed by Bill Evans, followed by Louis Armstrong, followed by Charlie Parker, etc.

That sort of listening prevents a sense of boredom with a particular formula associated with one style.

As Peter says.... (And I'd add, look outside the US artists... I've been spending lots of time lately listening to Putte Wickman of Sweden, Tubby Hayes of UK, Paolo Fresu from Italy, Henri Chaix from Switzerland, etc, etc.)

[A Lark Ascending]

I'd imagine to an outsider Haydn symphonies sound formulaic. An experienced listener can see how he started with the formula but played with it, stretched it, contracted it. The fascination lies there.

You might not get the same variation of structure with jazz but what you do get is the beauty of the distinctive sound of a skilled and inspired player. There's nothing very adventurous in the arrangements on the Johnny Hodges Mosaic box but it's a joy to listen to because of the sound. Similarly, I really like some of the Zephyr albums which are very much formulaic British mainstream swing to gentle bop; yet hearing Tony Coe play inside that always catches my ear.

When you first fall in love with a style of music you just want to immerse yourself in as much as possible. After a time the infatuation wears off and you need to go off somewhere else for a time if the music is still going to sound fresh.

I'm not sure if that's an argument for infidelity!

[JSngry]

Isn't it the nature of language to become codified over time?

[Chuck Nessa]

Isn't it the nature of language to become codified over time?

Indeed, but much of this has to do with listening habits and past experiences. You, for example, have experience with "modern" big bands and color your opinions with that knowledge. On the other hand, many fans don't listen to that stuff as closely. One can listen to Kind of Blue from about 1000 directions and get different results - when does Cobb play sticks, and why. This sort of detail flies past folks without personal experience. There many levels of listening here.

[Dave James]

Maybe the difference between burning out on hard bop and not on swing is as simple as, it's got a good beat, I think I can dance to it.

Up over and out.

[JSngry]

Isn't it the nature of language to become codified over time?

Indeed, but much of this has to do with listening habits and past experiences. You, for example, have experience with "modern" big bands and color your opinions with that knowledge. On the other hand, many fans don't listen to that stuff as closely. One can listen to Kind of Blue from about 1000 directions and get different results - when does Cobb play sticks, and why. This sort of detail flies past folks without personal experience. There many levels of listening here.

Indeed. I'm just saying that anybody who listens to anything with attentiveness long enough will begin to recognize the codification aspect of whatever language it is that is being listened to. Whatever "emotion" one then brings into the mix upon this recognition is probably going/likely to be more variable than the music itself.

Myself, I think that "jaded" is an early phase, understandable, quite useful even, but one to be moved past if one is to be anything other than a dilettante or a thrill-seeker.

[blajay]

Indeed. I'm just saying that anybody who listens to anything with attentiveness long enough will begin to recognize the codification aspect of whatever language it is that is being listened to. Whatever "emotion" one then brings into the mix upon this recognition is probably going/likely to be more variable than the music itself.

Is that to say, then, while logic makes its demands, emotion lends its voice?

[JSngry]

That is one of but many such examples.

[blajay]

Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a Heideggerian?

[blajay]

Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a Heideggerian?

Just from your heavy emphasis on emotion (care).

Although I guess the noticing the aspect part of that isn't really phenomenological; that iconicity is more in the spirit of Wittgenstein...

[Guest Bill Barton]

Isn't any music, or any other art form, that fits into a specific style automatically going to fit a certain "formula." Of course any hard bop record is going to sound a lot like other hard bop records, otherwise we woudn't call it "hard bop." Similarly any film noir is going to have to follow a certain formula, otherwise we're not going to call it "film noir."

This seems to me to be a very succinct summation of the whole issue. Perhaps the question is: "but, is it a good formula?" Personally I never grow tired of hard bop or of the Blue Notes, even the ones that aren't in the rarefied "best of Blue Note" category (and, of course, that value judgment is in itself totally subjective.)

Isn't it the nature of language to become codified over time?

Exactly! One could say that so-called "free" jazz or "creative improvised music" is just as codified as are hard bop, swing, dixieland, Chicago style, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room for originality of expression in any of these forms. Or that musicians are necessarily straight-jacketed by the codified "formulas." Slaughtering sacred cows and thumbing one's nose at categories has been, is and hopefully will continue to be part of the greatness of jazz.

Isn't it the nature of language to become codified over time?

Indeed, but much of this has to do with listening habits and past experiences. You, for example, have experience with "modern" big bands and color your opinions with that knowledge. On the other hand, many fans don't listen to that stuff as closely. One can listen to Kind of Blue from about 1000 directions and get different results - when does Cobb play sticks, and why. This sort of detail flies past folks without personal experience. There many levels of listening here.

Indeed. I'm just saying that anybody who listens to anything with attentiveness long enough will begin to recognize the codification aspect of whatever language it is that is being listened to. Whatever "emotion" one then brings into the mix upon this recognition is probably going/likely to be more variable than the music itself.

Myself, I think that "jaded" is an early phase, understandable, quite useful even, but one to be moved past if one is to be anything other than a dilettante or a thrill-seeker.

Chuck's points are good ones. Everyone lugs all their personal experiential baggage along for the ride. Now, taking account the fact that I listen to a lot of more "open ended" improvisational music, one might think that I would have less tolerance for "formulas," but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. If anything, I seem to have more tolerance. Like Rahsaan used to say, "seek and listen." We often attempt to judge things by standards borrowed from other "things."

The initial comparison of hard bop and swing seems to point to formulas imposed from without rather than from within. Like the BN "formula" album format (if indeed it was ever consciously conceived that way) or the Norman Granz staged jam session "formula" for instance. So it gets complicated... It's about more than style that's for sure.

[alocispepraluger102]

What works for me is to listen to a variety of jazz styles. Though I am an avid fan of Hard Bop, I also listen to a lot of other styles as well. It is not uncommon for me to play a CD by Johnny Griffin followed by an Eddie Condon session followed by a Dave Brubeck album, followed by Johnny Hodges, followed by Jimmy Smith, followed by Buck Clayton, followed by Bill Evans, followed by Louis Armstrong, followed by Charlie Parker, etc.

That sort of listening prevents a sense of boredom with a particular formula associated with one style.

much agreed

[John L]

Given other threads on Organissimo, is seems clear that more people here listen to Hard Bop than Swing, and have accumulated large Hard Bop collections. Hard Bop is the type of jazz that often has the greatest first appeal to new listeners, who then often expand their listening beyond it. So it makes sense that more people would also get tired of Hard Bop before other styles of jazz.

That said, there is something about some Bop (not just Hard Bop) that can make it more tedious than Swing. It is not that it is inherently more formulaic, but sometimes the Bop formulae can become elevated to the central focus of the music. I think that is what bothered a lot of us about the "young lions" of the 80s who it often sounded like were playing complex Bop just for Bop's sake, i.e. executing the formulae with dexterity as if that was the end goal of the music.

With Swing, on the other hand, it is usually a bit different. Nobody pretends that the formula can just stand by itself. It is all in what you do with it. Of course, the commerical big band Swing often was very formulaic, and was meant to be as popular dance music.