2010 jazz critics top 50 releases

[Jim Alfredson]

Never mind, I found them. Not much has changed since the 60s in regard to organ jazz, eh?

[GA Russell]

in the late 60s-early 70s, i recall going to the music store 2 or 3 times a day for my newest 'fix'.

now, i go(online) maybe 5 times a year.

has the music changed, or have i?

Almost certainly 'you' (or we!)! When we had heard very little everything seemed exciting. Several thousand recordings down the line (and god knows how much radio and live music) it's going to be incrementally harder for each new release to make an impression, however good it is.

To some extent I agree with Bev's point. But I think that the music has changed much more than I have, because I used to enjoy hearing newly-issued OJCs for the first time more than I enjoy hearing the new CDs that are coming out now.

[Chuck Nessa]

OJCs were all reissues of music from the past.

[marcello]

I'm amused that the poll-of-polls from Voice includes no fewer than FIFTY best CDs of the year plus historic/vocal/latin for a total 75. Except for 'critics' who get endless freebies I wonder who listens to all this stuff. I've heard maybe 10% of it. The length of the list and its format in which exact votes are recorded, hanging chads and all, reflects the vanity of the 'critics' much more than any desire to explain to a public what is a real priority and why. As Bev says most of this stuff is just rehashes of the already familiar. FIFTY records of the year? Why not a HUNDRED? Why not a THOUSAND? How many new records even WERE there? Where would you find them? Who on earth is buying them? Why not just list ALL the releases for the year and have done with it?

Nice post. Well said.

Like many things in this world, personal relationships have a lot to do with poll standings.

Now that's O.K., I want my coat pulled to a great recording in anyway possible, but there are so many independent releases and so many personal relationships that these lists get longer and more diverse. Outside of one or two releases, there is no consensus.

When you add the factor that anyone with a blog is a music critic, it gets even muddier.

Edited January 3, 2011 by marcello

[Chuck Nessa]

yup

[Ken Dryden]

I think most journalists don't claim that their personal "best" lists are definitive, after all, not all of us get serviced with the same releases and there is never time to hear all of the ones we receive. There is a certain arbitrary factor to compiling them. I wonder if a label or instrument is over-represented, am I picking the same artists as last year, etc. What puzzles me is when someone can choose multiple boxed sets without including a single Mosaic. But I'm flattered that Francis Davis has invited me to take part in the VV poll for the past few years.

I enjoy reading other's lists, simply to see what I didn't hear or possibly overlooked.

It's no different than those who try to compile the ten best or hundred best jazz recordings of all time, no one is ever going to agree with every selection or the ranking of them.

[Chuck Nessa]

I find it sad that "arbiters of taste" only vote for free stuff.

I would wish they'd buy stuff they thought might be interesting. I gave up on this dream a long time ago.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Chuck Nessa

[alocispepraluger102]

I'm amused that the poll-of-polls from Voice includes no fewer than FIFTY best CDs of the year plus historic/vocal/latin for a total 75. Except for 'critics' who get endless freebies I wonder who listens to all this stuff. I've heard maybe 10% of it. The length of the list and its format in which exact votes are recorded, hanging chads and all, reflects the vanity of the 'critics' much more than any desire to explain to a public what is a real priority and why. As Bev says most of this stuff is just rehashes of the already familiar. FIFTY records of the year? Why not a HUNDRED? Why not a THOUSAND? How many new records even WERE there? Where would you find them? Who on earth is buying them? Why not just list ALL the releases for the year and have done with it?

AMEN!

"I gave up on this dream a long time ago."

......but you still love it with your heart, soul, and dollars.

thank you.

[A Lark Ascending]

But I think that the music has changed much more than I have, because I used to enjoy hearing newly-issued OJCs for the first time more than I enjoy hearing the new CDs that are coming out now.

Well, jazz has changed in that it has long left behind its early, pioneering days when there were still vast tracts of wilderness to be colonised and, consequently, most things sounded new. Add to that the way that technology and society have changed - we have access to so much more music and the means to acquire it.

I came into jazz listening when it was in its late 70s doldrums but it still all sounded so fresh and exciting to may ears, mainly because it was all so new, I had limited means to purchase records and vast swathes of material lay mysteriously out of reach (OOP or only available on distant planets).

I'd be hard pressed to name a single recording from this year that has completely bowled me over in the jazz world, though plenty I've gained pleasure from. I suspect that has more to do with me than the music itelf.

[Ken Dryden]

Chuck, I can't speak for anyone else, but I listed items some items that I paid for in my list for the VV poll.

Nat King Cole & His Trio: The Forgotten 1949 Carnegie Hall Concert Hep

Duke Ellington: The Complete 1932-1940 Brunswick, Columbia and Master Recordings of Duke Ellington and His Famous Orchestra

Mosaic

I don't know about being an "arbiter of taste" by listing favorites of the year. I have never been comfortable with the use of "best" as opposed to "favorite."

[paul secor]

I find it sad that "arbiters of taste" only vote for free stuff.

I would wish they'd buy stuff they thought might be interesting. I gave up on this dream a long time ago.

If critics had to pay for music like the rest of us, I wonder how many of them would still be doing it.

[Clunky]

Interpret with care, the listing in V V will never be definitive but it's unlikely that albums high on the list will be bad. I however prefer to go for new releases recommended by critics whose previous recommendations have worked for me. With Jazzwise I'm more interested in the individual lists rather than their overall poll. I for one, like the Jason Moran, I'm not sure what makes him a "fake" but his album works for me.

[Larry Kart]

The only freebies I get are from a fellow board member and from a few musicians I know well who refuse to accept my attempts to pay them when they're selling their CDs at gigs (though sometimes I still prevail).

I would have voted for two of the recent Mosaics (Duke, Threadgill) but they hadn't arrived by the time I had to file my ballot (the VV Poll time frame is Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving), and I didn't think it was right to vote for anything I hadn't heard, even though I knew those sets were going to be excellent. The Carter-Bradford Mosaic, however, I'd listened to.

I certainly didn't listen to/buy as many CDs this year as I probably should have, but I tell myself that my golden ears go some way toward making up for that.

Speaking of that, kind of, I think that I and one other person were the only ones who voted in the poll for that Warne Marsh Trio set, which almost certainly would have made my Top Ten list for any decade. Were we the only voters who heard it (I bought my copy)?

[A Lark Ascending]

I for one, like the Jason Moran, I'm not sure what makes him a "fake"...

The sense of self importance some critics get from ridiculing what is widely enjoyed ('Only I truly understand!'), perhaps?

I like the Moran too.

I've been playing the Vijay Iyer 'Solo' this afternoon, which turns up on the VV and the Jazzwise list. Having said earlier that nothing this year really grabbed me by the scruff of the neck, I was utterly captivated on this hearing.

Edited January 3, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[Larry Kart]

I for one, like the Jason Moran, I'm not sure what makes him a "fake"...

The sense of self importance some critics get from ridiculing what is widely enjoyed ('Only I truly understand!'), perhaps?

Speaking only for myself, "fake" would be too strong, but Moran (in the view of some) initially was a melange of shrewdly selected influences. I kind of liked the melange at first, because I like the same players Moran did (Byard, Andrew Hill, Muhal, et al.), but I've heard little growth since then. That "blues" album of a few years back was an ominous sign IMO.

As for Iyer, I agree with what Allen said on this or another thread, if I remember correctly what he did say. Among other things,in jazz in my experience, that much upfront (or if you prefer, "surface") metrical complexity just gets in the way. Playing off "the clave," yes, though even that can be too restrictive depending on the players and the setup, but a whole lot more upfront rhythmic info than that, and for me it's like a riot in a wallpaper factory.

[Van Basten II]

I for one, like the Jason Moran, I'm not sure what makes him a "fake"...

The sense of self importance some critics get from ridiculing what is widely enjoyed ('Only I truly understand!'), perhaps?

I like the Moran too.

I've been playing the Vijay Iyer 'Solo' this afternoon, which turns up on the VV and the Jazzwise list. Having said earlier that nothing this year really grabbed me by the scruff of the neck, I was utterly captivated on this hearing.

In my book Historicity in trio is way superior, not sold on his solo playing yet. Has not recorded yet in solo to my knowledge but the one I saw live and can't wait to record one solo album would be Tigran Hamasyan

[A Lark Ascending]

Whole lotta projectin' goin' on!

I enjoyed the Moran yesterday; the Iyer really moved me this afternoon.

I don't ask any more of the entertainment I seek out.

[Larry Kart]

Whole lotta projectin' goin' on!

If you mean me, how so?

[JSngry]

As for Iyer, I agree with what Allen said on this or another thread, if I remember correctly what he did say. Among other things,in jazz in my experience, that much upfront (or if you prefer, "surface") metrical complexity just gets in the way. Playing off "the clave," yes, though even that can be too restrictive depending on the players and the setup, but a whole lot more upfront rhythmic info than that, and for me it's like a riot in a wallpaper factory.

There was a time when I would have agreed with this, but a bunch of people have come along for whom "metric complexity" is heard and felt significantly more naturally than it was back in the day when it was pretty much a 4/4, 3/4, or 6/8 jazz word. I attribute that to both the increasing "international" influence and a simple progression of musician's interests. When Don Ellis & Mahavishnu were dealing with all those weirdass time signatures, it was kinda "exotic", but several generations have had that as a part of their baseline musicality and can go there without really having to think about it.

In short, I think that any "problem" you might be experiencing in this regard is at least as much yours as it is the music's. And the reason I'm being so blunt is that I come from your generation [EDIT - More from your generation than my own as far as what meter "comfort zones" are hardwired into my brain] and still have a lot of the same issues, especially with playing in that realm. But I've heard it done often enough and well enough (in and out of jazz, as well as in and out of being directly involved in the playing) that my limitations have been presented to me so convincingly that not confronting them as being exactly that - limitations - would be dishonest.

None of which goes towards your feelings about Iyler specifically (I dig him very much, myself), just towards the general idea that "metric complexity" is a problem of the music itself. Which is not exactly what you're saying, I know, but still... if one does not allow for the evolution of genuine playing into areas with which one does not feel an intuitive warmth, then whose "problem" is that? Limitations are cool enough, everybody has them and nobody gets everything, I just think that they should be copped to as such as a sign of respect towards those who do not have the same ones we do.

Edited January 3, 2011 by JSngry

[Larry Kart]

Jim -- I hear what you're saying, but you forget I have golden ears.

P.S. My typical musical diet these days is far from conservative, especially when it comes to live music, which I hear two to three times a week, sometimes more.

[JSngry]

But platinum became the new gold several decades ago.

Or so the credit card companies told me...

[A Lark Ascending]

Whole lotta projectin' goin' on!

If you mean me, how so?

Just think you're criticising the records/musicians for failing to do things or 'develop' in the directions 'you' prefer.

I've just listened to Iyer's 'Historicity' and don't like it as much as 'Solo', mainly because of the rather static 'beatbox' rhythms used in places - I can see why they are used, referencing recent pop music, but they don't suit me. But I'm not going to declare them a failure to develop because that don't fit with my listening context.

'Solo', by contrast, sounds much more lyrical, almost rhapsodic. Which would be kiss of death to many listeners; but fits with where I'm coming from.

Edited January 3, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

I've just listened to Iyer's 'Historicity' and don't like it as much as 'Solo', mainly because of the rather static 'beatbox' rhythms used in places - I can see why they are used, referencing recent pop music, but they don't suit me.

And for me, that's the type of thing I'd like to hear more of - not to "mimic the times" or anything like that, but just to start "jazz musicians" thinking about time in some newer ways that open up the now-pretty-much codified actions and reactions to where we've been for the better part of the 20th Century.

A "creative musician" will always find personal openings in the source material, so I'm not looking for "copies" of "modern" beats, not at all. But the shift has to begin somewhere & somehow....

I guess the problem with evolution is that it occurs more quickly in history books than it does in real time...

[jeffcrom]

I for one, like the Jason Moran, I'm not sure what makes him a "fake"...

The sense of self importance some critics get from ridiculing what is widely enjoyed ('Only I truly understand!'), perhaps?

Speaking only for myself, "fake" would be too strong, but Moran (in the view of some) initially was a melange of shrewdly selected influences. I kind of liked the melange at first, because I like the same players Moran did (Byard, Andrew Hill, Muhal, et al.), but I've heard little growth since then.

I just picked up Moran's Ten about 48 hours ago, but based on my one playing, it strikes me as his most mature and assured work (and his most emotionally communicative work, which is more to the point) so far. Not totally sure if that's what you mean by "growth." I certainly think he has made some misteps along the way, but I think that comes from an exploratory outlook.

And I'm really enjoying this discussion; I'm dreading the moment (which is coming soon) when it dissolves into an explosion of F-words and unthinking absolutes.

[A Lark Ascending]

I've just listened to Iyer's 'Historicity' and don't like it as much as 'Solo', mainly because of the rather static 'beatbox' rhythms used in places - I can see why they are used, referencing recent pop music, but they don't suit me.

And for me, that's the type of thing I'd like to hear more of - not to "mimic the times" or anything like that, but just to start "jazz musicians" thinking about time in some newer ways that open up the now-pretty-much codified actions and reactions to where we've been for the better part of the 20th Century.

A "creative musician" will always find personal openings in the source material, so I'm not looking for "copies" of "modern" beats, not at all. But the shift has to begin somewhere & somehow....

I guess the problem with evolution is that it occurs more quickly in history books than it does in real time...

It's only right and proper that these sorts of experiments - possibly developing into something organic - happen. I'm not sure there's a shortage - the festivals I attend are never short on musicians 'interfacing' with modern technology and all manner of popular musics. There's a whole raft of young UK musicians who draw as much on their love of alternative rock, metal and dance music alongside jazz (and then there's Norway....).

I just have an inbuilt personal aversion to 'beats' - but that's just me.

If anything, I'd be more interested in jazz that can do without a regular beat (I know there's plenty of that in free jazz). The way that classical music gets by without having the beat pointed up (we still await a jazz Debussy [Gil Evans notwithstanding]). Trouble is, it 'wouldn't swing'!!!!!!

Room for lots of options.

Edited January 3, 2011 by A Lark Ascending