Cornerstones: A basic jazz library ...

[Jazzmoose]

As much as I like the idea of "a basic jazz library", my personal experience tells me that the only truly meaningful way to assemble one is through personal discovery, trial-and-error, etc.

Without a doubt! In all honesty, the best use of "essential recording lists", if they are properly made up (meaning of course, done the way I would do them! ) is to check to see if you're missing something you might like. Meaning that if you go through a list and say "hey, I've got most of these, or at least a representation of them, but none of these Big Band things", and you haven't tried and rejected Big Band stuff, it might be a good idea to explore the stuff a little. I know some people only like hard bop, for example, but if that's all the jazz you've tried, a list might prod you to check out some other facets of the music. Of course, I'm assuming this is a good thing...

As far as using a list of "The 100 Most Important Jazz Recordings of All Time and You're a Chump Monkey if You Don't Have Them!" as a shopping list, it just wouldn't work, unless you're just putting a shelf together to impress someone without knowing what you're doing. Like that ever works...

[Soulstation1]

Ella And Louis

[John L]

Well, it seems like we are discussing several different questions here.

Somebody new to jazz might be interested in a list of "cornerstone" albums that had a strong impact on the development of the music, or at least captured music that had such an impact. That doesn't mean that he or she needs to run out and purchase records from such a list before listening to anything else. But anyone who wants to dig deeply into the music will eventually need to come to grips with the landmarks. Therefore, I don't think that the idea of this thread was really so stupid.

I think that most of us probably came to jazz through listening primarily to just one genre of the music that we found immediately appealing and then moving on to another, hitting the landmarks gradually as we went. There is certainly nothing wrong with that.

Edited April 5, 2004 by John L

[Noj]

I trust everyone's tastes here. I've come to know who has tastes similar to mine, but generally speaking I would take any Organissimo regular's word for it. I have built my collection on recommendations here.

The cats in the Funny Rat thread, on the other hand...

This thread is exactly what I asked for the first time I showed up on the BNBB and decided to start asking questions.

[Late]

Somebody new to jazz might be interested in a list of "cornerstone" albums that had a strong impact on the development of the music, or at least captured music that had such an impact. That doesn't mean that he or she needs to run out and purchase records from such a list before listening to anything else. But anyone who wants to dig deeply into the music will eventually need to come to grips with the landmarks. Therefore, I don't think that the idea of this thread was really so stupid.

Amen to that. Personal discovery will always be integral to any kind of discovery process, but it never hurts to be aware of, in some way or another, commonly acknowledged landmarks of a creative art. Besides, we're just responding to the initial post, right?

[Jazzmoose]

The cats in the Funny Rat thread, on the other hand...

I hear ya! I'll trade you my "what the hell is this" for yours....

[Late]

The cats in the Funny Rat thread, on the other hand...

Aw heck, they aren't so bad. Now, the rats in the Funny Cat thread, that's something entirely different ...

Edited April 5, 2004 by Late

[Free For All]

Without George Russell, there likely wouldn't be Kind of Blue as we know it. And — not that we'd expect otherwise from Ken Burns — Russell's omission from Burns' "Jazz" (along with at least Sun Ra and Lennie Tristano) was one of the most glaring omissions from a documentary that wanted to be at least quasi-comprehensive.

It's funny, a lot of people many years ago (in college) said I should check out George Russell but I never really followed up on it. The hook that turned me into a fan was hearing and playing his composition "All About Rosie" which was included on the Mulligan Verve and Mosaic. After that, I became a fan. Some absolutely stunning writing for large ensemble! A lesson in counterpoint.

[A Lark Ascending]

Well, it seems like we are discussing several different questions here. 

Somebody new to jazz might be interested in a list of "cornerstone" albums that had a strong impact on the development of the music, or at least captured music that had such an impact.  That doesn't mean that he or she needs to run out and purchase records from such a list before listening to anything else.  But anyone who wants to dig deeply into the music will eventually need to come to grips with the landmarks.  Therefore, I don't think that the idea of this thread was really so stupid. 

I think that most of us probably came to jazz through listening primarily to just one genre of the music that we found immediately appealing and then moving on to another, hitting the landmarks gradually as we went.  There is certainly nothing wrong with that.

Nothing 'stupid' or 'wrong' with the thread at all. Putting together a list of recordings that people who already know and enjoy the music can recommend has to be useful. They have one permanently set up at AAJ for example.

But seeking the 'heart and soul' of jazz in three recordings? Sounds like something Stanley Crouch would do on the liners of a Wynton CD!!! I can already hear the Holy Ghost of Swing descending! Sorry - I'm probably giving that 'heart and soul' comment more emphasis than was intended! Offends my fundamentalist relativism!

When I started listening to and buying jazz records I started with things I'd read about in the rock papers that still covered jazz in those days (mid-70s). Not an option today. I also went for things I'd heard rock musicians banging on about - Bitches Brew, A Love Supreme. Then I started listening to the jazz radio programmes. But after a few months I wanted a context.

Mine was Joachim Berendt's 'Jazz Book'. I must re-read that. It was written at the height of fusion and the list of recommendations certainly reflects that. I wonder how it would read now!

Anyway, I interpreted this thread as great recordings that would give a listener a flying start to the breadth of jazz - thus the Westbrook.

I'd like to put in 'The Age of Ellington', a 3LP set put out by RCA in combination with 'The Sunday Times' in the late 70's that took an LP each for 'The Popular Duke', 'The Historic Duke', and 'The Longer Duke' - one of the most influential records in my collection opening all sorts of doors. Unfortunately it hasn't been around for thirty years - perhaps the RCA abstract from the complete set?

Edited April 5, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[Simon Weil]

Well, it seems like we are discussing several different questions here. 

Somebody new to jazz might be interested in a list of "cornerstone" albums that had a strong impact on the development of the music, or at least captured music that had such an impact.  That doesn't mean that he or she needs to run out and purchase records from such a list before listening to anything else.  But anyone who wants to dig deeply into the music will eventually need to come to grips with the landmarks.  Therefore, I don't think that the idea of this thread was really so stupid.

Well, as a thread, i.e. a nice fun bit for discussion there was nothing wrong with it. But as I tried to point out here:

Of course there is a certain tension between turning people onto Jazz and giving them recordings central to the History of Jazz. And when I capitalize History of Jazz, I mean to imply that there is a certain didactic element in that which people may not appreciate so much. Kind of "Here is an important record, listen to it".

If I take "Cornerstones" as part of the way we seek to bring people into Jazz, then it's not an entirely constructive approach. I'm saying that because "Cornerstones" is, as far as I can see, part of how Jazz tries to bring people in (100 essential LPs etc). I.E. I think there is a deeper issue underlying this thread, about whether our current ways of bringing people into Jazz are that effective. I mean one only has to look at Wynton Marsalis, symbol of Jazz now, with his canonic "Important Records That Are Good For YOU" approach, to see it in operation. And he's not allowed to be symbolic without that having some resonance in Jazz at large.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that, if the experiencing of Jazz, for the fan, is kind of a quest (which it seems to be for a lot of us), maybe Jazz might make better connections with the public at large by aiding people to make their specific quest rather than going with the more impersonal "These Records Are Good For You".

To get deadly serious (not the intent of this thread, I know)...

Simon Weil

Edited April 5, 2004 by Simon Weil

[tjobbe]

....Mine was Joachim Berendt's 'Jazz Book'. I must re-read that. It was written at the height of fusion and the list of recommendations certainly reflects that. I wonder how it would read now!

......

Hi Bev,

I've re-read this and the "Ein Fenster aus Jazz" two weeks ago on two 16h flights and was amazed how good it is still (the Jazzbook in its '73 release and the other in a '77 one) and I was also surprised by the some of the articles... I would still rate his recommendations a being "essential" even in the light of Fusion but what I found even more interesting is the "political" aspect he brought up (read the Fenster aus Jazz Interview with Albert Mangelsdorff) as this was one element of the end 60's Discussion in Europe...

Cheers, Tjobbe

Edited April 5, 2004 by tjobbe

[king ubu]

....Mine was Joachim Berendt's 'Jazz Book'. I must re-read that. It was written at the height of fusion and the list of recommendations certainly reflects that. I wonder how it would read now!

......

Hi Bev,

I've re-read this and the "Ein Fenster aus Jazz" two weeks ago on two 16h flights and was amazed how good it is still (the Jazzbook in its '73 release and the other in a '77 one) and I was also surprised by the some of the articles... I would still rate his recommendations a being "essential" even in the light of Fusion but what I found even more interesting is the "political" aspect he brought up (read the Fenster aus Jazz Interview with Albert Mangelsdorff) as this was one element of the end 60's Discussion in Europe...

Cheers, Tjobbe

These are the two Behrendt books I have. I got the "Jazzbuch" when I got started with jazz, maybe ten or eleven years ago. I always enjoyed it, still do.

It has been replaced by the Penguin guide(s) as daily reference since my collection has grown, outgrown the Behrendt suggestions (some of which, though, I still miss, not only on the fusion side).

My next step were some rather short biographies (Miles, Trane, Mingus, Monk, Ornette, german books published by "Oreos Verlag" or something, not bad, but not outstanding, either).

There's a fun book called "Jazz for Beginners", sort of a comic book, with satyrical drawings etc - like that one, too. (It's part of some "educational" series, I also have had "Kafka for Beginners", with drawings by Crumb).

ubu

[A Lark Ascending]

...maybe Jazz might make better connections with the public at large by aiding people to make their specific quest rather than going with the more impersonal "These Records Are Good For You".

Exactly, Simon! My whole approach to music is very much a personal quest. I use maps and guidebooks but am just as likely to go off at a wild tangent (Scandanavian folk music!!!). I like the idea of presenting jazz as a place you can come and find your own route rather than a place where you've to pass some 'driving test' proving you can appreciate 'the greats'. The great appeal to me of jazz in the mid-70s was that it seemed to offer almost limitless possibilities. Exploring jazz should be for independent travellers, not a package holiday taking in the famous sights!

*********

There's also something contradictory about a music that makes so much of 'freedom' and 'surprise'; and then has admirers wanting to draw up a 'canon' or identify the 'vital elements'.

Do that and you move into 'and this can't be jazz because it lacks ________.' (fill in your own vital element. I'd go for alphorns!!!)

Jazz in 2004 has lots of elements it didn't have in 1930. It'll have lots more by the time we get to 2004. Do we really want to define a 'heart and soul' that it all must at least aspire back to? I'd prefer to leave it to go where it will.

Now a list of key records pointing how it got where it did today. That is interesting. An absolute minefield of competing interpretations, but interesting.

*********

Tjobbe,

I don't know "Fenster aus Jazz" but I'll certainly look out for it. Sounds intriguing.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[tjobbe]

Hi Bev,

just looked at the amazon.de site and seen that "Ein Fenster aus Jazz" has been released last -at least with this title- in 1983 so not sure if there is an actual version or even an english translation.

Cheers, Tjobbe

Edited April 5, 2004 by tjobbe

[king ubu]

...

Do that and you move into 'and this can't be jazz because it lacks ________.' (fill in your own vital element. I'd go for alphorns!!!)

...

*********

Tjobbe,

I don't know "Fenster aus Jazz" but I'll certainly look out for it. Sounds intriguing.

have you ever heard Arkady Shilkloper playing solo alphorn? (He does this with the group Pago Libre - not strictly jazz, but amazing beautiful music, in my opinion!

I can recommend "Ein Fester aus Jazz", too! I got it used from someone, very early in my jazz acquaintance. There are some very interesting articles, on Oscar Pettiford, McCoy Tyner, Tony Williams, on spirituality in jazz, and also on jazz in the GDR, if I remember right.

ubu

[A Lark Ascending]

have you ever heard Arkady Shilkloper playing solo alphorn? (He does this with the group Pago Libre - not strictly jazz, but amazing beautiful music, in my opinion!

I havn't.

But I'm going to the Bath jazz weekend in May where one of the performances is Balthasar Streiff (alpenhorns) and Christian Zehnder (voice, accordion).

Looks like fun!

Edited April 5, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[John L]

Simon and Bev: Points well taken. I guess that the main issue is that people come to jazz from different musical backgrounds, prejudices, and preferences. Therefore, what works for one listener won't necessarily work for another. An optimal list for a new jazz listener should be conditioned on where that person is coming from.

[neveronfriday]

Artist: Tord Gustavsen Trio

Title: Changing Places

Recorded: 2002

Company: ECM Records

Edition: Only one available, released April 18, 2003

Comment: If you want to see what's happening in Scandinavian jazz today, try this album. Scandinavia has much more to offer, Bugge Wesseltoft, E.S.T., Nils Landgren, etc., etc. etc., both traditional and modern, but this album displays the lyrical quality and the sophistication so often apparent in many Scandinavian releases of today.

BBC Online published this review: "Though at one point in ECM's history it was tempting to think that every pianist Manfred Eicher signed up was under direct orders to play like Keith Jarrett, (or 'The Eicher Sanction" as it became known amongst the jazz cognoscenti here at BBC towers), it's really Paul Bley who's been the most pervasive influence on the label's ivory tinklers. Bley took the chamber jazz approach of Bill Evans to its apotheosis, stripping it down even further but still retaining a deeply emotive core and in the process buffing up some of the shiniest jewels in the ECM catalogue.

Tord Gustavsen's taken Bley's example to heart on his debut solo album. Changing Places is a beauty, less abstract perhaps than Bley, but soaked in a hushed, delicate romanticism that's hard to resist. Most of the record is pitched at a whisper, with the spaces between the notes easily as significant as the notes themselves. Drummer Jarle Vepsestad (also of Supersilent) is felt rather than heard much of the time, while bassist Harald Johnsen provides gentle, intelligent support and lovely, guitar-like solos.

The leader's improvisations are yearning, tender meditations, occasionally coloured with the palest of the Blues, and the compositions (all Gustavsen originals) have the quiet, sometimes folky ecstacies of Pat Metheny's or Keith Jarrett's ballads, with a quiet insistence that'll have you humming them for days to come.

Though the theoretical writings on his site talk of (gulp) "moving creatively in a neo-Hegelian kind of way", Gustavsen's music is free of such intellectual baggage; fresh, intuitive and heartfelt. A truly beautiful record that (if there's any justice) will find a place as one of ECM's finest releases of the last few years, and probably a place in your heart too. Gorgeous."

[A Lark Ascending]

That is indeed a gorgeous record.

I'll get to see him in early May at the Cheltenham Festival though, sadly, only as accompanist to vocalist Silje Nergaard.

[Jazzmoose]

If I take "Cornerstones" as part of the way we seek to bring people into Jazz, then it's not an entirely constructive approach. I'm saying that because "Cornerstones" is, as far as I can see, part of how Jazz tries to bring people in (100 essential LPs etc). I.E. I think there is a deeper issue underlying this thread, about whether our current ways of bringing people into Jazz are that effective.

Well, the idea of ways to bring people into jazz never occured to me as this thread opens, because to me, "cornerstone" or "100 Essential LPs" just aren't the way to do it and never were. Lists like these are for people who are already bit by the bug, but are still new to the genre in my opinion. Lists like these are what I looked at once I was already hooked on jazz but wanted more context and a wider exposure to the music. If someone isn't already hooked on jazz, why would they even care what the cornerstone recordings are? To borrow from earlier in the discussion, I think the Hot Five and Hot Sevens are a "cornerstone" recording and agree that Brubeck's Take Five isn't. But if I was trying to turn someone on to jazz, I'd be a lot more likely to hand them the Brubeck than the Armstrong. I don't see lists like this as being at all compatible with introducing people to jazz...

[ralphie_boy]

Essential!

[John L]

Essential!

The cornerstone of jazz deconstruction?

[couw]

As much as I like the idea of "a basic jazz library", my personal experience tells me that the only truly meaningful way to assemble one is through personal discovery, trial-and-error, etc. If you really, really, feel the music, you'll get to all the classics eventually, when you're ready for them (and when they're ready for you), and the music will then have PERSONAL meaning, it won't be an assemblage of things that you listen to because you're "supposed" to like them.

Granted, this way takes a lot longer, usually, and can/will lead to periods of "false expertise" (again, I speak from personal experience here). But we all go through various stages of personal development, right? So why should our musical development be any different? A listener is a living being, the music is a living organism (ideally), and living things develop at their own pace, like it or not!

So I say just go for what you like, and ASK QUESTIONS, both of others and of yourself. Dive in, be fearless, explore, connect-the-dots, respect the knowledge of your elders but don't accept it blindly (wait until they've been proven right first! ), all that. Music is indeed medicinal, but it need not be treated like medicine, something that you "have to" take in order to be well. It's more nourishment, and pallates develop as they will. Guide, by all means (PLEASE!), but by no means force - you can't MAKE anybody like ANYTHING.

If you feel it, you'll get it, eventually. It's like the song says, "Them that's got shall get, them that's not shall lose". Probably not what the Lady specifically had in mind, but of such Universal Applications are Eternal Truths made.

As much as I agree that, indeed, a jazz collection is a personal thing and will grow eventually to encompass many if not all of the classics, this is of course the lame way out and furthermore is besides the point raised by Deus I think.

There have been collections, dots have been connected, cornerstones have been identified. So, why not build on that. Why invent the wheel all over again for yourself just because it's supposed to be a personal journey. Why not learn from the journeys of others, personal as they may be.

An approach that emphasises the personal discovery angle too much would negate any criticism or any historical overview. I think it may be possible to sum up some landmark/cornerstone albums/artists that together sort of define the landscape that is jazz; possibly on several levels. Take it in and get an overview, then move where your personal tastes lead you. I doubt whether I am up to calling out any specific cornerstones, but if we decide to label our shared subjective tastes as objective, we should be able to draw up something.

Probably I do not disagree with the quoted post by Jim that much, but the general tenor of "it's all personal and nothing we can do about that," is sort of going against my idea that this music and its audience are moving forward (wherever that may be).

[clifford_thornton]

Essential!

Damn, beat me to the punch!

EDIT: wasn't there supposed to be a pitcher?

Edited April 6, 2004 by clifford_thornton

[JSngry]

Probably I do not disagree with the quoted post by Jim that much, but the general tenor of "it's all personal and nothing we can do about that," is sort of going against my idea that this music and its audience are moving forward (wherever that may be).

Guess I need to put my tenor in the shop then!

All I'm saying is that the idea of turning somebody on to jazz by saying "this is what you need to hear" may or may not work, and even if it does, the risk is run of somebody having an intellectual appreciation of what jazz "is" without getting a feel for same. I think it's a great idea for people to know what the cornerstones are, less of a great one to encourage them to go there when their natural inclinations are not yet going to some or all of it. You can't stop running water, like the Neville brothers so aptly pointed out, and as the periodic flodding of the Mississippi shows, even if you can forcibly redirect it, eventually it's gonna go back to where it wants to be, if only for a little while. So make the knowledge of the cornerstones readily available, sure, but let it go at that unless otherwise appropriate. Which may or may not be germane to the original post. In all honesty, I forget. Sorry if I'm missing the point altogether.

But dig - there's a whole group of younger people out there now who dig the free jazz of the ESP-and-beyond ilk, really, REALLY dig the shit out of it, for whom Louis Armstrong is just not releveant now. And then there's the people who dig the "post-bop and beyond" inside stuff and nothing else now. You try to hip them to Coleman Hawkins when they're not ready for it, and it will fall on deaf ears, most likely, until THEY'RE ready for it (if they ever are, and I hope that they would be, some day, but if not, hey...). It's a wonderful idea, a veritable civic and cosmic responsibility as a good citizen of the universe, to let these folks know what else is out there, but if they're not ready for it....

If somebody sincerely digs the shit out of Ayler or Pharoah and doesn't want to be bothered with Fletcher Henderson, so be it. Or if somebody goes apeshit over Roy Eldridge but thinks that Don Cherry is worse than incompetent, whatcha' gonna do? That music has personal meaning for them, and I think you got to respect that connection as more than an uninformed or less-than-fully-informed enthusiasm. If they want to go somewhere else, by all means, take them there. But if not, let it be. I think it's better to have a deep relationship to part of the music, no matter how small/narrow/whatever, and be ignorant of the rest of it than it is to be aware of all of it and not have a deep relationship to any of it. Unless they're in the booking business, in which case they should like everything I like and every type of music I play. KILL them if they don't and put somebody in the gig who does!

Of course, I personally think that the ideal is to have an ongoing relationship with ALL of it, but you got to be a special kind of freak to get THAT heavy into this shit, and as much as most of us, including myself, would like to think otherwise, most people ain't that kind of freak.