I've been in the wings here but it seems to me that everyones experience, points of view and preferences are valid and of use to someone.
I know of Mosaic, Analogue Productions and Mobile Fidelity and just recently Pure Pleasure with respect to remastered reissues. What about the Japanese labels, and what are some other quality remaster and reissue labels in general?
I can digitally accommodate a frequency of 192 kHz which I'd like to put to the test. As a side note, I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to vinyl since I only own a mono cartridge (no I did that on purpose).
Any advice is gratefully appreciated. |
I don't know if this one is jazz but 'The Complete Bessie Smith Recordings'
The 'Louis Armstrong plays W.C. Handy' Remaster
The Japanese remaster of 'Introducing Lee Morgan'
Dave Douglas 'Soul on Soul'
Hugh Ragin 'An Afternoon In Harlem'
Paul Bley 'Not Two Not One'
Bill Evans 'Waltz for Debbie"
Shirley Horn with Strings 'Here's To Life'
Keith Jarrett 'Inside Out'
Keith Jarrett 'The Köln Concert' (though my attention span isn't what it once was)
Modern Jazz Quartet 'Dedicated to Connie'
John Lewis 'Evolution II'
Sweet Emma (the bell gal) and Her Preservation Hall Jazz Band
OK, How Do I Choose from the Duke Ellington raisonne'? |
Just curious, are there any favorites from 'Analogue Productions'? I have Hank Mobley' 'No Room for Squares.' |
Rok2id, there's still a lot of great music being made but there needs to be a willingness and an open mindedness in order to invest in it. Jazz is more of an art form than most other popular styles of music and so it takes a little work but it's well worth the trouble. I still plan to buy a 78 turntable however so that I can listen to a friends donated Charlie Parker recordings. Personally, I have more trouble with listening to music that is outside of the realm of legitimate or what we call in the vernacular, 'classical' but I listen to jazz because there is some of it that I find interesting or entertaining and that's about the only reason. |
Music has to change, art has to change. It wouldn't make any sense for someone today to write like Haydn or maybe less so, like Art Tatum. Uri Caine seems interesting to me now. It's rewarding to listen to musicians playing Stan Kenton, Mozart, Billie Holiday but these are old ideas in terms of composition.
I'm not suggesting that musicians like Sonny Rollins write in the way that Cecil Taylor might. We should savor and respect what these musician/composers naturally developed into within the span of their careers, but all artists need to grow. Most accomplished jazz musicians write their own pieces. Musicians who make a living playing the music of Monk, Ellington, etc... are a different matter, as they can choose to invest in the works of their contemporaries or limit their repertoire to music of the past.
Composers, with exceptions being in rare cases, will try to avoid repeating what another composer has already written and since the rules of harmony have been stretched beyond all boundaries, the possibilities are endless. Since everyone is wired differently, every composer will create differently. Nevertheless Picasso said 'good artists borrow from other artists but great artists steal from other artists'. |
Certainly, and If I were to say that I appreciated everything in the classical raisonne, I'd either be an idiot or a liar. One thing that I do sympathize with is opposition to this notion that anything can be great, or creative or easily labeled and then placed in a drawer with something else. I had professors who would make comments like 'everyone is an artist' because that is what Joseph Beuys said and I have always considered that claim to be at the top of my B.S. list. You know, we don't want to come off as being elitists or insensitive in any way. Creating incomparable comparisons like 'is King Oliver in the same class as Bud Powel'; might amount to doing something to pass the time, like memorizing baseball statistics, but it really won't address art, music or aesthetics. |
Frogman, I'd certainly consider Wayne Krantz to be one of the 'hipper' players, so maybe he lives in Soho but I don't consider him as un-deserving of his popularity. Yes, popularity doesn't account for musicianship, artistry or technique but it doesn't refute a musicians capabilities either. 'Money can't produce good poetry'. I suppose fame could erode integrity but ultimately an artist has a choice. The sad reality with all of the arts in this country is that it is underfunded and seen as insignificant unless it's able to sustain itself financially. The niche players will often maintain a higher level of artistic integrity but they're also more susceptible to burdening financial woes. |
I said Soho, I should have said Chelsea. |
I'm not here to argue but I am adding commentary. A lot of these comparisons are ambiguous as most comparisons are prone to be. I have always believed it to be most constructive to talk about music in terms of things like harmony, counterpoint, arranging, composition, orchestration, tempo. I realize that this is too much to expect on a forum however these categorical labels are just trash pale terminologies. For example, I could listen to a Paul Bley record and explain in musical and aesthetic terms, his approach to composition and his effortless command over the piano but if I were to rely on terms like 'cutting edge' or 'retro' or whatever else, then that is where things begin to get murky. The only categorical term that I could come up with for honestly describing Paul Bley's music currently might be 'real time composition' but this wouldn't be true all of the time and it wouldn't help since most people lack knowledge about what 'real time composition' is. The point being that much of this forum looks like an insular argument because of its ambiguity. |
Jazzcourier, you're apparently resentful about my having mentioned that I would opt to describe particular works by Paul Bley by using an aesthetic and theoretical vocabulary. This is common practice by the way in all music programs beyond grade school and it generally applies to all music that is based on the western harmonies. I use Paul Bley as an example in order to make a point but I can discuss theory and aesthetics concerning music in general despite the composer or performer and despite whether someone wants to call it jazz, post modern, or anything else. None of my statements apply to recounting Paul Bley's life within a biographical context or lecturing on the history of western music and his place in it. I'm sorry that you have a ax to grind but your claims are presumptuous at best. |
Jazzcourier, so you believe that your speaking on behalf of everyone else? |
Frogman, much of what you said is consistent with comments that I've made. For the most part concerning a clear explanation of music in order to support a preference for a particular work and/or artist. Another suggestion that I made and I'll rephrase it here, is that pronouncements over how music should be labeled for point of comparison is ambiguous and will typically lead to arguments. I've never suggested that we converse like musical Spoc's as though we are regurgitating data. For some reason, other members are either looking to argue and have a habit of misinterpreting what others say. I base this on the fact that nearly 5 pages of this forum consists of arguments with members targeting one another. Anyway, I would expect that if someone where to have an intelligent conversation about a musician, i.e. Charlie Parker (which is what I assumed from the members here), that they would have a certain knowledge about music itself in order to support and clarify their comments. I don't see why this is too provocative or unreasonable as it seems to have been the standard on other forums. However, there is a great deal of resistance to what I've just suggested and since I don't like to argue, I will reserve my comments. |
