Jazz for aficionados

I submit this as fodder for discussion.. No one is saying it's accurate, let along definitive. Just this guy's opinion.

https://numeralnine.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/twenty-perfect-jazz-albums-of-the-1970s/

But, to me, it does reinforce my belief that the 70 / 80s were a sterile period for Jazz. Maybe it's just that it was in a period of transistion.

Maybe it's something as simple as the deterioration of the cover art. Where the hell were the classic Blue Note covers. I know it sounds silly, but to me it was a different, and not better, era than the beginning(Nawlins) thru the 60's. The entire scene just had a different feel to my senses. Like, where did everyone go??

Someone said Jazz died in 1959. It did not die, but what came later, gradually evolved into something very different. Better or worst? Your call.

They say, 1939 was Hollywood's greatest year. Looking back, I can readily see that. And remember 1939 was pre blockbuster era. Little to no special effects. No star wars etc....
Twenty years later, some say Jazz had it's greatest year. And looking back, I can readily see that also.

Just one non-caring Frenchman's opinion.

Cheers

Acman3, thanks for turning me on to those Woody Shaw clips!

Now is the best time for jazz. Lots of wonderful new talents snd recordings out there not mention many remasters and reissues of classics from over the years plus the originals as well. More than ever in essence. And most modern jazz recordings even sound very good in a different and non analogue way compared to those from the "golden age". It's all out there for the taking. Not to mention all the live stuff going on. Oh yeah and same applies to all music in general. It's the best time ever to be a music lover.

The trend in jazz these days seems to to take it different directions as part of all the various world music avenues. Globalization of jazz per se. Another great contribution of the usa to world culture. Sure beats mtv. 😉

Best live jazz performance for me to date was French act julien lourau groove gang at snug harbor club in New Orleans just prior to the jazz heritage festival there a few years back. Lord in heaven were those guys something else! 😎

Great to see new contributors/participants; welcome all and I look forward to your clips.

O-10, not sure I am necessarily looking for a debate, although, as you know, I don't shy away from one; and while Rok's silence is sometimes deafening, he makes up for it when he makes HIS noise :-) I also appreciate Acman3's economy of words (kind of like later Wayne Shorter), I like how he gets his point across with music clips only. I sense the thread is at a Milestone(s) of sorts (pun intended) and we should capitalize on that.

Rok, while I wouldn't call that list and commentary definitive I think the author makes some good points and his list of twenty is very very good imo. I appreciate your evenhandedness and candor in your own comments;but I disagree that the 70s/80's was a sterile period in jazz, in fact I think it was, as well as being transitional (isn't it always transitional? its the nature of the music, its always evolving), very exciting. I think you are mellowing :-) The author makes two points that I believe I made in recent posts:

****the predujices disappear the deeper one gets into something****

I wrote:

****We move way too quickly through an era and dont dig deep enough. I think that is why some of the stereotypes about genres hang us up****

I think that there may be, as the author points out, a misconception or stereotype about what music from that era (70s) is about. It is not simply the kind of fusion exemplified by Gato, Sanborn and others. This music was mostly very accesible in as much as it was tuneful or melodic in a traditional way and very pleasant to listen to, but not very adventurous harmonically or rhythmically. There was also a lot of music (like the Woody Shaw clips show) that is a more direct extension of the hard bop style that gets a lot of play in this thread; almost all acoustic and unquestionably Jazz. Then, there was the electric stuff that went to totally new places. Frankly, I am taken aback by the relegation of something like "Sly" by Herbie's "Headhunters" to a comparion to bellbottoms because of the "funk" stereotype. No problem with not liking something, but to not appreciate the incredible level of inventive improvisation and musical interaction (hallmarks of good jazz) that the band shows in that track leaves me almost speechless. Another favorite from the 70s. Sterile? Really?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1drMpkjM1DA

In my last post, the question was posed, "Would you like to lead us through the 70's"? I'm still waiting for a definitive answer.

Your first sentence seems to say "Yes". Now I will respond to your post as our new leader in this 70's decade.

The "bell bottomed trousers" was a statement of fact related to the 70's without a musical connection of any kind, the same as the statement about "fusion", which is what the music Herby was playing at that time is referred to; it was your interpretation that took both statements into a different direction.

Are we going to get into the music, or what?

Enjoy the music.

Now, Now, Frogman. You can't use the Masters that made LPs during the 70's (Joe Henderson), as being representative or typical of the music made during that era. Even I, have most of his stuff.

You must stay with the guys who need haircuts and forgot to get their suits out of the cleaners. That's how the 70's were different.

I agree on Hancock. But Lord, just compare them to MJQ in appearance. Why did they have to dress like that?

Joe Henderson: That is serious Jazz cover art. Compared to Miles with the cartoon people. The Miles cover was a sign of the times.

Cheers

Rok, "What is it you agree about Hancock"? I was into "fusion" at that time, consequently I have no contradictions; Herbie's music at that time was most distinctly "fusion". Are you saying you liked some fusion, but didn't like other "fusion"?

Enjoy the music.

Joe Henderson certainly did not typify the 70's. Miles, "On The Corner" typified the 70's "fusion". In regard to Herbies "Sly", while it was good jazz, it was also "Fusion"; I'm not certain where you're going with "fusion"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkGyBDNG8j4&index=4&list=PLdhGk7gKuZxY7Ui81R2VMyY9EOovHj7r2

Enjoy the music.

The 70s saw the growth of a tenor saxophone style that was a direct extension of Coltrane's. Dave Liebman, Miles and Elvin alum, in many ways took over where Trane left off. This tenor style would also become a large part of the fusion-jazz tenor style that players like Michael Brecker would make practically ubiquitous. Not exactly Coleman Hawkins, but this is great tenor playing and beautiful ballad playing:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=BrIfp7F6wR8

Oh yeah, and he did need a haircut.

[Fusion: in popular music: combining different styles ]

One of the definitions of FUSION. My question is, exactly what different styles or genres are being 'Fused' in Fusion-Jazz? And even more importantly, why?

And since there are many genres, does the phrase. Fusion-Jazz, always mean the same combination?

Cheers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqjh2b_ifCA

I wonder who Anthony Braxton's hero's were besides Coltane?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lYeHiHUFV8

O-10, I am not quite sure why there seems to be an element of bickering or defensiveness in your recent posts. I realize that it's always tricky when putting thoughts in writing in a way that conveys the intended message, and I am willing to leave it at that; and apologies if I am misconstruing. I believe in clarity and while I am sure that I fall woefully short of that goal, it is my goal nonetheless. Words matter. I'd like to address a couple of your comments:

Re "the 70s": this was your opening sentence:

****Well aficionados, as much as we liked those decades, it's time to move on to the 70's, and examine that decade in detail****

Further, at no point in your post did you even mention "fusion". So, how does one examine the decade "in detail" without examining the music that, either didn't meet the popular definition of "fusion", or is music that is simply showing the seed of the general movement of that decade toward fusion. As Rok shows in his most recent post the term hasn't even been clearly defined yet. So, my intention was (and is) to look at the music of that decade "in detail".

Now, as far as what music, exactly, "exemplifies that decade":

Part of my intention was to point out "in detail" that there was a lot of music that, not only continued the hard-bop (and other) jazz tradition, but was fusion that informed or influenced the music that many listeners would go on to think of as "fusion". A lot of this music became popular, but was by no means the music that kept a closer connection to what defines good jazz: a high level of harmonic and rhythmic sophistication, inventiveness, and a high level of improvisational sophistication. Gato and Sanborn (to name two), as fun and listenable as their music is, don't meet those standards. Much of that music was, or would morph into what many would go on to call "smooth-jazz". The point is that there is a lot of "fusion" that never became "popular" precisely because it is challenging for many listeners, but that is the fusion that most deserves to be looked at. If "popularity" defines what music exemplifies a decade I must say that I have a problem with that notion and find a contradiction in the premise.

Much has been said on this thread about the idea that "popularity" defines what is good. I still disagree with that notion and I have never gotten a good explanation for this dichotomy (I realize that I am using broad brush strokes here): I think it's fair to say that Rok dislikes most "fusion"; certainly as defined by players such as Gato, Sanborn and Metheny. Yet, they are (were) hugely popular. However, he likes Headhunters; they were not "popular". Yet, Headhunters played music that was on an infinitely higher level as defined by the standards mentioned previously. Discerning listener that he is, I am sure that is the reason why.

Re my role as "leader":

Not quite sure what that means. I am a firm believer in democracy so I think everyone's contributions will shape the direction of the discussion. However, if my comments above don't suggest wanting to take things in a certain "in detail" direction, I will try to be more clear.

Re "Are we going to get into the music, or what?"

I thought that was precisely what I have been doing through my comments and posts; unless, of course, personal attire somehow says more about the music :-)

BTW, much of Joe Henderson's music in the 70's and beyond was most certainly "fusion". So, perhaps the intention is not to look at the music "in detail". If that is the case, I am not quite sure I can be of much help; and certainly not "lead". I would suggest again to look at the list by the author of the article Rok posted a few posts ago. It's quite good and, to my mind (and obviously the author's also) it "exemplifies" the 70's.

Regards.

*****Rok, "What is it you agree about Hancock"? I was into "fusion" at that time, consequently I have no contradictions; Herbie's music at that time was most distinctly "fusion". Are you saying you liked some fusion, but didn't like other "fusion"?******

I am saying that Hancock is a lot more, than his dabble in 'Fusion'. The man is a very accomplished musician. Check out his output. Some of his tunes are now standards. He Teaches at UCLA. And yes, I like SOME of almost everything. But we are forced to speak inn generalities. Fusion was nonsense, with a few nice tunes here and there.

I have no use for Rock, but I do like some of Rod Stewart. I have a complilation of Rock from the 80's. All hits. I like that. Could I listen to a Rock LP from start to finish? No!

Since I dislike Rock, why would I like Rock infected Jazz. I feel silly using the words Rock and Jazz together.

Rock destoryed Rock & Roll, a young and fun music, and came close to destorying Jazz. Just a bunch of Drug crazed noise makers. And the entire music establisment just looked on, admiring the emperor's new clothes. $$$$???? Even made up 'catergories' at the Grammys, so they could win something.

Lots of folks tried to make a living off 'Fusion', Hancock was not one of those. He didn't have to, he could play Jazz. He did experiment with Rock and Classical integration into Jazz. Talented folks do that sort of thing. Explore. And remember, he did play with pre-Sinbad Miles.

BTW, there is much more Jazz in Blue-Grass than there is in Rock. That would be an interesting "Fusion".

Cheers

There is no way ,at least for me, to categorize a decade. There was so much going on !!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppJOrnVtkg

Exactly!

****There is no way ,at least for me, to categorize a decade. There was so much going on !!!!!******

People do it all the time. Roaring 20's ?? Proabley wasn't too much roaring going on in Idaho. But there was in NYC and Chicago. But they are still the roaring 20's. I am sure there are names for the 50s 60s and 70s. I am too lazy to google.

The dominant theme is what we are looking at here. Marginal players and music does not count.

The biggest blow could have been the demise of Blue Note.

And yes Frogman, apparel does matter. It tells you a lot about the person's attitude towards the music they are playing. I can just see the NYPO in tank tops with' hip-hop' baseball caps. The women in cutoffs with rings in their noses. Should not affect their playing ability, but it sure would affect my reception and perception of any music they might play.

Cheers

Rok, People do a lot of stupid things "all the time". That's why I try not to.

I will keep posting different great jazz from the 70's,just so you can talk about their bad clothing choices.

*****Not exactly Coleman Hawkins*****

The Frogman has a great gift for understatement!

I did the WIKI thingy on the guys you said took over where Trane left off.

Trane 'left off' about 2 light years South-East of the Orion Nebula. These guys 'started off with 'Rock-Jazz'. (WTF??)

Media hype to the contrary, they are not seminal figures is Jazz. They followed the money and probably made a good living. Probably the smart thing for them to do.

Trane's heirs? Not exactly!!

Cheers

We can all be thankful Kenny G does not have a 100 mil laying around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/arts/david-geffen-captures-naming-rights-to-avery-fisher-hall-with-donation.html?_r=0

All niceties aside, and with all due respect, Rok, when it comes to the "guys" that you refer to, you don't know what you are talking about. Those guys did not start off in jazz-rock. They started off as obsessive students of Coltrane and built on that legacy. They are serious jazz players, NYC legends and heros of the tenor saxophone world. Nobody said anything about being a seminal figure. And, please, don't be so darn predictable. I challenge one of your premises (the "popular" thingy) and you lash out with irrationality. If you would just chill for a moment you might learn something about the lineage of an instrument that can fairly be said is the only wind just instrument in "fusion" and practically defined the sound of an entire genre. We are supposed to be lookjng at the decade "in detail"; remember? Wiki? Are you f¿£®¢g kidding me? How about letting your ears tell you what a player is about. If you can't hear that Liebman is the direct descendant of Trane, or if you can't hear the brilliance of his solo with Elvin, what can I say. Re attire: c'mon man, of course it matters. But, again, if you have to resort to cheap shots like that and miss the forest for the trees, not to mention the substance of my comments, then these discussions really are pointless. I am willing to try and perhaps even "lead", but as I said previously, I think we need to dig little deeper; or endure yet more clips of Wynton and Clapton.

Cheers.

Acman3:the voice of reason; even with no words at all.

Weather Report: It ain't saying much, and the look on Shorter's face says it all. "Man this is BS". I can't detect any structure to the music. Everyone just playing. Check out the audience. If this had been BeBop, they would not have been there. This all boils down to Money. I don't begrudge a musician making money. Just don't call it Jazz.

I have "Heavy Weather" and several more on LP. Saw no need to get them on CD.

Cheers

The Frogman:

1. I thought you / we were going to define 'fusion' first.

2. Wiki gave their background. That's all. I just don't think of guys who spent most of their time with POP and Rock bands, as carrying on where Trane left off. There was no one even near Trane when he 'left off'. He was out there all alone. I don't think that's a good thing, just fact.

3. This solo, that solo. What about, "body of work"? What have these folks contributed to Jazz?

4. I am not sure what you are referring to with the 'popular' comment.

5. The playing on Wynton and Clapton is superior to ANY 'Fusion' submitted by You and Acman3.

Music is more than N&Bs. Thats the least important part of it.

Cheers

George Benson:

This ain't 'Fusion'. This is Jazz.

Cheers

1. Who said that? As I said to O-10, the discussion was supposed to be about the 70s.

2. Get your facts straight. Those guys never played in "pop" bands.

3. Body of work? What about it? Those guys are extremely well recorded and have significant discographies. And how convoluted, self-serving, and ironic: you decide exactly what jazz is, where it starts and ends, and then dismiss the contributions of players who don't fit YOUR mold as not being contributions at all. C'mon man, do you want to have a dialogue or not, because this kind of bullshit gets really old.

4. The «general public knows best» "thingy". Don't play dumb.

5. Not a chance in hell.

And please no more smoke screens, nobody has mentioned NB's. Well, actually, interestingly, it was you who mentioned it when you said you could detect no structure in Black Market. Of course there is structure in BM; but, typically, you blame the music instead of your inability to hear it.

Cheers and here's hoping for more substantive dialogue.

Chuck Mangione was big in the seventies. Feels So Good in particular. Not too deep, but I always enjoy his stuff when I hear it.

Brecker:

"Other notable jazz and rock collaborations included work with Steely Dan, Lou Reed, Donald Fagen, Dire Straits, Joni Mitchell, Eric Clapton, Billy Joel, John Lennon, Aerosmith, Dan Fogelberg, Frank Sinatra, Frank Zappa, Bruce Springsteen, Roger Daltrey, and Parliament-Funkadelic."

Liebman:
seems to have spent most of his time in Europe. Most of his reputation stems from Europe. I wonder why?

I never said the public knows best, I said, they decide. If they knew what is best, Fusion would never have happened

Cheers.

****I never said the public knows best, I said, they decide.****

Global warming today; climate change tomorrow.

Rok, you have a lot to learn about post- Blue Note era music. I am tempted to think that you just don't want to. If you do, you will simply have to check your arrogance at the door. I am willing to help "lead", but not with the constant destructive barbs and shallow commentary which is part of the truth in what Acman3 posted a little while back. To paraphrase:

It is the one claiming to protect the music that will end up destroying it.

A brief detour from the 70s (sorry):

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lWIt4PtJwM0

Yes! Bob Berg, another NYC tenor hero. Thanks! Sterile my ass. Fantastic clips Acman3.

To many directions!

I thought we were talking about fusion. No sense posting Horace Silver, he was great in all decades. We all know this. Of course it is interesting that you go gaga over some guy named Bob Berg, while listening to Horace Silver. Makes a body wonder. Good Lord.

Take away fusion, and there is nothing that unique about the 70's, except more of the greats had passed on. The ones playing in the 70's were as good as they were in the 60's.

I have to admire the way you have deftly side-stepped the Fusion question. :) Now we are seeing Silver,Tyner and Henderson. lets get some Liebman and Brecker in here.

Cheers

I usually give this Jazz thread a quick glance due to it's often stated preference for music from the past being the the be-all and end-all of the genre (which I don't agree with). Usually it's a conversation between the same 1/2 dz. guys that's occasionally interesting, which is perfectly fine, some discussion is better than no discussion, right? But than sometimes it'll veer into truly groan-worthy territories like the reality of Africa's influence on Jazz, or Nazis, or this latest discussion about Fusion. To try to use Michael Brecker and Dave Leibman as examples of whatever negative point yr trying to make about Pop or European Jazz truly displays a fundamental misunderstanding of modern Jazz, hardly worthy of being part of a thread that has the words 'Jazz Aficionado' in it's title. I mean, you wanna use Kenny G, or Nagee, or the Rippingtons as negative stereotypes, have at it! But Michael and David? As usual, it's hard to tell with R2id whether he's truly as ignorant as he's trying to portray himself or is he simply trollin' (again!). Anyhow, I'll let you guys get back to it, have fun!;)

****Chuck Mangione was big in the seventies. Feels So Good in particular. Not too deep, but I always enjoy his stuff when I hear it.*****

Agree Completely. Happy music.

Cheers

No! We are talking about the seventies.