100 Essential Jazz Albums

[TheHealer]

From The New Yorker magazine

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/05/19/080519on_onlineonly_remnick?currentPage=1

[Bill McCloskey]

The associated article on Phil Schapp is a good read for all of us who have screamed at our car radios for him to please shut up and play the tunes.

[xricci]

hmm... one new release after the year 2000. another example (think ken burns jazz) where a more specific title would have better served jazz. a title like "essential jazz recordings from 1920 to 1960" would prove more useful to everyone, especially newbies who are searching for "best of" lists online.

:soapbox

[marxmarvelous]

I'm just happy to the NYer writing about jazz again.

[xricci]

I'm just happy to the NYer writing about jazz again.

you're right and i think i got up on the wrong side of the bed today. to his credit, he did preface the list with...

Since the nineteen-seventies, jazz has been branching out in so many directions that you would need to list at least another hundred recordings, by the likes of Steve Coleman, Stanley Jordan, Joe Lovano, Jacky Terrasson, John Zorn, David Murray, Avishai Cohen, Bela Fleck, Eliane Elias, Roy Hargrove, Dave Douglas, Matthew Shipp, Gonzalo Rubalcaba, Fat Kid Wednesdays, and many, many others. There is a suggestion below of the dazzling scope of contemporary jazz, but the focus is on the classic jazz that is Schaap's specialty.

[Jakeweiser]

I think the entire concept of a top 100 essential recordings is bogus to begin with. If you were to compile what I think an essential list the language would need to be reviewed. I think you would need to set limits. You could have a top 100 essential Bebop recordings, top 100 essential hard bop etc. Which means, in a musical genre as diverse as Jazz you have to start etting limits.

Things like

No more then 4 albums by a given artist as a leader.

Something like that helps a lot, for instance you could still cover the Miles Davis gambit with 4 albums, Birth of the Cool, Kind of Blue, Miles Smiles and Bitches Brew for example. Or Coltrane, Blue Trane, Giant Steps, Love Supreme, Ascension for example. Now there are plenty of other worth wild albums by those guys, we all know that. But I think the goal should be to expose more musicians rather then harping on those names that are house hold jazz names, even to casual fans.

As well as Mike's comment on nothing current on the list, my huge problem with Jazz these days is how fans are far to nostalgic for their own good. The thread lately "the most talented decade of jazz" just says it all. It hurts the music because people are unwilling to check out modern day stuff, even if it's in a traditional vein. "Modern jazz doesn't swing" or something like that, I dunno. While I don't shit on anyone for their taste in music, far be it for me to do that, I have no authority. I just find it disheartening to all the guys that are actually playing this music that people aren't hip to a lot of amazing music being made because it's not released on Bluenote or Impulse.

end rant.

[xricci]

As well as Mike's comment on nothing current on the list, my huge problem with Jazz these days is how fans are far to nostalgic for their own good. The thread lately "the most talented decade of jazz" just says it all. It hurts the music because people are unwilling to check out modern day stuff, even if it's in a traditional vein. "Modern jazz doesn't swing" or something like that, I dunno.

couldn't agree more, jake. jazz is in a new golden age (http://www.theroot.com/id/46396) and no one knows about it. i like jazz of the 40s, 50s, 60s and even some recordings of the 70s :), but my ears are tuned for contemporary sounds; the sounds of my time. when someone tells me "new jazz doesn't swing" i immediately think the person hasn't been exposed to the newer sounds. but who can blame them--you don't hear new jazz on the radio, mainstream media doesn't cover it--that god for the internet and web technologies like relational linking.

[HutchFan]

I think that simply changing the titles of these sorts of lists would be a move in the right direction. Too often they throw around words like "Essential," "Best," or "Most Important." I think these sorts of terms are almost meaningless when it comes to thinking about music -- especially as you approach contemporary music.

I have to admit that I think these sorts of lists are fascinating. But I think that are certainly a reflection of the tastes and predilections of the authors. That's no knock on them. But I think everyone should acknowledge that. Heck, even the most knowledgable and enlightened students of jazz history and musicians would all come up with different lists. Sure, some things may be common to most lists. But others would be unique. And that's precisely what makes jazz (and ALL music!) so interesting: the subjective element.

So rather than "Best" or "Most Important" why not title these sorts of lists with terms like "100 Pathways Into Jazz" or even "100 Recordings Worth Hearing." There's so much less implicit "canonizing" going on with these sorts of titles. It also makes it easier to add newer, contemporary recordings to the list, because we don't expect that everything on the list will necessarily become a "classic" (for what that term is worth!).

Last thought. Any list -- even the very best ones, with the sorts of constraints and criteria that you mention, Jake (and I agree wholeheartedly, btw) -- are merely representative. We all would have lost interest a long time ago if this wonderful music that we love could be reduced to something so finite as a list.

[jazzcritic]

There are outstanding current CDs, but are they worthy of being labeled "essential" compared to releases that have stood the test of time?

I have better uses for my time than to read or compose one.

[tpt1]

Some "jazz buff" I am. I only own 8 of those titles. :shrug:

[Bluebrew]

100 Jazz albums that I like the best but am too lazy to write down. Anyway everyone's llst would be diffeent.

[Manteca]

What? There are two Ornette Coleman releases, and neither of them is "The Shape of Jazz to Come"? Are they insane? Maybe I'm just biased because that was the first jazz album I ever bought, but come on! It's a classic innovative album by one of jazz's all time greats.
:angry3: