Best year in Jazz?

[murphythecat]

Originally Posted by flat5

Jazz is wide and we all have different tastes.
I find the topic mildly interesting but mostly silly.
I'd have to spend a lot of time and thought to TRY to answer the question using my bias set.

well, its a general rule to try to add something interesting to the conversation, and well your comment is not. In every forum, you always see someone bringing is "opinion" about how stupid the thread is, ect.

I also dont beleive that we "all have different taste". there have been better years in jazz then others, but I still get your comment, but I do really think that your comment was :"mildly interesting but mostly silly."

[murphythecat]

Originally Posted by AHP

There is perhaps a case to be made for 1985 for the 80s, with such gems as

Song X (Pat Metheny/Ornette Coleman)
Aura (Miles Davis) - easilly Miles' best comeback years record
The State of the Tenor (Joe Henderson)
The Sixth Sense (Don Pullen)
Black Codes from the Underground (W Marsalis)
J Mood (W Marsalis)

As for pre-50s its harder to say, because of artists not producing albums as such, but 1947 was a great year for bebop, with many of Bird's Savoys/Dials & Monk's Blue Notes being recorded. Good period for Ellington too.

how often do you guys really listen to 1947 jazz? yeah parker is a genius and when I discovered him I listened to him for two weeeks straight, but I move on eventually and nowadays I cant stand him more then a hour tops in a row.

for me, the best year is 59 and the best year in jazz is mostly from 54 to 64

[walkin]

Originally Posted by murphythecat

how often do you guys really listen to 1947 jazz?

The pre `50s era does get some play from me but the poor recording quality of that time does`nt make it easy as listening to the hi fi era of the `50s on up

[HutchFan]

Originally Posted by murphythecat

how often do you guys really listen to 1947 jazz? yeah parker is a genius and when I discovered him I listened to him for two weeeks straight, but I move on eventually and nowadays I cant stand him more then a hour tops in a row.

I love Ellington's 1947-52 Columbia recordings. They aren't even in print, but they're fantastic. That's just one example.

I listen to "old stuff" all the time. From the 1920's to the present. Really.

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE jazz from the mid-50's to mid-60's. It was an EXTREMELY fertile period. But I think there's so much other, equally wonderful stuff out there -- both before and after. And I think we're short-changing ourselves if we ignore it!

[HutchFan]

Originally Posted by flat5

No negative opinions. Is that one of the rules?
Is being politically correct one of the rules too?

All of us are free to have our opinions -- as long as we recognize that's what they are.

I don't see what "political correctness" has to do with any of this. We're just having a discussion. The point is to have fun, right?

[HutchFan]

Originally Posted by AHP

There is perhaps a case to be made for 1985 for the 80s, with such gems as

Song X (Pat Metheny/Ornette Coleman)
Aura (Miles Davis) - easilly Miles' best comeback years record
The State of the Tenor (Joe Henderson)
The Sixth Sense (Don Pullen)
Black Codes from the Underground (W Marsalis)
J Mood (W Marsalis)

Yeah, another great year! I would add these to your list from 1985:

Chet Baker - Strollin'
Kenny Barron - Scratch
John Carter - Castles of Ghana
Freddie Hubbard & Woody Shaw - Double Take - why isn't this in print?!?!
Abdullah Ibrahim - Water from an Ancient Well
Marc Johnson - Bass Desires
Lee Konitz Quartet - Ideal Scene
Mel Lewis Orchestra - 20 Years at the Village Vanguard
David Liebman & Richie Beirach - Double Edge
James Newton - The African Flower
Michel Petrucciani - Pianism
Sphere - On Tour
John Zorn - The Big Gundown: John Zorn Plays the Music of Ennio Morricone

I'd particularly point to Castles of Ghana and Bass Desires as some of the "best" music of the decade. At the very least, both would make my short-list of all time favorite jazz records.

[murphythecat]

Originally Posted by HutchFan

I love Ellington's 1947-52 Columbia recordings. They aren't even in print, but they're fantastic. That's just one example.

I listen to "old stuff" all the time. From the 1920's to the present. Really.

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE jazz from the mid-50's to mid-60's. It was an EXTREMELY fertile period. But I think there's so much other, equally wonderful stuff out there -- both before and after. And I think we're short-changing ourselves if we ignore it!

men, you gusy just a too pro for me. Just from 54 to 74, theres so much jazz that I even doubt I will listen to the 80's jazz.
Ive listened to the window in the window from Wheeler yesterday and I really think this is a masterpieces, but really, are there really in the 80's, 90's and 00's anything remotly close to what coltrane, monk, miles, morgan, montgomery, green, bud were doing. What I hear from the 80's and up is not straight forward jazz and I dont like that, I find the jazz sounds corny and lack of focus. I should maybe explore this period. I sort of gave up on my exploration and when I listen to jazz, coltrane and monk and miles are pretty much the only guys I still listen. but just htose three, theres so much. Monk for me is the straight forward guy even if you dont agree, I dont know, from all his band from 54 to 62, for me this represent jazz at its most basic elements a bit like the atlanti period of coltrane. I cannot emphasize more on the atlantic coltrane jazz; how perfect are those record, how powerfull elvin is, I even like mccoy work. one could only listen to the atlantic record and pretend that he knows jazz. this coltrane period is beyond. whatever, back to the thread

[escher]

Originally Posted by HutchFan

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE jazz from the mid-50's to mid-60's. It was an EXTREMELY fertile period. But I think there's so much other, equally wonderful stuff out there -- both before and after. And I think we're short-changing ourselves if we ignore it!

I hope it's true and i'm not certainly an expert on modern jazz, but frankly there are very few albums after the seventies that I would consider on the same level of those of the fifties and the sixties. I remember when I discovered the polls of a lot of the most famous critics about the best jazz albums of the eighties and the nineties and i listened a lot of those albums, and sadly my impression was that the average level was vastly inferior.
Anyway, my favorite years are probably 1964 and 1961.

[murphythecat]

Originally Posted by princeplanet

from wiki:

1959

Dave Brubeck - Time Out (Columbia)
Ornette Coleman - The Shape of Jazz to Come (Atlantic)
John Coltrane - Giant Steps (Atlantic)
Miles Davis - Kind of Blue (Columbia)
Johnny Hodges and Duke Ellington - Back to Back: Duke Ellington and Johnny Hodges Play the Blues (Verve)
Milt Jackson and John Coltrane - Bags & Trane (Atlantic)
Charles Mingus - Mingus Ah Um (Columbia)
Art Pepper - Art Pepper + Eleven – Modern Jazz Classics (Contemporary/OJC)
Horace Silver - "Blowin' the Blues Away," Finger Poppin'" (Blue Note)
Cannonball Adderley & John Coltrane - "Quintet in Chicago" (Polygram)

These are some of the big guns, although I'd put Cannon's "Something Else" in there as well...

The best year in Jazz? So long as no-one claims to speak for us all, and that we're cool with each of us merely expressing their preference, ill informed or otherwise, then yes, I can safely say I prefer 1959 to any other.

But next year it might be 1964! Maybe one day I'll eventually catch up to the 70's or even beyond, but as I started out liking post 70's jazz, I don't think I'll be going back there soon. To me, it seems as though my tastes have actually evolved (yes!) by searching back through the 60's and mid to late 50's.

I think I could spend a lifetime or 2 exploring, studying, playing and enjoying my fave Jazz from say '53 to '69. So sue me.....

my feeling exactly. 59 is the peak but doesnt go downfall until 71' for me, but I only go in the 70's for miles fusion stuff and barely go beyond 67 for the rest of jazz.
what are your favorite record from 64?

[HutchFan]

Originally Posted by escher

I hope it's true and i'm not certainly an expert on modern jazz, but frankly there are very few albums after the seventies that I would consider on the same level of those of the fifties and the sixties. I remember when I discovered the polls of a lot of the most famous critics about the best jazz albums of the eighties and the nineties and i listened a lot of those albums, and sadly my impression was that the average level was vastly inferior.

I don't think that jazz from the 70's (and after, up to the present day) is inferior in any way to the music from 50's and 60's. Of course, the music has changed. But I like hearing that change, that evolution.

I guess we can to agree to disagree.

No harm in that, of course. Ultimately, the only good reason for listening ANY music is that we enjoy it.

[murphythecat]

Originally Posted by HutchFan

I love Ellington's 1947-52 Columbia recordings. They aren't even in print, but they're fantastic. That's just one example.

I listen to "old stuff" all the time. From the 1920's to the present. Really.

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE jazz from the mid-50's to mid-60's. It was an EXTREMELY fertile period. But I think there's so much other, equally wonderful stuff out there -- both before and after. And I think we're short-changing ourselves if we ignore it!

see this I cant beleive. this is not a objective statement. there is not another year like 59 or 64 in jazz. maybe YOU prefer another year, but objectively theres no way 85 or 75 can compare to 59 and 64. just no way.

Originally Posted by HutchFan

All of us are free to have our opinions -- as long as we recognize that's what they are.

I don't see what "political correctness" has to do with any of this. We're just having a discussion. The point is to have fun, right?

I disagree, objectively, your list of 1985 jazz compared to a 1959 list is a bit hard to swallow.

so in your opinion, both years are as good?

I dont have any purpose actually and I like that you point other less known important years. 2009 was unknown for me and I like what I hear from Hollenbeck, a lot actually. I will also look at your 85 recommendation and 75, but god damn, equally as good is too much a stretch.
nothing like kind of blue or giant steps or ah um or something else. god damn :P

[xybert]

I find much to enjoy across all decades, but i can see how someone might only like the jazz of a particular era. Take Lee Konitz for example. His career has spanned multiple decades; i enjoy his music from all periods but i can easily see how someone might only enjoy his fifties stuff for example.

Another random thought: getting into Sonny Rollins and Hank Mobley this year really made me fully understand for the first time why a lot of people had such an adverse reaction to Ornette's sound and/or The New Thing at the time. Rollins in particular strikes me as the epitome of Jazz, and if you had it in your head as such circa 1958, Ornette must have been like drinking lemonade after brushing your teeth for a lot of people. Point being i guess there's nothing wrong with that, having an ideal in your mind and sticking to it. It really comes back to ''i like what i like".

A great thing about a thread like this is that, at least for me, it highlights that there is no 'be all and end all' year or decade for jazz. At least depending on who you talk to

[HutchFan]

Originally Posted by murphythecat

see this I cant beleive. this is not a objective statement. there is not another year like 59 or 64 in jazz. maybe YOU prefer another year, but objectively theres no way 85 or 75 can compare to 59 and 64. just no way. I disagree, objectively, your list of 1985 jazz compared to a 1959 list is a bit hard to swallow.

Come on. There is no OBJECTIVITY in music. Music is not math or accounting or a football score. Maybe more people agree with you that the recordings made in a given year are preferable to another year -- but that doesn't make it "objectively correct." No more than someone can say that Dickens is "superior" to Austen as a novelist -- or Rembrandt is "objectively better" than Picasso. It's silly.

Our preferences and predilections determine what we like best, no matter how much we might want to claim the high ground of objectivity.

[1/2 Baked, Not Fried]

Totally with you, Hutch. In fact, I’m glad you said this, since I’ve sort of been biting my tongue watching this thread develop. No offense to anyone intended (since I used to be in the “1955-65 was the greatest era in jazz history” camp myself) but over time, I’ve come to realize that what I used to perceive as objective superiority was really nothing other than subjective personal taste. I.e., I preferred jazz that swung in 4, was grounded in the blues, and followed a conventional format (head, solo, solo, solo, head, etc.). Music outside that box was outside my comfort zone, and therefore (in my opinion) inferior.

And while I still dig music from that era, and listen to it with some regularity, over time, my tastes evolved (and ears expanded) to the point that I now find myself listening to other eras as much, and in some cases, more than ’55-’65. As others have already mentioned, the ‘00’s (including the current decade) have, in my opinion, produced probably the deepest, widest, most virtuosic, incredible jazz ever produced. If someone disagrees, and thinks the old stuff is head-and-shoulders better, I’m fine with that. Listen to whatever floats your boat. Seriously -- life’s too short to listen to stuff that makes your hair curl. Just recognize that what we’re talking about here is subjective. There’s nothing “objectively superior” about music produced in 1956 versus 1976. It’s a matter of taste, pure and simple.

Personally, I think it’s all good. Maybe I’m easy to please that way, but I’ve found plenty of music to dig in every decade since the ‘50’s. What I find ironic, is that in many cases, it’s the same cats that were making music in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s that continued putting out stellar albums in the ’70, ‘80’s, and beyond – often in the same straightahead format. E.g., Oscar Peterson put out more 4-star albums after 1970 than he did before 1970 (at least according to allmusic (which I realize is also subjective). Still, he never abandoned his sound – i.e., never went electric or funky or jazz-rock or what have you. Yet, few seem to recognize anything he did after the early ‘60’s. Same goes for a lot of other guys, too. So much so, that I’ve considered starting a separate thread over this very topic – i.e., post 1970 jazz that even that most ardent purists would approve of. There’s a lot more than most people realize.

What did change in the late ‘60’s is the economics of jazz, perhaps even more than the music itself. Big labels abandoned mainstream jazz. The mainstream guys fled to Europe and/or signed on small independent labels. A lot of their stuff never received wide distribution. Some never made it to cd. Many others were never re-issued after their initial run. Therefore, it’s harder to find that stuff. You have to hunt it down. Owning a turntable, I have an advantage, I think, in that I can still find a lot of that stuff on vinyl, cheap, which really helped open me up to all that’s out there.

It’s not unlike the rock scene. A lot of people think the ‘60’s and ‘70’s were the golden age of rock and that everything produced since then is garbage. Totally untrue. What’s true is that the ‘60’s and early ‘70’s were the golden age of “major label” rock. Ever since, most of the good stuff’s been produced on small independent labels. Harder to find, but definitely out there.

Anyway, a couple of cents worth of one man’s opinion. Peace, love, and all that . . . :-)

[princeplanet]

Originally Posted by 1/2 Baked, Not Fried

.

And while I still dig music from that era, and listen to it with some regularity, over time, my tastes evolved (and ears expanded) to the point that I now find myself listening to other eras as much, and in some cases, more than ’55-’65.

Yup, it's obviously a subjective call, just as the use of the word "evolved" is. Like I said earlier, I spent 10 years listening to post 70's Jazz, I was young and liked feeling "modern", the old stuff where guys used to wear suits seemed dorky! As I grew older I felt my tastes "evolving" to the point of appreciating the finer details of ensemble playing as well as the soloist styles of the earlier cats. Complexity and subtlety within simpler forms, retaining the swing from the past but pushing the envelope to near breaking. Around mid 60's when the beat got broken up, and later with the sounds becoming rock influenced I realized that something had decayed, from being over ripe for too long. Of course it had to happen, every golden epoch in the arts passes, in it's wake leaving people arguing as to what constitutes a "golden epoch".

To some that epoch is now. But not for me, I even dig the "attitude" in 50's and '60's Jazz (is there a modern "attitude"?). Heck I've even grown to dig the old look, the suits , the stove pipes and skinny ties! And I don't feel unhip for being a classicist, if anything I feel more hip. I mean, just with Miles alone from 55 to 65, it just doesn't get any hipper, right? ....