A Lark Ascending

Not at all. I find the 60s Westbrook's, Ardley's, Collier's etc very distinctive. But, to my ears, they sound like the start of a journey. I suspect I'm just sceptical about classicism - that tendency to see all that is good in a rose-tinted past. Which is not the same as enjoying that past as part of a later continuum. No imperative to listen beyond that time - but beyond its historical significance as a place where a lot changed, I'm not convinced it's products tower over what followed. Part of my perspective come from not having heard most of these 60s/early 70s recordings until much later. I tend to identify with the music of the mid to late-70s....the batch of Oguns in particular. You could probably unearth posts by me from the early days of this board or the Blue Note Board pleading for the reissue of this music that I knew only as legend. When it did get reissued I found quite a bit of it interesting but hardly earth-shattering. I'm reminded of when the Rendell-Carr reissues appeared in the noughties. Brian Morton wrote a piece in Jazz Journal International saying he was underwhelmed. The irrate letters to the editor that followed...

I don't doubt the importance of the 50s-70s in terms of radical change - a confluence of all sorts of influences. One of the most interesting is the impact of the Welfare State and educational reform. All those musicians from ordinary backgrounds turning up in arts schools and the like, getting a chance to indulge their passions rather being stuck in a grinding job. I suspect a lot of us made it into the middle class as a result of those changes. I just wonder if in being spellbound by the excitement of those times we don't rather over-inflate the actual value of the recordings (which is not me saying they are poor - I like loads of them and am as keen as the next man to pick up the reissues. I know...you get completely lost in subjectivity at that point). They'll always seem like gold dust to those who lived through it. But in a blindfold test to someone sympathetic to jazz but without those memories?

Oh, I accept that we all tend to warm to the music we grew up with and have a perfectly justifiable prejudice towards it. I default to the rock music of the mid-60s to mid-70s in the full knowledge that there has been a wealth of excellent rock music since that is beyond my ken. You were there when the music was happening - of course it sounds more vivid (just like the politics of the 60s and 70s seems more vivid to me than that of today [even though the stakes are just as high]) Incidentally - 'The Cortege' gets my Westbrook vote. I like Metropolis but I don't get the sense that the blowing bits are his natural voice - he's trying things out. Everything seems to come together for me in The Cortege. I suppose what I'm getting at is seeing younger listeners getting excited about Hum Dono or Dejeuner rather than what is happening now. Seems like a learnt response to me. These are the classics...we're supposed to like them. But if you weren't around then, I'm not sure they do stand up as strongly. That's not an argument for more recent listeners not listening to them - the historic origins of any music are fascinating. All subjective...and there's about as much chance of reaching a definitive answer as there is about the quality of mp3, CD and vinyl!

Roger, I could name you ten UK records since 2000 that I I enjoy at least as much of those (don't worry, I won't!). I enjoy all ten of those you mention - but to my ears only the McLaughlin is exceptional. Westbrook, Tippett (especially Tippett - DTYBYWL still sounds like a student piece to me) and Surman, again to these ears, did much stronger things later on than those you mention. I think there is a tendency to deify the early work of musicians in popular music (and equally the first works within trends or genres). As the catalogue lengthens it is rare for a musician to make such a stylistic change as to grab attention again so what comes after gets neglected. Even if it might refine that original charge into something more broad and considered. Funny, but classical music seems to have little problem in giving credence to a composers later compositions - in fact the 'late' periods often get the highest praise. Mark (mjazzg), Does music have to be innovative to be significant? Maybe that's the issue. Music with 'novelty' (not meaning that as a put down) gets noticed, that which just evolves slowly gets passed by. With free/improv you are in a different world (even though it overlaps) - it just seems more internationalist. The other point I'd make is the US non-avant jazz is no more innovative than British jazz - neoclassicism or post-modernism rules. Yet it plays to international audiences.

Listened this morning whilst planning my work for the week. Sounded exactly as I expected - except more melodic than I'd imagined. Not something I could sit and listen to on its own but a nice 'ambient' recording. I notice Jarrett has recorded some Lou Harrison pieces. Maybe this is partially coming out of that 'American Maverick' tradition delving into non-Western music.

Probably exposure too. I've been able to see a lot of contemporary UK jazz first in Nottingham in the 80s and 90s, then at the festivals at Brecon, Cheltenham, Appleby and Bath in the 90s/00s and over the last twenty years or so in Sheffield and Nottingham (and St Ives!!!!) again. So I've always been very supportive of it. Though I have noticed that since the festivals started drying up about 5 years ago I've started to lose my awareness of the newer performers, tending to go out for those I'd got to know up to around 2010. I've also got increasingly wary of the more Indie-rock/noise/jazz groups that I was seeing more of at Cheltenham the last few times I went. Not my cup of cocoa. I need a bit more than 'edginess' to sustain by attention.

Rub it in! (One of those smiley things)

Thanks for the review, Sidewinder. Would have like to have been there. Back in November he did a few live pieces with pianist Steve Hamilton on the Jazz Record Requests broadcast from the Barbican. Included an astonishing solo rumination on Round Midnight. Still firing on all cylinders.

There's a video up with the headliners at Cheltenham - had to do a screenprint to catch the poster at the end with the main names. http://www.cheltenhamfestivals.com/jazz/news-2/2015/02/cheltjazzfest-line-up-revealed/ Looks disappointing again. Sun Ra and Lee Konitz with Dave Douglas if you want to see legends; Scofield, Lovano (not together!), Medeski Martin & Wood for hipster jazz. Sure there will be more interesting things in the small print. Then: Caro Emerald (who? - might be a hat act), Rumer (heard a nice song by her a year or so back while waiting for my car to be serviced), Wilko Johnson (glad he's better and I'm sure he'd be fun but..), Martha Reeves and the Vandellas (surely not dancing in the streets?), Average White Band etc Looks like a nice Soul/Pop/World/Jazz festival - but not a lot for the more jazz-centred listener to get excited about.

It's not the relative popularity of UK jazz I'm getting at. It's that once you get to people who listen to UK jazz, why it's the 50s-70s that dominate? I appreciate that some listeners enjoy the sounds of an earlier era and don't much care for what came after. But I often notice people who regularly listen to international jazz that is stylistically broad and from across the eras come to a halt in the late 70s where UK jazz is concerned. Again, not saying there is any imperative to listen to the later music...just wonder why it is invisible. You get something similar in classical music - the domination of established 18th/19thC classical music with some 20thC names who are closely connected to that tradition (certainly the case in concert halls near me). Very different to popular music where the emphasis is very much on the new. I suspect I have an odd take on this as I only came to jazz in the late-70s so never experienced the 'classic' era of UK jazz first hand. I enjoy exploring it (as I enjoy exploring 18th and 19thC classical music). But I often find myself wondering with things like the Rendell-Carr band...'Well that was fun...but I'm not sure it's that special.' Usual disclaimer about personal taste.

Not true. I came of age just after the Beatles (they broke up as I was getting interested in music). Didn't stop me getting interested in jazz in general and British jazz in particular. And there's an endless stream of new, young jazz musicians appearing. Jazz did not have the same level of popularity in the UK that it had in the trad boom but... There is a very successful circuit of UK jazz that has been in existence since the 40s/50s. All sorts of genres. I could go to jazz gigs most weeks. Some of the music from the 50s-70s has been deified. After that it gets some attention on the European continent, little beyond. I can understand it not penetrating the States - there's so much native music to enjoy; and the States are generally indifferent to the culture of the rest of the world. Just find it interesting that 'classic' UK jazz gets attention and then interest falls off. [This interest in the 50s-70s is not just a UK thing - think of the number of references you get to someone like Lars Gullin compared with more recent Scandinavian jazz].

I've never heard a record that is 'essential'. But I found this record really exciting. As someone who came to Jarrett around that time - and I was not yet a jazz listener - it reminded me of why he grabbed my attention. By comparison his development since c. 1980 has revealed few lightbulb moments. Lots of enjoyable music - but nothing of the frisson I felt then.

Don't think that is the case. There's plenty of interest in recent US jazz - everything from Breckers and Murrays to the multitude of US jazz musicians currently performing. They fill halls in the UK whenever they appear. I'm not doing a 'who's best?' thing here. The influence of the pioneers goes without question. Subjective preference always has to be factored in. And I understand the greater interest in US jazz...it is the land of the music's birth. I'm just curious why an international audience seems to give up after the 70s. My perspective...and I accept that is an interpretation based on subjective experience...is that there is a vast richness of UK jazz beyond the 70s that is at least as exciting as what happened then. I'd go further and argue that some of the recordings that have been lionised from the 50s-70s are quite tame compared with what recent musicians have produced. Which is not a criticism of the originals...breaking the mould is a tough job. I just feel classicism in general tends to over-inflate the value of pioneer music.

Thanks for responses re: Spirits. Have dl a copy.

There always seems to be considerable international interest and regard for the Hayes', Colliers', Harriott's, Westbrook's, Surman's, Ardley's, Brotherhoods' etc etc; yet very little from the 70s through to today outside of the UK itself. Even with players with long careers, it's the early records that seem to excite most interest. Is it just that the early period has been codified and 'masters' and 'masterpieces' approved and validated? Whilst the music since is so varied, largely unheard and hard to get a grip on as a result. [The obvious exception being the free/improv or whatever you want to call it end of things. There just seems to be a more internationalist approach to music there generally]. Edit: Health Warning - this is not a plea to listen to more recent UK jazz - I know there are all sorts of reasons why individuals choose to listen to A rather than B. Just curious as to the general neglect of more recent UK jazz beyond those of us who get to hear it regularly in situ, while the older stuff gets frequent plaudits.

It was indeed. Wasn't it one of Charles Fox's Radio 3 shows though - 'Jazz Today'? That show also used a track from Henry Lowther 'Child Song' for a while too. Suspect you are right - I get muddled. Stan Sulzmann's 'On Loan with Gratitude' and Loose Tubes' 'Yellow Hill' were also used on those programmes for a while. But which was which! Here's another great sideman record: Contains a version of my favourite Surman tune, the downward spiralling 'Tess'. Also on 'Stranger than Fiction'. I once read an interview where Surman, usually the most gracious of commentators, mentioned how he did not remember his teaming with Vitous with affection (don't think the music was the problem).

This is another overlooked record - Tales of the Algonquin gets all the attention but I prefer this. Some of his Thomas Hardy pieces here - definitely has that link with early 20thC English music. And a couple of superb sideman dates: Special mention for his central role in Westbrook's Citadel Room 315 - Outgoing Song especially. The latter was the theme music of one of the BBC jazz programmes in the late 70s - possibly Jazz on 2 on Sunday nights.

Huge, huge catalogue to mine in many different approaches. Much of his recent work is solo (with overdubs) or unusual, almost classical collaborations. If you want the Surman of Extrapolation the things by The Trio from the 70s are probably the nearest - fiery, abstract improvisation. But it's worth remembering that he is also drawn to folk music and choral music - that side of his personality often comes out in a way that doesn't always appeal to jazz listeners. One of the most exciting concerts I ever heard was Surman's occasional quartet with Chris Laurence, John Taylor and John Marshall. You can hear that combination on what is probably my favourite Surman disc:

Tipping is anti-social. Use the nearest recycling centre.

Can only find a gloss on those concerts - they look interesting, like they are going beyond the obvious. I suspect I'll have gone to ground in Cornwall by then!

Not a ballet but I always hear The Song of the Nightingale alongside Petrushka/Firebird. It has a similar late-19thC exoticism/Orientalism. One of the joys of the big complete Stravinsky box is the full performance of the original opera of The Nightingale. You can also hear Les Noces in some of the vocals there - think it came from around the same time. I could imagine a very nice 'Total Immersion' weekend based around Stravinsky - mixing up well known things like Petrushka with the unfamiliar; large orchestral with chamber and vocal; early, neo-classical and post WWII. Would be delightful.

Didn't he get killed by The Moor? Don't think I've ever heard this live - one I'd like to hear. Very colourful score. In many ways still of the Rimsky world yet the rhythms and/or accents are already looking well ahead. Very singable/whistleable tunes throughout...except I get caught out by the irregularity. I heard the suite from The Firebird in Oxford a couple of years back but don't recall a performance of the full ballet. To be honest, I only play my full recording occasionally - a lot of it is very quiet. Perhaps needs the visuals. Whereas Petrushka seems to me to be able to stand alone in a concert performance.

Yes, there are tremendous bargains to be had. I'm in the market myself if it's music I don't already have (like the Eisler box I got before Xmas). But I've a bit of a thing about not duplicating pieces I've bought where possible (I've no interest in following celebrity conductors/performers). I'll only duplicate if I have an old recording of something and become aware of a newer version that might sound clearer (or in a few cases, where I can sense there's more to the music than I'm getting from the recording I have). I'm relatively new to DVD opera - I've rarely bought DVDs of any sort as I rarely watch a film more than once. But a couple of years back I bought 'The Ring' and was utterly transfixed by seeing it instead of just hearing it. Since then I've built up a bit of a collection (mainly 20thC but I succumbed to a Rameau bug too) and find the visuals really enhance the experience for me. There's not a huge amount of later 20thC opera on DVD/Blu-ray but I imagine it will become increasingly common for productions of new operas to be filmed as well. George Benjamin's 'Written on Skin' seemed to appear not long after its staging. Seems an obvious way to get a piece of music out beyond the limited audience able to get to an opera house (cost and location can make it a rare treat for those not living close to a centre).

Sounds good. If I didn't have the Teldec I'd consider the Sony. As it is, I'll pick things up as they catch my eye (or ear!) in single discs. I have a disc of the 'Etudes' (which I seem to recall are not approved of by Those Who Know), and an annoying vocal disc (nothing wrong with the music, but the download sequencing was botched with clicks between tracks...I think that's Sony). I prefer to watch opera on DVD - there is a DVD of 'Le Grand Macabre' which I will probably try at some point.