K1969

I find lateef's two CTI efforts duff. But then again they were a lot better than other stuff from the same era. It's just that he had a long way to fall. I held the guy (and still do) in such esteem before that it exaggerated the the incline of the decline if you see what I mean. This one below I found unlistenable but not in a sell out way - it's not commercial in the sense that it makes your head hurt when you listen to it. I'm wondering if I win second prize in Teasing the Korean's contest ??? Regarding Joe Farrel, I haven't heard his Warner Brothers stuff but I hear it's terrible. However I feel that he had already started to nose dive with his later sides from '75 onwards - and yes on CTI again. LP's like Canned Funk and Upon this rock. They have thier moments from a sampling perspective but the Creed Taylor sound by this time is the epitomy of over production. The title and cover to "canned funk" kind of admits what's wrong - a really factory-processed sound that sucks all the soul out of the music. I really felt at some moments that my ears would bleed just listening to it, no kidding. Still hard not to give into curiosity with a cover like that:

Eddie harris wrote A "Theme in search of commercial". This cover's like a "soundtrack in search of a film".

I find the chorus melody a bit anoying but it's redeemed by the fact that he's singing about a psychopath routinely hacking peoples to death with a surgical mallet. Nice and twisted. I wonder if he drank milk and listened to Beethoven?

You really hit the nail on the head there. Even during the Beatles period McCartney perpetrated some appauling crud: "Hello Goodbye," "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," "Ob-La-De," "Fixing A Hole"---signs of things to come. Hey, Fixing a Hole's a brilliant tune!!! I'd replace it with When I'm sixty four in the list of crud McCartney

I hadn't looked at it that way. I see what you mean. Like the very act of asking the question about standards is to be stuck in yesterday's paradigm. (long time since I used that word). OK, on with the new....

amen

Rock wasn't dead in 1980 which is where my focus is. That said I'm happy to let jazz and rock RIP if it means saving this thread, though I get the feeling that I've just killed it!!

Jazz was dominant commercially? R&B "took over" in the 60's? wtf...? Generally speaking, it takes TIME for songs to become standards. Sampling tunes from musicals/films was being done for YEARS before R&B existed. And jazz musicians have traditionally preferred more complex changes to work from. The blues had been there all along in jazz, and thus much of the rock and R&B lexicon (the blues element) was there already. Regardless of all that, you talk as though the genre of "rock" has been completely ignored by the entire world of jazz, which is ridiculous. I think that things tend to evolve naturally over time. I think musicians will do what they do, irrespective of how much attention they get from writers and critics (I don't buy your assertion that the writers and trustees are the all-powerful beings you make them out to be). The chips will fall where they will. I don't see the writers and trustees are the all-powerful beings - if you see my previous posts in this thread I said, like you, that musicians carry on regardless of the writers, freely taking inspiration from any source they want to. I've probably overstated a few things here but you can't deny that rock stole more of the limelight from jazz than any other musical form. I'm not claiming this - it's just what I've seen and read about in countless sources of which the Abbey Lincoln reference is just one. Maybe she's just talking for her self but she seemed to feel that she was talking as a spokesperson for jazz. I just think it's very strange that we stop counting standards from 1980 onwards and can't seem to find a clear reason. This was my suggestion, slap dash though it was.

Definately!!! I'd add Sly Stone to that list.

Everything I've read suggests that this is a dubious claim. Guy It's not my personal view of musical history, rather an assertion of the view that jazz had of itself back in the days of Bebop, 52nd street and all that...er, jazz. I think that in its heyday, when it was jazz rather than rock or dance that packed the night clubs, that may well have a been a prevalent viewpoint (whether factually correct or not).

What??? I don't follow you at all. Are all jazz versions of those tunes vocal interpretations? Do they all use the original chord changes? No. As far as I remember, Frank Strozier didn't try to sing like Marvin Gaye when he recorded "What's Goin' On". I don't know Strozier's version of "What's going on". All the versions I've got sound to me like they use the original chord changes and the same rhythms. Some are vocals. That's also true of "Please send me someone to love". I don't have jazz vocal versions of the others I listed, which is not to say that they don't exist. Uh... they were written and performed by non-jazz musicians? I meant, apart from that. I don't know about a prejudice... I just know you live in your own little obsessed world. Seriously, though, it might be interesting to study your complaint... I suspect you're over-reacting a bit, but I'm too tired to do the research right now. I may well be over-reacting. But it seems to me that R&B, which developed during the war out of Swing, is in a different category to other kinds of music that don't have the same roots, as far as this issue is concerned. Of course, you could extend that comparison to a lot of Broadway type songs that were jazz influenced, but I think the points you and Mike made about those sorts of tunes are reasonable. The point about few jazz standards by jazz musicians making it into the mainstream also raises an interesting issue. If tunes like "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne", "Moanin'", "Work song" and "Sack o' woe", to mention a few off the top of my head, are well performed by R&B or Blues bands/singers, does that count as moving into the mainstream? ie within these terms, is the mainstream simply "not-jazz"? MG I agree with MG. I'd go further. Jazz was the dominant musical force both commercially and artistically up until the 1960s, before rock and RnB "took over". Until then it was acceptable for jazz to appropriate tunes from other spheres be it film, musicals, folk etc. Jazz made it "better music". Jazz was self confident and saw no limits. Non jazz musicians aspired to make it big time in Jazz. Then rock came along like a tsunami and swept away jazz's self confidence. In a televised interview from 10 years back, Abbey Lincoln made no effort to disguise the sheer bitterness she felt, even to this day, towards the Beatles and the era of rock in general. Jazz sales declined in inverse proportion to rock's. Jazz slowly became a cultural "artefact" rather than the music folks got down and danced to. I mean there really was almost a hatred on Lincoln's face when she talked about the effect of rock on the Jazz scene. Now if, Lincoln is anything to go by, (maybe she's just a wild one?), no wonder most attempts to integrate rock and RnB into jazz were met with such scorn by the jazz community. (today it's not scorn but simply indifference/ignorance) The musicals never threatened Jazz's hegemony, nor did films, arabic (Yusef Lateef) or gypsy music (Django). But rock stole Jazz's crown. Covering Hendrix was like sleeping with the devil. Rather appropriating other musical forms, jazz became protectionist. Isn''t there a case to be made for the snobbery as a kind of inverted jealousy, or fear even???? So there's been no new jazz standard since 1980 and only 10 in the 1970s. I can't believe that it's just cos that's "the way it is". It's because the people who proclaim themselves as the trustees of jazz's heritage and the writers of jazz history have stopped tuning in!! They've insulated jazz - thier jazz not all jazz - from the inspiration it could draw from rock and RnB. I don't think that the reason more jazz standards originate from musicals/films rather than rock/RnB is because the former lent itself better to jazz interpretation. Afterall jazz itself has so many different tributaries and forms within itself, that it's more a question of jazz lending itself to other more rigid forms than them lending themselves to jazz. For me, Jazz's relative indifference to rock and RnB is at best arbitrary, or at worst symptomatic of a kind of cultural rivalry that's done it more harm than good.

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right. This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era. Guy Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961 Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs. that's "Kiss" the prince hit , not the glam rockers!!!!!!!!!!! . I'm all for openess in music but I draw the line at men in make up. So I take it you don't listen to the Art Ensemble? Yes but only when I'm alone in the house....

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right. This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era. Guy Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961 Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs. that's "Kiss" the prince hit , not the glam rockers!!!!!!!!!!! . I'm all for openess in music but I draw the line at men in make up.

Any one remember the track called "Teo" of MD's Someday My Prince will come? The sounds seems better than the rest of the LP, , epsecially on the drums. I often wondered if this was because it was a hommage to the producer Teo Macero?

That entire thread is worth reading, because it pretty thoroughly discusses K1969's question. So is this thread. Guy thanks I'll check them out. Just for the record, I searched by "jazz standard" before starting this thread and found nothing of relevance, much to my surprise. There's even a thread somewhere on the limits of Organissimo's search facility - but good luck finding it!

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961 It's a bad state of affairs when you have to wait for Paul Anka to give Oasis "Standard" credibility: Perhaps my naming of Marsalis was unfortunate -- I don't think he (or the "establishment") is responsible for this trend, they are symptoms. I think it's worth keeping in mind that jazz standards don't come only from the world of popular music, but also from jazz itself. And there simply aren't many of those post-1970. Guy That's what I mean - they're just the symptoms of an attitude that pretends that the jazz world stopped spinning - or swinging - to anything new circa 1980.

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right. This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era. Guy Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961 It's a bad state of affairs when you have to wait for Paul Anka to give Oasis "Standard" credibility:

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations" Sounds innocent enough. But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

He used to ba an actor too - bit part roles in blaxpoitation films like Cotton Comes to Harlem. He did a good LP called Live at the Wild Oat, I think

I just found this old thread whilst searching for "Toninho horta" after listening to Aquelas Coisas Todas this moring from his Terra Dos Passaros LP. All I can say is that you lucked out!! Terra Dos Passaros was his first solo LP. It was first issued on a private label before EMI snatched it. But both are rare and very nice. But the main reason I'm posting is for the track Aquelas Coisas Todas (all those things). I could understand people not digging the whole LP, but give this track a second spin if you haven't already. It's a true unsung, diamond. It became a kind of "underground standard" getting picked up by other artists from time to time. During the brazilian craze in London in the 90s it became a DJ cult favourite and went for BIGGGGG $$$. The beautiful, beautiful melody is up there with the gods. The intro is sublime. Horta's accapella emerges from the misty soundscape like a mountain dawn. His voice is reminiscent of Jobim's husky fog-horn style, but more refined. And what a tune! The deceptively low key verse creeps up on you and then the refrain just elevates your whole spirit. OK I'm "Jurek-ing" but listen to it, and it might just stay with you for life..... but be aware, you may be seduced like me into posting some pansy nonsense about how beautiful life can be !!! The rare 1979 vinyl with the plush packaging: The nasty CD reissue (OK sound though)

"Things were picking up for Patton in the summer of 1962, working regularly in Donaldson's group on tour and around New York. At a gig with Lou Donaldson at Minton's Playhouse, Patton's wife, Mary Lois, accused another woman of wanting her husband and a heated argument with the woman ensued. The argument soon turned into an all-out brawl between the two, with Patton himself caught in the middle trying to straighten out the situation. The two women eventually ended up out on the street fighting in front of Minton's. Patton recalled, "She [Mary Lois] grabbed the girl by the hair and threw her in the street. Then she started pulling her hair out, yelling and screaming." The police eventually came and broke up the fight and no arrests were made. Patton insists that he was innocent in the situation and that Mary Lois' jealousy was unfounded. Mary Lois was not convinced, and as Patton said the first time he spoke to me of the situation on January 29, 1999, "that goes into a long, long, drawn out thing." Several days passed, and Mary Lois turned her anger toward Patton. She purchased a .22 caliber rifle. Patton had no idea she had done this and went to sleep early on an off night from gigging after being kept up for three days straight by Mary Lois. He was sleeping on his stomach when Mary Lois put the barrel of the rifle in his lower back and shot Patton at point blank range. The bullet became lodged in his lower back about two inches to the left of his spine, and "at first, they weren't going to take it out. But eventually, they took it out." The events of that night are a blur in Patton's mind, he survived the gunshot, was taken to the hospital, Mary Lois was arrested and that was the end of their marriage of nearly four years. The situation was, obviously, a traumatic one, and Patton did not want to talk about it at all for some time. He has, either consciously or unconsciously, forgotten many of the details of his marriage to Mary Lois, including their exact date of marriage (he thinks it was around 1958, "when I was with Lloyd, Ben [Dixon] was the best man"[96]) and her maiden name. The injury took a serious toll on him physically, and he still feels repercussions from the incident to this day."

great read, thanks Interesting the nation of Islam stuff: the row over the white girl on the cover of That Certain Feeling; the effect that had on BJP's limited output thereafter. Also interesting to know that the tight musical bond between BJP and Alexander was grounded in thier close working relationship: Alexander's description of Patton as "egoless" is just what I had always sensed from his music and role as band leader. Good description of Walker's drumming as "a one man percussion circle". Lots of great insights here, thanks!

I was pleasantly surprised they reissued this with the original front and back cover art in 2002, so soon after 9/11. Not that there is any "wrong" or offensive about it. As I said it's quite a bland cover. But you know how the climate was back in those in those days...... In the mainstream market it could've been a bit , but everyone was about it.

don't apologise! In the same "vein" Fred Jackson - Snortin' 'n Shootin'

Come to mention it I've always thought that Loran's Dance would make a cracking, sultry vocal track. The melody is crying out to be sung. Dee Dee Bridgewater anyone? Even Norah Jone's husky tones could give it a dreamy quality (without the country feel)