Most Overrated 50's-60's Blue Notes

[couw]

Brownie,

I think the layout is a direct homage to the classic BN look...you?

The resemblance is there!

I'm not sure I'll like the sound!

from what I have heard, the sound is up to the usual modern clinical standards. The arrangements are very sweet with plenty of strings and harps and flutes and other earcandy. Trijntje's is more of a pop-voice and this is another if at times sophisticated jazzy pop affair.

NMCOT

[michel1969]

oh yeah-i agree with whoever mentioned "fuschia swing song" kind of dull, all things considered.

i also find "i want to hold your hand" a boring album. "into somethin'" and "talkin about" as well....all things considered.

RIGHT ! The very top Sam Rivers on Blue Note is Contours. Rivers complained years afters that when he went in the studio, Lion and Wolff were afraid by the modern and "avant garde" material he prepared for the date. So they ask him to record some more "classical" things. And Rivers said that Fuschia was actually made of his 1955 compositions and conceptions, rather than the actual (1964-1965) that he planed to record.

[Face of the Bass]

My main problem with the deification of the Blue Note catalog during this time period is that the label was basically churning out a lot of albums, admittedly, of high quality, that sounded just like each other. Similar lineups, similar tunes, similar musical approaches. They broke out of this mold somewhat in the mid-60s with some of the albums by McLean, Shorter, Hancock, Dolphy, and Hill, but the great weakness of BN for me is that, at the end of the day, most of their stuff sounds the same, or at least, very similar.

[michel1969]

Andrew Hill I find overrated in general, and the insane touting that his BNs get contributes to this. But to each their own.

Right also. Except for "Point of departure".

[clifford_thornton]

For me, the only Hill that holds up is Black Fire. Roy Haynes is astounding on this!

As for Sam Rivers, his BNs don't hold up all that well for me, either. I do like Dimensions and Extensions; too bad it was unissued at the time!

Edited December 4, 2006 by clifford_thornton

[Jim R]

if you had a thread on over- and under-rated titles, I bet there would be a lot of overlap in the responses to each.

Well. that's what this is, the thread on overrated Blue Note albums. So I'll try to do a tally when the traffic stops.

Hmm... I probably disagree with roughly half of the opinions that have been posted (and something tells me that this is probably true for many others). I guess I'm still not sure I see the point. Not only do I disagree with some of the sentiments, I find myself disagreeing with some of the logic/assumptions. For example, I never thought Dexter's "Gettin' Around" was hyped all that much- even by Dexter fanatics, yet somebody listed it as an overhyped "classic" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist). I don't have a strong opinion to offer on that album specifically, but I would say that it has tended to be lower on the totem pole in terms of people's ratings of Dexter's albums. Anyway, I've seen other examples like this here, so the whole topic seems kind of confused. Like I said before, it's all subjective, which is only natural. The moral, imo: Listen and decide for yourself, and encourage newbies to do the same.

[Rooster_Ties]

OK, Hill is maybe overrated on this board ( ). But overrated in the general jazz world?? I think not.

His critical praise is just catching up with him now (as it did with Joe Henderson, 'round '91, when the Strayhorn trib disc came out). Hill was underrated for years, IMHO, as was Joe Hen. The critical praise Henderson got was a little nuts in those last years -- but considering how underrated he was prior to that -- I think it was more than deserved. Same with Hill now. Overrated now, perhaps. Way underrated for decades before. All balances out in the end.

Edit: Also, regarding Hill, I think POD is a little overrated (just slightly) -- probably because of Dolphy's influence on the date. As far as 'debut' albums go, I'd put Black Fire up against anybody else.

For years POD seamed to be THE Hill album to have (if you could only get one), where I personally think Black Fire deserves that title. My personal Hill favorites vary from year to year, but if I was to reccomend just one Hill title to people, I'd suggest they start with Black Fire. Then Passing Ships (perhaps one of his best late 60's dates), and only after those two would I reccomend POD.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[sal]

Andrew Hill to me is on the same level as Monk or Mingus. A absolutely brilliant and original composer who challenges his audience while at the same time bringing out the absolute best in the musicians that play his music. I could see how he might not appeal to everyone, particularly those with more conservative tastes, but I just don't understand how he can be considered "overrated". He's one of those guys that simply commands respect, even if you don't particularly dig his music. But calling him overrated means that he gets much more love and respect than he deserves, and I just can't see that with Mr. Hill.

Sorry....just the opinion of an opinionated, diehard Andrew Hill fan!

[(BB)]

I don’t know if my frame of reference is large enough to be able to label a record as “Overrated”. That said, Hank Mobley’s – dippin’ and Freddie Hubbard’s – Hub-Tones have never really done much for me. They both have some “fun” tunes, but I’m not really compelled to spend a lot of time with either of them.

[Rooster_Ties]

Andrew Hill to me is on the same level as Monk or Mingus. A absolutely brilliant and original composer who challenges his audience while at the same time bringing out the absolute best in the musicians that play his music. I could see how he might not appeal to everyone, particularly those with more conservative tastes, but I just don't understand how he can be considered "overrated". He's one of those guys that simply commands respect, even if you don't particularly dig his music. But calling him overrated means that he gets much more love and respect than he deserves, and I just can't see that with Mr. Hill.

Sorry....just the opinion of an opinionated, diehard Andrew Hill fan!

Well put, and I agree completely.

(Again, I only said he was perhaps a little overrated here on this board. I sure don't see him being overrated anywhere else. And I fully realize that I'm totally one of the people here who probably overrate him (here). I'm a HUGE Hill nut, and really can't say enough good things about him.)

Edited December 4, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Jim R]

There's an important distinction between "overrated" and "popular" (in the sense that a majority of people- members here, let's say) enjoy something. I haven't been able to get much out of Andrew Hill personally, but I'm not going to climb up on a box and suggest that he's "overrated". "Overrated" is always a tricky concept. We don't all agree upon even what is highly rated, or "classic".

I guess I just don't much like this topic... but at least it's remained civil.

[Jim R]

I'm a HUGE Hill nut, and really can't say enough good things about him.)

Oh, COME ON... NO SHIT?!?

Edited December 4, 2006 by Jim R

[Rooster_Ties]

I guess I just don't much like this topic...

Is this topic overrated??

[Guy Berger]

Andrew Hill to me is on the same level as Monk or Mingus. A absolutely brilliant and original composer who challenges his audience while at the same time bringing out the absolute best in the musicians that play his music. I could see how he might not appeal to everyone, particularly those with more conservative tastes, but I just don't understand how he can be considered "overrated". He's one of those guys that simply commands respect, even if you don't particularly dig his music. But calling him overrated means that he gets much more love and respect than he deserves, and I just can't see that with Mr. Hill.

Sorry....just the opinion of an opinionated, diehard Andrew Hill fan!

Read this over from the perspective of a non-Hill fan, and you might get a sense of why some people consider him overrated.

Guy

[sal]

Andrew Hill to me is on the same level as Monk or Mingus. A absolutely brilliant and original composer who challenges his audience while at the same time bringing out the absolute best in the musicians that play his music. I could see how he might not appeal to everyone, particularly those with more conservative tastes, but I just don't understand how he can be considered "overrated". He's one of those guys that simply commands respect, even if you don't particularly dig his music. But calling him overrated means that he gets much more love and respect than he deserves, and I just can't see that with Mr. Hill.

Sorry....just the opinion of an opinionated, diehard Andrew Hill fan!

Read this over from the perspective of a non-Hill fan, and you might get a sense of why some people consider him overrated.

Guy

Good point!

[Rooster_Ties]

That's why I said "around here" -- cuz I don't see many people singing Hill's praises elsewhere, to the extent they're sung around here.

He's getting some good critical press these days, and more than makes sense given the kind of press he's gotten over his whole career. But that doesn't make him overrated. That's just makin' up for lost time.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Guy Berger]

FWIW, I think most artists are overrated by their fans and underrated by almost everybody else.

Guy

[Rooster_Ties]

FWIW, I think most artists are overrated by their fans and underrated by almost everybody else.

Guy

Amazon reviews prove that out, for sure!!!!!

[J Larsen]

FWIW, I think most artists are overrated by their fans and underrated by almost everybody else.

Guy

This again begs the question of what is meant by "overrated." Does it mean that a given artist is liked more than they "should" be? Or that they have "too many" fans? Or is it that their influence is overestimated?

If an overrated artist is one that is liked more than they "should" be, then assuming that there is indeed some objective standard by which one can determine how much an artist is to be liked (which is clearly absurd), then it seems to me that Guy's statement is a tautology and therefore the value of the subject is questionable.

If an overrated artist is one whose influence is overestimated, then you have some hope of having a meaningful discussion, but that does not seem to be the way the question was posed.

[Guy Berger]

FWIW, I think most artists are overrated by their fans and underrated by almost everybody else.

Guy

This again begs the question of what is meant by "overrated." Does it mean that a given artist is liked more than they "should" be? Or that they have "too many" fans? Or is it that their influence is overestimated?

If an overrated artist is one that is liked more than they "should" be, then assuming that there is indeed some objective standard by which one can determine how much an artist is to be liked (which is clearly absurd), then it seems to me that Guy's statement is a tautology and therefore the value of the subject is questionable.

Not a tautology. There's the possibility that a large number of people like an artist "just right", which I discount.

Guy

[J Larsen]

FWIW, I think most artists are overrated by their fans and underrated by almost everybody else.

Guy

This again begs the question of what is meant by "overrated." Does it mean that a given artist is liked more than they "should" be? Or that they have "too many" fans? Or is it that their influence is overestimated?

If an overrated artist is one that is liked more than they "should" be, then assuming that there is indeed some objective standard by which one can determine how much an artist is to be liked (which is clearly absurd), then it seems to me that Guy's statement is a tautology and therefore the value of the subject is questionable.

Not a tautology. There's the possibility that a large number of people like an artist "just right", which I discount.

Guy

Then it depends on what you mean by "overrated by their fans," but frankly I think this is a silly discussion that we are taking to new levels of silliness, so back to work with me.

[etherbored]

My main problem with the deification of the Blue Note catalog during this time period is that the label was basically churning out a lot of albums, admittedly, of high quality, that sounded just like each other. Similar lineups, similar tunes, similar musical approaches. They broke out of this mold somewhat in the mid-60s with some of the albums by McLean, Shorter, Hancock, Dolphy, and Hill, but the great weakness of BN for me is that, at the end of the day, most of their stuff sounds the same, or at least, very similar.

i understand what you're saying, but can't the same be said of riverside, prestige, et al? most labels during the time frame being discussed had a stable of players that comprised their dates which resulted in certain consistencies... the sides from some labels are simply more diverse than others due to variety in material and groupings. i don't see it as a blue note thing, although they certainly had their sound.

?,

-e-

[J.A.W.]

oh yeah-i agree with whoever mentioned "fuschia swing song" kind of dull, all things considered.

[couw]

...

[Rooster_Ties]

OK, I don't know if this helps with the "what does 'overrated' mean?" question, but perhaps it might...

Donald Byrd's name has been mentioned more than once in this thread. Now, I happen to like Byrd, though he's certainly not my favorite trumpeter by some margin. Not even in my top-5. Not even in my top-5 if I limit myself to 60's recordings. But I have a lot of Byrd in my collection, and I enjoy a bunch of it on occasion.

Now Freddie Hubbard's a guy who's name hasn't come up in this thread much (it at all, I'm not sure). He's a guy who I often like in sideman appearances, but who's leader-dates almost always seem to be less than I was expecting (much less, actually).

In other words, Byrd lives up to my expectations. But for me, Hubbard rarely does (at least on his own leader-dates).

So, in my book, Hubbard is somewhat overrated -- but Byrd probably isn't. Byrd meets my expectations, and Hubbard doesn't. And, FWIW, my expectations for Hubbard's leader dates are set not only by what the "buzz" is about him (historically speaking), but also based on what I know he's capable of on other people's dates -- particularly good gobs of more "out"-leaning dates. (I used to call them "progressive" dates, but I'd been beaten down about that word, so I'm trying to use it less.)

So, to recap, in my book...

Donald Byrd is neither overrated, nor underrated. He delivers what I'm expecting, and generally does so most of the time, and does it pretty well, generally. Nobody claims he's the greatest, and not many people dis him either.

Freddie Hubbard is a bit overrated. I think he's clearly capable of more (as evidenced by lots of his sideman work), and I think he generally is rated pretty high (overall) as a player -- more than I think most his leader-dates really deliver (with maybe one or two exceptions).

But, the funny thing is, when push comes to shove -- I think Freddie's an arguably "better" player than Byrd.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Rooster_Ties