Mosaic Contemporary

[DMP]

Picked up "Super Blue," and it's better than I remembered. Extra tracks, too - the alternate of the title track is actually superior.

[Eric]

Picked up "Super Blue," and it's better than I remembered. Extra tracks, too - the alternate of the title track is actually superior.

Got this one too. If they can mine this sort of stuff along with the dreck, I am all for it.

[mikeweil]

Super Blue received rave reviews back then by German Hi-Fi magazines for its great sound - can you confirm this?

Edited March 24, 2007 by mikeweil

[DMP]

The sound? Very good, but I never thought it was anything special.

[jazzyjeff]

Why Contemporary Jazz?

Why would an incredibly respected company like Mosaic

Records, who built their reputation on Big Band,

Traditional, and Modern Jazz get into the business

of Contemporary Jazz.

First of all, it’s difficult to address this topic

without accepting the fact that whatever term is used

to define ANY genre of music is always going to be

cause for some confusion and/or controversy.

For example, many people (including Mosaic Records on

our website) refer to post-swing jazz as Modern Jazz,

whereas the term modern means relating or belonging

to the present period in history or of the latest or

most advanced kind. Considering many of these

recordings were made over sixty years ago, its hard

to make a rational justification for the term, isnt

it?

What we are calling Contemporary Jazz is basically

music that historically and stylistically followed

Miles Davis Bitches Brew and/or the Soul Jazz

movement of the 1960s. This includes everything from

aggressive jazz-rock fusion to what is currently

played on the Smooth Jazz radio format.

As it states on the Mosaic website, the artists we

choose are selected for their place in the history of

American music. Music, above all, is what determines

if an artist belongs on Mosaic. You won't necessarily

find us going for the big commercial names. But,

neither will you find us discriminating against them.

Hence, the inclusion of artists who stand as important

figures in the music of choice. The point being,

Mosaic Contemporary provides the discriminating music

fan with guidelines to which recordings by which

artists are worth your attention in each subgenre.

[Niko]

[

What we are calling Contemporary Jazz is basically

music that historically and stylistically followed

Miles Davis Bitches Brew and/or the Soul Jazz

movement of the 1960s. This includes everything from

aggressive jazz-rock fusion to what is currently

played on the Smooth Jazz radio format.

you mean like contemporary jazz is anything that can be seen as some sort of interpolation/mixture between "aggressive jazz-rock fusion" and "what is currently played on the Smooth Jazz radio format"?

[Guest donald petersen]

what a stupid definition.

i guess they are saying that contemporary jazz is any jazz made from the late 1960s onwards, which is fine to say but they should just say that instead of trying to say something fancy.

[BruceH]

what a stupid definition.

i guess they are saying that contemporary jazz is any jazz made from the late 1960s onwards, which is fine to say but they should just say that instead of trying to say something fancy.

And here I thought of "Contemorary jazz" as being any jazz put out on the Contemporary label.

[clifford_thornton]

Well, I think of "Modern Jazz" as related to "Modern Art" or Modernism... reaching its aegis, by some accounts, in the years from 1947-1960. In that sense, it's accurate.

Contemporary would be from the recent past (late '70s - early '80s) through the present.

[jazzyjeff]

I don't understand the "fuss". Do you buy the label or the music? Sure, there's been a few labels where you feel that "if it's on Label X. it's got to be worth a listen"

Well, sure--Blue Note for one, to make a case quite close to home. Where did most of the posters on this board come from? Of course you buy for the music, but I don't think you can deny that a # of the people who post here certainly "trust" the Blue Note label of yore. And Mosaic, IMO, has very much built upon that sort of identity/brand/label loyalty.

I agree w/most of what you're saying and don't think that ultimately this is a big deal, but I would certainly define Mosaic as a "label"--even if they do only reissues. A label in the sense of a record/business company purveying a certain brand of music. And yeah, Blue Note recorded a diversity of artists, but there are a lot of folks on this board unhappy with the current incarnation of the label for the direction they're taking and the artists they're signing.

Like I said, no big deal to me, as long as they keep putting out the classic stuff... and yeah, the timeframe inevitably stretches and has to... I mean, hell, the Tony Williams set covers recordings made after Mosaic was launched. But that doesn't have much to do with what gets defined as worthy jazz... we have yet to see a "sweet-music" band set from Mosaic, even though they do lots of early jazz. There's a lot of stuff from the 1980s and 1990s that I'd like to see Mosaic get around to putting out, but none of it emanating from the "contemporary" purview.

[jazzyjeff]

Clifford basically has it correct.

The definition does not include acoustic jazz, which has a completely different lineage

[jazzyjeff]

huh... ya'll knew pierson already? i'm still working on The Lew Futterman Conundrum (details forthcoming.) meanwhile, back at the ranch--

uno

matt pierson!

dos

Producer Matt Pierson, former V.P. of Warner Jazz and responsible for signing Pat Metheny and Boney James, has long believed Kirk to be the most influential saxophonist of his generation and having worked closely with many of the best and brightest, from traditional jazz, experimental, pop, r&b and fusion, he is in a unique position to comment. Pierson played a pivotal role in Kirk's career when he was transitioning from Columbia records to Warner Bros. Records and was instrumental in his chart-topping album For You. So when Pierson suggested a Babyface retrospective, Kirk was willing to listen. After a series of records where Whalum wore all hats (Unconditional, Into My Soul, The Gospel According to Jazz, II, The Christmas Message) composing, producing and performing (resulting in seven Grammy nominations) he was ready again to explore his gift of interpreting melodies. When Rendezvous Entertainment, the new label founded by fellow saxophonist Dave Koz, endorsed the Songbook idea, the stage was set.

some of our L.A. (&/or Nashville) comprades can comment on the scenes there but i've met quite a few of these douchebags over the years (also in Austin during SUXSW) & uh... i hope Cuscuna chose his bedfellows well. even Bruce Lundvall he ain't & ...

have ya'll noticed-- MUCH to her credit-- Norah is gittin' & listenin' weird? a credit to Tejas lineage after all tho' some will say it was always thus.

POONulltimate c

Didn't Pierson sign Brad Meldau, Joshua Redman and Mark Turner?

JJ

[Guest donald petersen]

Clifford basically has it correct.

The definition does not include acoustic jazz, which has a completely different lineage

earl kloogh plays a mean acoustic guitar!

[Ed S]

What ever happened to these guys?

[JSngry]

They're still here: http://www.mosaiccontemporary.com/default.asp

[jazzypaul]

the ultimate and intimate series seem like total jive, but did you check out the single albums that they've got?

Benson's Beyond the Blue Horizon and Live at Carnegie Hall? Zawinul's self titled album.

There's some goodies in that bunch.

I only hope that the Benson and Farrell album will finally see a re-release.

[Ed S]

They're still here

It's been a while between releases though.