Just some thoughts on why I am somewhat tired of jazz

[AndrewHill]

I'm also going to go back to the original post topic and say that I'm far from being tired of listening to jazz. For example, if I listen to rock on the radio or a cd from my wife's collection (which is 99% classic to modern rock), I find myself listening to jazz in the back of my mind and by song's end, I couldn't even tell you what the rock group/singer was singing. I do though, try to broaden my horizons and have grown fond of 311, the Strokes, the Replacements, Wire and Weezer. I also enjoy classical music as well, but all and all, I find myself gravitating back towards jazz. Its hard to explain but when I'm thumbing through my collection I get a sense of excitement just thinking what's on the cd. I don't get that feeling from other genres of music. As someone (Paul Secor?) mentioned above, (and I am paraphrasing, probably really badly) that there are times when you just find yourself emersed in an artist's catalogue. Right now, I'm enjoying quite a lot of Sun Ra, Henry Threadgill, AEC and Anthony Braxton. I do though, find myself returning less and less to Miles but there's just so much going on in the avant garde (if that term is still being used) jazz scene right now that it really doesn't concern me. For instance on Youtube, I discovered Weasel Walter who caught my attention right away with his sextet (2 basses, 2 drummers a guitarist and alto sax). The intensity was incredible in the clip. In sum, even to this day its a big disovery and I feel I'm nowhere done discovering.

[Hot Ptah]

I am listening to large amounts of jazz. I find that I grow more impatient with jazz that does not have some feeling to it, some inspiration, some special quality, some "zing", if you will.

Twenty years ago, I was excited by about any jazz album, and gave all of them the benefit of the doubt--if the album seemed a bit routine and flat I attributed that to my needing to listen to it some more. Now I just think that the album is routine and flat and move on.

If the jazz album has some special quality, I find that I am enjoying almost every jazz style from the earliest recordings on Allen Lowe's excellent anthologies, to the present.

In the past year, I have also embarked on a massive listening project to transfer the music collection of my autistic, severely mentally retarded 25 year old son, to an 80 GB iPod. (That iPod is so much more convenient for playing music for him than stacks of CDs). His one joy in life is music, but he gets agitated if he has to hear something that he really does not like. So I have listened to his entire collection and made detailed notes on which songs to include and delete from over 1000 albums. His albums are blues, soul, New Orleans R&B, some rock, reggae, Latin jazz, a little folk/country/bluegrass. He also likes some jazz, and I have been adding that to his iPod. I learned by accident the other day that he absolutely loves Miles' "In A Silent Way" album, for example.

My wife plays only classical music in large quantities in our house, mostly Baroque through Beethoven. So I have heard a wide variety of music in the past year.

During that listening project for my son's iPod, I realized that I really love jazz. After hearing hours of blues, switching to a great jazz album is still a real kick to me.

[WorldB3]

I don't listen to jazz everyday of the year , my listening goes in cycles . Last year from July

to December i was on a country binge. Dwight Yoakam , Marty Stuart, Vince gill and Ricky Scaggs (Damn can he play!)

I LOVE Dwight Yoakam. The 2nd best County singer in the biz until Merle Haggard passes on. With all apologies to George Jones who back in his day was something.

In a way Country has some of the same image problems that Jazz does as far as what is really popular is considered pretty bad.

[Peter Friedman]

I have been listening to jazz for more than 55 years. The idea of jazz burn-out does not exist for me in the slightest. My listening also includes a little bit of blues and a larger amount of classical music. If I had to guess, I would say 80% of my listening is jazz, 18% classical music, and 2% blues. I have close to zero interest in rock, world music, or country and western music. There was a time some decades ago when I developed a minor interest in Rock, but it faded very quickly and never returned. Probably because of my age, I did not come to jazz via Rock, as my interest in jazz preceded the onset of Rock. It was early 50's Rhythm & Blues that brought me into jazz. I began to notice the tenor sax solos that often were played on the vocal R & B records. Little by little those instrumental parts of that music overshadowed the vocals (for me) which led me to jazz. R & B got pushed aside and my interest in that music soon faded as jazz became the dominant musical force in my life and has remained so for all these many decades.

Quite a few years ago I had a brief relationship with free jazz. I became interested for a while in the music of Albert Ayler and a number of other so-called avante-garde players. After about a year I recognized that my interest in that music was intellectual and that little , if any, of that music was giving me much in the way of enjoyment. So I lost interest in that music and , contrary to Jim, came to the realization that the "song form" and blues were fundamental to what I find musically satisfying.

As some others have said, the diversity within jazz prevents burn-out from ever setting in. From Louis , Bechet, the Condon musicians, Bean, Hodges, Ellington, Basie, Prez, Roy, Bird, Diz,Bud, Monk, Zoot, Blakey, Miles, Horace, Jackie Mclean, Dorham, Mobley, Sonny Clark, Bill Evans, Barry Harris, and the countless others I enjoy, there is always something I can listen to that brings a smile to my face and/or sets my toes tapping.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Peter Friedman

[BillF]

Peter Friedman's post is closest to my experience of any post in this thread so far. I've been listening actively to jazz for 51 years and before that jazz-influenced music was everywhere in my childhood. Of course, the thrill of being blown away by the music is no longer there as in my youth; now I'm like a connoisseur savoring a fine wine! Over the years I've listened to rock 'n roll, blues, 20th century classical music, swing and New Orleans jazz, but for a long time now I've found most of what I need in recorded jazz c.1945-65. Mind you, my range is pretty broad: everything from Buck Clayton to Don Cherry and from solo Bill Evans to the Maynard Ferguson Orchestra. And I'm certainly not running out of new music; a vast amount was recorded in those years and a few key radio shows bring new sounds to my ears with remarkable frequency. So - no sign of jazz burnout!

[A Lark Ascending]

I became interested for a while in the music of Albert Ayler and a number of other so-called avante-garde players. After about a year I recognized that my interest in that music was intellectual and that little , if any, of that music was giving me much in the way of enjoyment.

Interesting observation.

I think when you are young and you get keen on music you feel almost obliged to go to the edge and beyond. Part of it is natural curiosity, part of it is a result of being constantly told that the peculiar stuff is what really counts! And then there's the ghosts of those who ridiculed Tristan, Debussy's Prelude de l'Apres Midi or The Rite of Spring. You don't want to be one of those!

I still want to hear new things and take chances quite often; but I no longer hang around if it's not clicking. I tried a lot of the more atonal 20thC classical music in the 1980s but just got no emotional payback. So I don't spend much time beyond the Berg/Messiaen zones. Similarly, the completely free in jazz rarely makes a big impact. So I only send out the odd foraging party in that direction.

In the end I have to be moved by the music. If that doesn't happen (and I'd stress that it is more likely to be faulty radar on my part rather than anything deficient in the music) then it really doesn't matter how important, innovative etc it is. I'll leave it to others to enjoy.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[Christiern]

Peter brings up an interesting point by differentiating between intellectual and more earthly appreciation of music. I can identify with that. What I get out of an exhaustive Coltrane solo and a burst of energy from Roy Eldridge are two different things, although I may not enjoy one less than the other. There are times when I want my body set in motion, when I want my feet to tap and my face to smile--Coltrane's music does not fit that bill. On the other hand...

This is not to say that the Hot Five is without intellectual appeal, it all needs some of that to command my attention, but shifting moods demand complementary sensory stimulants. Fortunately, that which we often loosely term as jazz offers a sufficiently diversified program to meet most of my emotional demands, but there will also always be a time for that other great stuff.

[JSngry]

So I lost interest in that music and , contrary to Jim, came to the realization that the "song form" and blues were fundamental to what I find musically satisfying.

I guess what I'm finding now (for myself, mind you) is that those things are vessels, and that what's inside those vessels matters to me more than the vessel itself. Also, that as time goes by, the "general focus" of the "musical culture" seems (again, to me) to be more on the vessel than its contents.

The age thing, though, that's interesting to me. Born in 1955, I've never lived in a world without "Rock & Roll", and music before The Beatles (yeah, I saw them on Sullivan in '64, I was 9, and oh yeah, it changed my life, like...instantly) as I remember living it (as opposed to having since learned it) seems like some primordial mist or something that only came into focus and began to evolve with that wakeup (startup?) call from Liverpool.

But that's me & my time, and we all, older & younger alike, come at it from our own times & places, don't we...

[papsrus]

Veering back to the topic at hand, I think my listening experience is somewhat unique.

To flesh things out with a little more detail, I had some interest in jazz and blues, folk rock and mainstream rock (Van Morrison, Clapton) in my teens and early 20s back in the '70s. Then I went for a very long period of time without really listening to anything. No real interest in music at all. A few years ago I heard Coltrane's "One Down, One Up -- Live at the Half Note" and it grabbed hold of the listening part of my brain and shook it awake.

Without knowing at all what I was doing, I stumbled through dozens of Coltrane albums with wide-eyed fascination. Once I realized there was more going on than just Coltrane, it was on to Miles, Monk, Mingus, Dolphy and on into 60s avant and more contemporary stuff, with serious detours into Braxton and some of the NY downtown guys and gals -- Dave Douglas, Zorn, Berne.

So, with that as a background sketch, today my listening has me bouncing back and forth among Ellington, Basie, and earlier-period music, to musicians more associated with contemporary creative improvisation (for lack of a better term), such as the aforementioned Melford and Dennis Gonzalez, some of Vandermark's stuff, Schlippenbach Trio and a wonderful alto player I've recently been listening to -- Matana Roberts, an AACM alum.

So generally, I'm mixing the old with the new, and finding it all quite rewarding. But unlike many of you, I'm very much on the upside of discovering all this.

One of the problems I've noticed (if you can call it a problem) is that, much like with Coltrane, I'll become fascinated with a particular artist and the thirst is almost unquenchable for a period. But once that's led me along to something new again, I become so consumed by the next great thing that I fail to return to past favorites very much at all. There are probably only two or three Coltrane discs that I reach for now.

[blind-blake]

I find myself listening to more jazz than ever. I think it might have something to do with "market forces," althought I don't like to admit that I've been manipulated by the "powers-that-be." I've been buying A LOT of jazz over the past 15 years or so in view of the incredible reissue programs that have emerged. It seems to me that we have witnessing something like a "golden age" in jazz listening. Many, many recordings that have not been available for many, many years have been seeing the light of day, and I've been trying to accumulate as many as I can for fear that I may never see them again. My listening has been dictated in part by this buying. Does anyone feel the same way?

[A Lark Ascending]

It seems to me that we have witnessing something like a "golden age" in jazz listening. Many, many recordings that have not been available for many, many years have been seeing the light of day.

I think you're spot on. I started listening to jazz in the mid-70s and a whole swathe of recordings just weren't available - either that or you had to know where to find them. I recall ordering 'A Love Supreme' in 1978 (here in the UK) and waiting about four weeks for it to arrive from some distant place! Most of the 60s Miles Davis catalogue could only be bought on import.

Another interesting question is emerging here. How jazz sounds differently to those who were listening before rock and who never took to rock; and then to those of us (I'm on old 1955'er too) who heard rock first and then migrated. Like papsrus, with me most of jazz history prior to the 70s is a case of going back to something previous; it must sound quite different if you actually heard, say, the Blakey records of the 50s as they came out. To say nothing of hearing Basie or Ellington records!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think that's correct - there has been a great period of reissues - led by Fantasy, as far as I'm concerned, but others may find other sources nearer to their tastes. But it does look as if that period is comig to an end with the general problems of the majors and Fantasy's takeover by Concord. So there's a high degree of "get it now or regret it for another forty years", by which time, I'll probably be dead. And what one buys does tend to form a large part of what one listens to.

MG

[GA Russell]

...I've been buying A LOT of jazz over the past 15 years or so in view of the incredible reissue programs that have emerged. It seems to me that we have witnessing something like a "golden age" in jazz listening. Many, many recordings that have not been available for many, many years have been seeing the light of day, and I've been trying to accumulate as many as I can for fear that I may never see them again...

I agree too.

I think that the golden age you refer to peaked a few years ago. Shortly before they were acquired by Concord, Fantasy bragged that there were more Contemporary label recordings available at the same time than there ever were when the company existed as an independent.

My mindset has been changed by the internet. Prior to 1995, albums in print could always be ordered by your record store; but I never knew what was available to be ordered. Now all mail order companies have websites which not only make the ordering process easy, but some websites also have pretty good descriptions of each album.

[A Lark Ascending]

Prior to 1995, albums in print could always be ordered by your record store; but I never knew what was available to be ordered. Now all mail order companies have websites which not only make the ordering process easy, but some websites also have pretty good descriptions of each album.

Very true! When I look back I'm amazed by how limited my horizons were by what happened to appear in the shops. I alays felt as if I was being unreasonable trying to order something out of the way (if I knew about it via a magazine). I often met 'sorry, can't be found' responses.

We may be at the end of the hard disc bounty - but if the download world is handled imaginatively the next era could be even more plentiful.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Prior to 1995, albums in print could always be ordered by your record store; but I never knew what was available to be ordered. Now all mail order companies have websites which not only make the ordering process easy, but some websites also have pretty good descriptions of each album.

Very true! When I look back I'm amazed by how limited my horizons were by what happened to appear in the shops. I alays felt as if I was being unreasonable trying to order something out of the way (if I knew about it via a magazine). I often met 'sorry, can't be found' responses.

We may be at the end of the hard disc bounty - but if the download world is handled imaginatively the next era could be even more plentiful.

Well, financial constraints will still be there. And time to listen will be even more at a premium.

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

Prior to 1995, albums in print could always be ordered by your record store; but I never knew what was available to be ordered. Now all mail order companies have websites which not only make the ordering process easy, but some websites also have pretty good descriptions of each album.

Very true! When I look back I'm amazed by how limited my horizons were by what happened to appear in the shops. I alays felt as if I was being unreasonable trying to order something out of the way (if I knew about it via a magazine). I often met 'sorry, can't be found' responses.

We may be at the end of the hard disc bounty - but if the download world is handled imaginatively the next era could be even more plentiful.

Well, financial constraints will still be there. And time to listen will be even more at a premium.

MG

Plenty doesn't mean you have to purchase or listen to everything.

[porcy62]

Prior to 1995, albums in print could always be ordered by your record store; but I never knew what was available to be ordered. Now all mail order companies have websites which not only make the ordering process easy, but some websites also have pretty good descriptions of each album.

Very true! When I look back I'm amazed by how limited my horizons were by what happened to appear in the shops. I alays felt as if I was being unreasonable trying to order something out of the way (if I knew about it via a magazine). I often met 'sorry, can't be found' responses.

We may be at the end of the hard disc bounty - but if the download world is handled imaginatively the next era could be even more plentiful.

Well, financial constraints will still be there. And time to listen will be even more at a premium.

MG

Plenty doesn't mean you have to purchase or listen to everything.

Correct, but if you buy all the things you think it might be interesting it might end like this: http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...c=39895&hl=

[papsrus]

Along these lines, Dave Douglas' Greenleaf site is going to be offering downloads in FLAC format. And I think this means that those who've already purchased and downloaded the Jazz Standard stuff will be able to download it again in FLAC, if they want.

Getting stuff in this lossless format should result in pretty close to CD quality sound. That's a huge plus, IMO. Douglas seems to be out front on these download issues, so hopefully this format will become more widely available.

[Tom Storer]

Getting stuff in this lossless format should result in pretty close to CD quality sound. That's a huge plus, IMO. Douglas seems to be out front on these download issues, so hopefully this format will become more widely available.

Actually, it should be CD quality sound. Assuming that the original source from which the FLAC is compressed is CD quality to begin with.

[A Lark Ascending]

Another aspect of the 'golden age' is price. When I first started earning an LP took up a fair whack of my pay packet (OK, I had a smaller pay packet, but...). When CDs came in there was a jump in price.

But now you can dig around on the net and find things very cheap.

Runs the risk of making music so easy to get hold of it loses its mystery. But I can live with that - I like the idea of reading about an actual recording and not finding it too hard to get a copy.

The future is already here on some of the classical labels:

Gimmell

They have the advantage of owning all their own copyrights, I suspect. A model of how to do it, to my mind.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The future is already here on some of the classical labels:

Gimmell

They have the advantage of owning all their own copyrights, I suspect. A model of how to do it, to my mind.

Good clear presentation that, even to a techno-duffer like me, makes sense.

MG

[papsrus]

The future is already here on some of the classical labels:

Gimmell

They have the advantage of owning all their own copyrights, I suspect. A model of how to do it, to my mind.

I like the fact that they offer the consumer a choice. Very nice web site.

[A Lark Ascending]

The future is already here on some of the classical labels:

Gimmell

They have the advantage of owning all their own copyrights, I suspect. A model of how to do it, to my mind.

I like the fact that they offer the consumer a choice. Very nice web site.

Chandos do the same:

Chandos

They've had their entire OOP catalogue available for a few years. Imagine Blue Note doing that!!!!!!

Edited February 24, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[GA Russell]

And in the last five or so years Scandinavian folk music has thrown up a whole new world.

Bev, a few months ago I was given a promo by ECM of a Scandinavian folksinger named Sinikka Langeland. The album is called Starflowers. I didn't review it because I didn't think anyone here would be interested.

It's the only Scandinavian folk music I have ever heard, so I don't know how to compare it to others of that genre. I enjoy it because it is unique in my collection. I can't say that I understand it, or that it's up your alley, but you might like it too.

Attention Bev! Sinikka Langeland has a new album out with Trygve Seim called The Half-Finished Heaven.

[AllenLowe]

what an intelligent thread; who started it?