Shirley Scott

[joshuakennedy]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

It's straight-ahead organ trio jazz made in the 1970s. I think it's better than his Prestige sides because he had advanced as a player and wasn't bashful about it. It's an excellent record. If it's still there, run back and get it before somebody else does.

Some friendly advice - dates are chronological markers, not stylistic imperatives. Don't get trapped by conflating recording dates with musical expectations, there's plenty of bullshit to be had in all decades and with all production trappings or lack thereof.

I just know that a lot of artists that I liked in the 50s-60s (Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, etc.) completely changed styles in the 70s. Everybody got into the fusion stuff. For the most part, I was not a fan of it at all. 

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

1 hour ago, joshuakennedy said:

I just know that a lot of artists that I liked in the 50s-60s (Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, etc.) completely changed styles in the 70s. Everybody got into the fusion stuff. For the most part, I was not a fan of it at all. 

I don't think Jimmy Forrest went that way at all. I've certainly heard nothing that indicates that he did. Shirley did, but some of it was great and interesting, and she returned to the straight ahead on her Muse Albums later.

MG

[kh1958]

4 hours ago, JSngry said:

It's straight-ahead organ trio jazz made in the 1970s. I think it's better than his Prestige sides because he had advanced as a player and wasn't bashful about it. It's an excellent record. If it's still there, run back and get it before somebody else does.

Some friendly advice - dates are chronological markers, not stylistic imperatives. Don't get trapped by conflating recording dates with musical expectations, there's plenty of bullshit to be had in all decades and with all production trappings or lack thereof.

Now that is good advice.

[Brad]

I don't quite agree with the above advice.  Chronological markers are indicia of a certain style.  For example, for me, 50s to mid 60s Miles do represent a certain style that I like.  Later Miles doesn't do it for me.  I could probably think of other artists that fit into this mold.  I'm sure others will disagree naturally.

 

[JSngry]

Just sayin’, you got a five buck record of Jimmy Forrest and Shirley Scott in a trio, recorded live, and the first (only?) thing that keeps the record on the shelf was the recording date, no, that is not a good decision in any way. That’s simply not knowing enough about anything other than using a callender for a record player.

[Brad]

I'm with you. I mean, how wrong can you go with those two but we're not all the same.  If I'm checking someone out or a recording date I don't know, I'm heading to You Tube. That answers mostly everything these days. 

[Big Beat Steve]

5 hours ago, Brad said:

I don't quite agree with the above advice.  Chronological markers are indicia of a certain style.  For example, for me, 50s to mid 60s Miles do represent a certain style that I like.  Later Miles doesn't do it for me.  I could probably think of other artists that fit into this mold.  I'm sure others will disagree naturally.

 

Agreed with Brad, and I have the same reservations about how certain artists evolved that Joshuakennedy has

Many of the 50s artists DID evolve towards funked-up or fusion styles that just don't do it for me either. I won't blame it on them - some just naturally evolved, others swam with the tides, but often it's just not my cuppa. My own experience: Once bitten, twice shy. And with the possibilities you have today, like Brad said, you would be well advised to check out first - on Youtube or similar.

I am following this thread a bit closer right now as I have lately been on some kind of late 50s/early 60s organ jazz trip .
So in all fairness, talking about straight-ahead organ jazz, there is an exception that I think deserves mentioning - the Rhoda Scott CD in the Jazz in Paris series (No. 34). Duos with Kenny Clarke (dr) recorded in Paris in May, 1977. Fine straight-ahead organ jazz apparently untouched by modernization trends. It could just as well have ben done in the early 60s, and I don't think she ever tried to consciously do a "nostalgia" album. She just did her thing, untouched by fads.
I bought this during a stay in Paris in 2006 along with others from that series. I had been wary of this when I saw the recording date but the recommendation by Brownie was spot-on. No fusioned-up stylistic mishmash there but all-straightforward, no-frills stuff. So this is getting a few more spins again here these days.

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[joshuakennedy]

21 hours ago, JSngry said:

Just sayin’, you got a five buck record of Jimmy Forrest and Shirley Scott in a trio, recorded live, and the first (only?) thing that keeps the record on the shelf was the recording date, no, that is not a good decision in any way. That’s simply not knowing enough about anything other than using a callender for a record player.

The first thing that's keeping the record on the shelf is that I've never heard it. I rarely buy records I haven't heard. I've been burned one too many times doing that. 

The second factor is that the date scares me. I have heard very few jazz albums from the 70s that I enjoyed enough to purchase them. 

[JSngry]

I can’t relate to not buying something because I’ve not heard it. But that’s just me.

[Brad]

53 minutes ago, joshuakennedy said:

The first thing that's keeping the record on the shelf is that I've never heard it. I rarely buy records I haven't heard. I've been burned one too many times doing that. 

The second factor is that the date scares me. I have heard very few jazz albums from the 70s that I enjoyed enough to purchase them. 

Did you look it up on YouTube?

[JSngry]

I  can relate to looking it up on YouTube, but only sometimes, and even then...that's 21st century behavior and I was born in 1955, started buying jazz in 1970, so....do the math.

Then again, for me it was a hunger, a craving, actually, not a hobby. Nothing wrong with hobbyists, but it's definitely a different mindset.

[joshuakennedy]

7 minutes ago, Brad said:

Did you look it up on YouTube?

Yeah, can't find it anywhere on YouTube or Spotify. Maybe I'll just ask them to throw it on at the record store next time I'm there. Sounds like it'll be worth it. 

[JSngry]

If they play it before you buy it, that makes it even more used. You should ask them to knock it down to $3.50, especially if it's one of those places that turns the treble down so you don't hear the scratches and pops.

[Brad]

Going back to an earlier point made by Jim, for $5 how can you go wrong? On the YouTube thing, yeah, that’s recent, and back in the 60s, 70s, etc., you’d just have to purchase things on faith. 

[JSngry]

Hey, here's another one that's so "70s" that Shirley Scott's not even playing organ!

 

1 minute ago, Brad said:

Going back to an earlier point made by Jim, for $5 how can you go wrong? On the YouTube thing, yeah, that’s recent, and back in the 60s, 70s, etc., you’d just have to purchase things on faith. 

Not just faith, but the expectation that no, you're not going to like everything you take a chance on.

And yeah, faith that there was a lot good music that you'd not yet heard, or really know too much about other than either it looked interesting, or you had read about something like it somewhere or heard somebody talk about something like it, and never mind the Nonesuch Explorer series, which was pretty much predicated on the premise that you'd actually WANT to hear things you knew nothing about.

But that was the 20th Century, that was innate curiosity, and that was faith. Fuck all that, what foolishness we now know it all was. Now we know it's all about binary choices, because it's a binary reality.

[joshuakennedy]

13 minutes ago, Brad said:

Going back to an earlier point made by Jim, for $5 how can you go wrong? On the YouTube thing, yeah, that’s recent, and back in the 60s, 70s, etc., you’d just have to purchase things on faith. 

If I spend $5 and don't like it, that's $5 lost that could have gone toward a record I already know I want. I've got hundreds (thousands, maybe even) of albums on my wish list already. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by joshuakennedy

[Larry Kart]

34 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Hey, here's another one that's so "70s" that Shirley Scott's not even playing organ!

 

Not just faith, but the expectation that no, you're not going to like everything you take a chance on.

And yeah, faith that there was a lot good music that you'd not yet heard, or really know too much about other than either it looked interesting, or you had read about something like it somewhere or heard somebody talk about something like it, and never mind the Nonesuch Explorer series, which was pretty much predicated on the premise that you'd actually WANT to hear things you knew nothing about.

But that was the 20th Century, that was innate curiosity, and that was faith. Fuck all that, what foolishness we now know it all was. Now we know it's all about binary choices, because it's a binary reality.

A good one. From a  1978 date that was originally on two Aviva LPs, then semi-combined (though without this track) on a Stash CD, "Truly Wonderful." About as "live" a live date as could be imagined. Forrest, two years before his passing, was in fine form, as was the whole band.

[Brad]

29 minutes ago, joshuakennedy said:

If I spend $5 and don't like it, that's $5 lost that could have gone toward a record I already know I want. I've got hundreds (thousands, maybe even) of albums on my wish list already. 

If you can’t take a risk for $5 on these two, don’t. 

[Brad]

I picked up this album. Glad I did. Some great playing by both. Does anything unusual happen here? No, just some solid work by both. Issued under the Muse label, incidentally. Can’t think of any bad dates from that label (although I’m sure there are some). 

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

9 hours ago, Brad said:

I picked up this album. Glad I did. Some great playing by both. Does anything unusual happen here? No, just some solid work by both. Issued under the Muse label, incidentally. Can’t think of any bad dates from that label (although I’m sure there are some). 

Well, there are some Richie Cole albums...

MG

[Late]

Doing some discographical research, I came upon this Shirley Scott record. I haven't heard it. I didn't know that Shirley was a reverend, but I do think I remember having read something about her being an internationally known communicator.

[JSngry]

[felser]

[Late]

Because Shirley Scott is one of my favorite organists, I went ahead and purchased the download. Listening right now. There isn't any organ so far, just a lot of talking. (Must be one of the reverends unreleased sermons.) But suddenly my cats are:

and

[Brad]

On 4/4/2019 at 5:57 PM, Late said:

Because Shirley Scott is one of my favorite organists, I went ahead and purchased the download. Listening right now. There isn't any organ so far, just a lot of talking. (Must be one of the reverends unreleased sermons.) But suddenly my cats are:

and

Must be a real eye-opener.