UK Jazz: why do the 1950s-70s attract more attention?

[Big Beat Steve]

But in a blindfold test to someone sympathetic to jazz but without those memories?

What are you getting at? At the pet word used by Down Beat reviewers when it came to putting down a record, particularly if non-U.S.: "DERIVATIVE"?

Well, which U.S. records apart from the top and groundbreaking ones weren't too , strictly speaking, when playing in a given idiom and within a given substyle of music (here: jazz)? They all build on the influences/models that other people/forerunners have had on them.

And in case this wasn't the case anymore in later decades when jazz started branching out in all directions and working in all sorts of (non-jazz) influences and more jazzmen acquired a sort of more "individual voice" (but under the umbrella of an "anything goes" atitude within what became to be considered jazz) and if they neverthelesse did not find wider acclaim (even in retrospect from today) then doesn't this raise the question if this "anything goes" approach managed to widen the appeal of jazz with the listening audience at large of if this didn't rather reduce the appeal to an even smaller audience who'd be capable of following this (potentially more demanding) styles of newer jazz?

[A Lark Ascending]

Not at all. I find the 60s Westbrook's, Ardley's, Collier's etc very distinctive. But, to my ears, they sound like the start of a journey.

I suspect I'm just sceptical about classicism - that tendency to see all that is good in a rose-tinted past. Which is not the same as enjoying that past as part of a later continuum. No imperative to listen beyond that time - but beyond its historical significance as a place where a lot changed, I'm not convinced it's products tower over what followed.

Part of my perspective come from not having heard most of these 60s/early 70s recordings until much later. I tend to identify with the music of the mid to late-70s....the batch of Oguns in particular. You could probably unearth posts by me from the early days of this board or the Blue Note Board pleading for the reissue of this music that I knew only as legend. When it did get reissued I found quite a bit of it interesting but hardly earth-shattering.

I'm reminded of when the Rendell-Carr reissues appeared in the noughties. Brian Morton wrote a piece in Jazz Journal International saying he was underwhelmed. The irrate letters to the editor that followed...

Edited February 9, 2015 by A Lark Ascending

[mjazzg]

I'm reminded of when the Rendell-Carr reissues appeared in the noughties. Brian Morton wrote a piece in Jazz Journal International saying he was underwhelmed. The irrate letters to the editor that followed...

I know how he feels. I tried so hard to like "Shades of Blue" and "Dusk Fire" as much as their reputations suggested. Nice enough but I couldn't hear anything desperately original (cloth ears?)

Dare I say the same about "Hum Dono" (ducks for cover) which again didn't really live up to its build up. Whereas I thought both Harriot's "Free Form" and "Abstract" surpassed their reputations on reissue

[A Lark Ascending]

I'm reminded of when the Rendell-Carr reissues appeared in the noughties. Brian Morton wrote a piece in Jazz Journal International saying he was underwhelmed. The irrate letters to the editor that followed...

I know how he feels. I tried so hard to like "Shades of Blue" and "Dusk Fire" as much as their reputations suggested. Nice enough but I couldn't hear anything desperately original (cloth ears?)

Dare I say the same about "Hum Dono" (ducks for cover) which again didn't really live up to its build up. Whereas I thought both Harriot's "Free Form" and "Abstract" surpassed their reputations on reissue

I rather like 'Hum Dono'. Agree on the two Harriotts - they did live up to the promise.

It wasn't JJI...can't recall the name of that rather studious Jazz mag Richard Cook used to edit.

[Steve Reynolds]

From an overall worldwide standpoint, all of this exists

I find the Hemingway Quintet recordings of the 90's the equivalent of anything ever recorded by anyone. I'm in an extreme minority on the issue as we know.

I believe the current high level improvisors/bands are as great as any music in the past.

And I love and grew up on listening to the legends. But since I started late and/or was born late, with jazz, I was never able to see Monk, Miles, Trane, Duke, etc live. But I've heard all the great legendary recordings.

I'm listening now to Available Jelly - I think they are as great in their way as any of them

[A Lark Ascending]

I got thinking today about the different way that the UK folk music audience seems to respond to these issues. UK jazz and UK folk (well, English folk in the sense of the 'folk revival' and beyond) have a great deal in common:

• Both emerged in the 1950-70s period to form very distinctive and popular genres on the margins of popular music;
• Both grew from attempts to emulate American music - and in both cases some musicians felt an imperative to adapt to more native sources or approaches (and it's those I'm referring to rather than the (equally valid) musicians in both genres who continue to keep close to the original US model);
• Both were slanted towards or had pretensions towards left-of-centre/anti-Establishment politics.
• Both expanded their audience from the rock generation in the late 60s/early 70s.
• Both lost a lot of what mainstream support they had in the late 70s.
• Both now have a strong middle-aged and beyond (and middle class!) support base.

[As earlier, I'm leaving the free/improv scene in jazz as something separate - despite overlap it seems to work by different rules with an emphasis on the now and a more internationalist viewpoint from its audience)

But where the audience for UK jazz seems to raise the music/musicians of the 1960-70 onto a pedestal, rarely making the same fuss about contemporary musicians (and often neglecting the recent music of musicians who emerged in that era), the folk music audience seems to embrace both the emerging, younger players and the current recordings and performances of the veterans.

In jazz it's as if things have moved closer to classical music with its veneration of maestros and defining recordings; where in folk music current music seems to be much more celebrated (and I've yet to come across any folkies into their fourth generation of Japanese 456 bit remasters of Topic or Transatlantic classics).

I wonder if this might lie in the nature of the music. Jazz is largely a spectator sport where the entry level for performance requires a high skill set. Folk music, even though it has plenty of virtuosos of its own, has always made a great deal of being participatory - from the sing-around to the floor spot to the big social dancing events. You don't see many workshops at jazz festivals - folk festivals are alive with them.

Folk audiences love their Carthy's and Tabors....but just seem as welcoming to the next generation, prepared to very quickly accept them on the same level as the 'masters' of old. All a bit odd when you think that jazz has always presented itself as 'the sound of surprise' yet seems focused on the glories of years gone by with UK jazz; whereas folk music is often perceived as old-fashioned yet seems to embrace the new. The expression 'evolving tradition' that was bandied about in the 90s very much sums up what the current UK folk world is like.

[Edit: I know I'm guilty of generalising here. I've sat in audiences thrilling to Polar Bear; and I've sat in audiences grumbling about Lisa Knapp's use of electronics. Added to which there are a variety of 'audiences' for each genre. But, my overall impression still holds in my mind as a generalisation].

Edited February 10, 2015 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

Hm. Interesting.

[David Ayers]

I suppose part of what I was trying to work out when I was trying to think about this thread is what the audience of jazz means. To be interested in jazz of a previous period means to be an audience of records. As you say, the audience of improv really is different. Improv has a vast recorded archive, but is still seen as a living practice. Is jazz a living practice with a dedicated audience? Or is the audience basically record collectors plus aspirant jazz musicians? Folk I take your word for it, but I know exactly what you mean, and there seem to be a host of cool new artists. So-called classical music which is aways said to be dying has huge audiences, despite the prevalence of the recorded archive. On Saturday there was an almost full house at the Festival Hall for Enescu. Enescu! But they were most certainly right to be there.

I think what you are getting at is that, once you take out improv, the jazz audience consists of seniors who mostly look down on current jazz artists, and are far more likely to hoover up a Joe Harriott reissue (to stick to the British dimension) than become Byron Wallen completists. There is something strange - across the board - about the notion of a 'jazz audience' and its dynamic vis-a-vis current practice, that seems to set jazz apart from other fields.

[sgcim]

I got thinking today about the different way that the UK folk music audience seems to respond to these issues. UK jazz and UK folk (well, English folk in the sense of the 'folk revival' and beyond) have a great deal in common:

• Both emerged in the 1950-70s period to form very distinctive and popular genres on the margins of popular music;
• Both grew from attempts to emulate American music - and in both cases some musicians felt an imperative to adapt to more native sources or approaches (and it's those I'm referring to rather than the (equally valid) musicians in both genres who continue to keep close to the original US model);
• Both were slanted towards or had pretensions towards left-of-centre/anti-Establishment politics.
• Both expanded their audience from the rock generation in the late 60s/early 70s.
• Both lost a lot of what mainstream support they had in the late 70s.
• Both now have a strong middle-aged and beyond (and middle class!) support base.

[As earlier, I'm leaving the free/improv scene in jazz as something separate - despite overlap it seems to work by different rules with an emphasis on the now and a more internationalist viewpoint from its audience)

But where the audience for UK jazz seems to raise the music/musicians of the 1960-70 onto a pedestal, rarely making the same fuss about contemporary musicians (and often neglecting the recent music of musicians who emerged in that era), the folk music audience seems to embrace both the emerging, younger players and the current recordings and performances of the veterans.

In jazz it's as if things have moved closer to classical music with its veneration of maestros and defining recordings; where in folk music current music seems to be much more celebrated (and I've yet to come across any folkies into their fourth generation of Japanese 456 bit remasters of Topic or Transatlantic classics).

I wonder if this might lie in the nature of the music. Jazz is largely a spectator sport where the entry level for performance requires a high skill set. Folk music, even though it has plenty of virtuosos of its own, has always made a great deal of being participatory - from the sing-around to the floor spot to the big social dancing events. You don't see many workshops at jazz festivals - folk festivals are alive with them.

Folk audiences love their Carthy's and Tabors....but just seem as welcoming to the next generation, prepared to very quickly accept them on the same level as the 'masters' of old. All a bit odd when you think that jazz has always presented itself as 'the sound of surprise' yet seems focused on the glories of years gone by with UK jazz; whereas folk music is often perceived as old-fashioned yet seems to embrace the new. The expression 'evolving tradition' that was bandied about in the 90s very much sums up what the current UK folk world is like.

[Edit: I know I'm guilty of generalising here. I've sat in audiences thrilling to Polar Bear; and I've sat in audiences grumbling about Lisa Knapp's use of electronics. Added to which there are a variety of 'audiences' for each genre. But, my overall impression still holds in my mind as a generalisation].

There was also an interesting mix of folk and jazz in the UK in the 50s and 60s that featured such interesting artists as Davy Graham and Danny Thompson, who influenced folk artists such as Donovan, Pentangle, Nick Drake, and others.

This resulted in a very interesting blend that should have interested both folk and jazz audiences alike. The use of the upright bass was a common factor of these two musics, and there are some recordings of the above named artists that are quite unique.

[Head Man]

I'm reminded of when the Rendell-Carr reissues appeared in the noughties. Brian Morton wrote a piece in Jazz Journal International saying he was underwhelmed. The irrate letters to the editor that followed...

I know how he feels. I tried so hard to like "Shades of Blue" and "Dusk Fire" as much as their reputations suggested. Nice enough but I couldn't hear anything desperately original (cloth ears?)

Dare I say the same about "Hum Dono" (ducks for cover) which again didn't really live up to its build up. Whereas I thought both Harriot's "Free Form" and "Abstract" surpassed their reputations on reissue

I rather like 'Hum Dono'. Agree on the two Harriotts - they did live up to the promise.

It wasn't JJI...can't recall the name of that rather studious Jazz mag Richard Cook used to edit.

Was it Wire?

[sidewinder]

'Jazz Monthly' I guess? The Rendell/Carrs only get 3 stars in the Penguin Guide - very miserly I always thought.

Davy Graham of course used to record for Decca - and that label and its Deram offshoot also featured albums with artists who covered both jazz and folk fields e.g. Danny Thompson (who appears on the John Cameron 'Off Centre'). Maybe producer Ray Horricks helped to ferment this mix?

Edited February 11, 2015 by sidewinder

[David Ayers]

On the question of later British Jazz, as opposed to improv, I do know that I for one don't much like it. The jazz and jazz-rock tunes mostly just full flat for me. That's just me, mind you.

[mjazzg]

Possibly prompted by this thread I've listened to some excellent Brit Jazz over the last few days.Those of more recent vintage that have stood out are

Fin Peters - Butterflies [Accidental] and Music of The Mind [Mantella]

Iain Ballamy - Pepper Street Interludes

Anton Hunter Trio - s/t [efpi]

Reuben Fowler - Between Shadows Edition]

I know this doesn't add one iota to the debate. Just saying really.....

[RogerF]

I'm reminded of when the Rendell-Carr reissues appeared in the noughties. Brian Morton wrote a piece in Jazz Journal International saying he was underwhelmed. The irrate letters to the editor that followed...

I know how he feels. I tried so hard to like "Shades of Blue" and "Dusk Fire" as much as their reputations suggested. Nice enough but I couldn't hear anything desperately original (cloth ears?)

Dare I say the same about "Hum Dono" (ducks for cover) which again didn't really live up to its build up. Whereas I thought both Harriot's "Free Form" and "Abstract" surpassed their reputations on reissue

I rather like 'Hum Dono'. Agree on the two Harriotts - they did live up to the promise.

It wasn't JJI...can't recall the name of that rather studious Jazz mag Richard Cook used to edit.

It was Jazz Review (I'm looking at it now, Issue 63 December, 2004) and the subsequent issue (65 February 2005) contained furious letters of riposte to the Brian Morton RCQ reviews including one from Don Rendell himself. I can't say whether the five RCQ albums recorded for the EMI Columbia label under Denis Preston's supervision were earth-shattering or still stand the test of time - this is a matter of opinion. But in my opinion, certain elements of the RCQs albums were ahead of their time and in many respects the RCQ moved the canon of British jazz (almost uniquely for this time their material was all original, not dependent on American standards) forward into the "golden age". For my money my favourite RCQ album is Phase III particularly for Ian Carr's two pieces Crazy Jane and Les Neige D'Antan, previously recorded on the album Springboard (with Jeff Clyne, Trevor Watts and John Stevens) and dying to be reissued.

Edited February 11, 2015 by RogerF

[A Lark Ascending]

To be interested in jazz of a previous period means to be an audience of records. As you say, the audience of improv really is different. Improv has a vast recorded archive, but is still seen as a living practice.

Although there are plenty of folk records and plenty of records with huge reputations, I'd say the folk audience is much more live music based. When I'm chatting to people at jazz concerts, anyone with a lengthy interest will soon start talking records. I come across lots of people at folk concerts who don't have big collections. Go to Sidmouth (or many town based festivals) and there are hundreds of amateurs who don't go near the paying concerts; they go to play in communal sessions (and to drink!).

sgcim wrote: There was also an interesting mix of folk and jazz in the UK in the 50s and 60s that featured such interesting artists as Davy Graham and Danny Thompson, who influenced folk artists such as Donovan, Pentangle, Nick Drake, and others.

I think that was partly because the folk/jazz/blues genres were much closer then - lots of festivals of jazz folk & blues. All three had a marginal, Kerouac-y, alternative vibe to them. The interest in black culture (which often stemmed from a sense of alienation from established British culture) clearly brought many into contact with all three - blues, jazz and the folksier areas on things like the Harry Smith anthology. A lot of musicians in the blues boom of the early 60s came from one or more of those backgrounds and then fused in things like the Mayall bands. One of my early experiences of things jazzy were the early 70s John Martyn records with Danny Thompson; and I was aware of names like Mingus whose tunes popped up on Pentangle records.

Folk and jazz largely parted company in the late 70s. You get a degree of resistance today in the folk world to jazz - it's often seen as a bit noodly. Plenty of enthusiasm for folk and punk cross-overs (possibly because they both have a DIY mythology at their base) but jazz only occasionally gets a look in. Saxophones in a folk context sound very different to jazz.

mjazzg

By chance, playing Pepper Street Interludes as I read the latest posts!

RogerF

'Jazz Review' - that's the one.

Edited February 11, 2015 by A Lark Ascending

[sgcim]

Yes, there were some interesting things happening in the early 70s in the UK with artists like Nick Drake and John Martyn.

One Nick Drake LP features solos by jazz musicians such as Ray Warleigh and the South African composer/pianist Chris McGregor!

I was surprised to read that the jazzy arrangement of Mellow Yellow by Donovan was done by Led Zep's John Paul Jones, who was heavily influenced by jazz in his youth.

But as early as 1962, you had jazz musicians like Peter Ginger Baker saying that he decided to 'go commercial, and start playing R&B as opposed to jazz and it just took off.'

He had previously played in hard bop groups like the Johnny Burch Octet and the Ronnie Scott, Bert Courtley and Joe Harriot bands.

[David Ayers]

It is interesting to think about this question of the actuality of music and the role which recording plays.

[A Lark Ascending]

I suppose those performers were growing up when jazz was still quite close to the centre of popular culture. By the time I started listening to music it seemed like yesterday's music...apart from the jazz rock bands (I was aware of Miles Davis more by reputation than music) .

Tony Coe has a wonderful passage on 'Solid Air'.

[clifford_thornton]

Broadly I would agree with a comment made on page one that the situation may be comparable in the US, though I'd say that a lot of people in NYC or other large metropolises keep their fingers more firmly on the pulse.

When I did jazz radio in Austin, the guy I was splitting the show with hardly listened to any new players at all, though he was/is very familiar with earlier avant-garde stuff. I had then and still have a massive historical bent to my listening, but felt like it was just as (if not more) important to play music by up-and-comers that weren't getting as much attention outside of the East Coast or Chicago.

Rags like JazzTimes and DownBeat certainly support younger American players but I think they tend to follow the establishment tide and may be a little delayed in their reaction. And an older/dead artist or a younger artist working within established forms is much, much more likely to make the cover.

[David Ayers]

Only an oblique comment on this thread, but I had been thinking about the symmetry between HIP and folk in terms of practice and politics, a topic dropped into this article on the politics of conductors:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/music/9437552/was-simon-rattle-too-new-labour-for-the-berlin-philharmonic/

PS - because Rattle and the BPO are here now in London!!

[Jazzjet]

Yes, there were some interesting things happening in the early 70s in the UK with artists like Nick Drake and John Martyn.

One Nick Drake LP features solos by jazz musicians such as Ray Warleigh and the South African composer/pianist Chris McGregor!

I was surprised to read that the jazzy arrangement of Mellow Yellow by Donovan was done by Led Zep's John Paul Jones, who was heavily influenced by jazz in his youth.

But as early as 1962, you had jazz musicians like Peter Ginger Baker saying that he decided to 'go commercial, and start playing R&B as opposed to jazz and it just took off.'

He had previously played in hard bop groups like the Johnny Burch Octet and the Ronnie Scott, Bert Courtley and Joe Harriot bands.

There was indeed a lot of crossover in the early 70s, not just folk, blues and jazz but also rock. Examples include Manfred Mann Chapter Three and Keith Tippett's Centipede project.

Arguably, the involvement of modern jazz musicians in the early to mid 60s with R&B was largely because modern jazz was dying on its feet as a result of the twin assaults of beat groups and trad jazz. After all they had to earn a living and a number of them turned to R&B which was also experiencing a boom and was often horn-based. The book on John McLaughlin ('Bathed In Lightning') is particularly good on this period. It was only towards the latter part of the 60s that modern jazz started to regain its self-confidence and identity.

[sgcim]

Yes, there were some interesting things happening in the early 70s in the UK with artists like Nick Drake and John Martyn.

One Nick Drake LP features solos by jazz musicians such as Ray Warleigh and the South African composer/pianist Chris McGregor!

I was surprised to read that the jazzy arrangement of Mellow Yellow by Donovan was done by Led Zep's John Paul Jones, who was heavily influenced by jazz in his youth.

But as early as 1962, you had jazz musicians like Peter Ginger Baker saying that he decided to 'go commercial, and start playing R&B as opposed to jazz and it just took off.'

He had previously played in hard bop groups like the Johnny Burch Octet and the Ronnie Scott, Bert Courtley and Joe Harriot bands.

There was indeed a lot of crossover in the early 70s, not just folk, blues and jazz but also rock. Examples include Manfred Mann Chapter Three and Keith Tippett's Centipede project.

Arguably, the involvement of modern jazz musicians in the early to mid 60s with R&B was largely because modern jazz was dying on its feet as a result of the twin assaults of beat groups and trad jazz. After all they had to earn a living and a number of them turned to R&B which was also experiencing a boom and was often horn-based. The book on John McLaughlin ('Bathed In Lightning') is particularly good on this period. It was only towards the latter part of the 60s that modern jazz started to regain its self-confidence and identity.

I just finished reading the book on Cream ("The First Supergroup"), and they mentioned that jack Bruce played with Manfred Mann for a while, and also mentioned one jazz LP that they made. I assume that was Chapter Three. I plan to read the Jack Bruce bio soon.

There was also a quote from Ginger Baker where he said that the brave few that continued playing jazz in the UK in the 60s were 'bloody martyrs.

I

[sidewinder]

Jack Bruce was also on double bass on Mike Taylor's 'Trio' recording for Dennis Preston/Lansdowne and also part of the lineup for NJO 'Le Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe', both landmark recordings. Incredible that this was around the time that Cream were at their zenith.

It was Jazz Review (I'm looking at it now, Issue 63 December, 2004) and the subsequent issue (65 February 2005) contained furious letters of riposte to the Brian Morton RCQ reviews including one from Don Rendell himself.

That's the one.. I have back copies of that publication and remember reading that furour - will dig them out.

[David Ayers]

I'm trying to work out what is the relationship between nostalgia and reminiscence, and music history, and music-as-such.

[RogerF]

I'm trying to work out what is the relationship between nostalgia and reminiscence, and music history, and music-as-such.

Nostalgia, reminiscence and the history of music, I think you've put your finger on it. Nostalgia surely is a highly significant factor in the identification of the "golden age" of British jazz? I plead guilty to nostalgia influencing a lot of my jazz proclivities. An example of this might, and I stress might, be the late Philip Larkin's stance on jazz - which was, broadly speaking that anything produced post-war was usually rubbish. I think mouldy fygge as a term to describe Larkin was too generous. However, everyone's entitled to their opinion and Larkin had his. Or as Ronnie Scott said "when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you".

The trouble with nostalgia is that if you are steeped too much in it you tend to readily dismiss the contemporary stuff and considering many of the nostalgia heroes of the past are now sadly dead, it's quite dangerous to lionise them without also lending an ear to the present. Whilst much of the older music was very good, it is too easy to glorify all of it. I stand by my favourites of yore, but there is some incredible new music now being produced by the next generation and this should be celebrated, without necessarily forgetting the musical achievements of the past, some of which, to borrow an oft-employed phrase from Russell Brand created new paradigms in music.