Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 hours ago, Al in NYC said:

HutchFan, I don't post around here much anymore, but I wanted to thank you for your hard work in rolling out this list and the posts on your website.  As I've been slowly collecting my way through the '70s, I've been on the lookout for lists like this one that might guide me a little better.  My dad's collection pointed much of the way through previous decades, but like a lot of folks his age he sort of gave up on taking in new music in the '70s, so other than a pile of Pablos, a few Xanadus, some records by old friends, and the obligatory copies of Bitches Brew and Koln Concert, there wasn't much there.  Since I started reading through this thread and your website last wee, you've already pointed the way to a few things I've picked up. Great stuff (that Coleman/Montoliu and the Bobo Stenson were both real killers, among others).

Oh, I think my count is around 135 (or 136 or so now that you've added Broken Wing), counting stuff I have in Mosaics and other boxes or partially mixed in on reissues.  Very heavily weighted towards the earlier part of the decade, like most others here.

Thanks very much, Al.  I'm glad that you're discovering some new-to-you music! 

The project has been a lot of fun.  :) 

 

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

More fodder for discussion.

Yesterday, Jazztimes published their "10 Best Jazz Albums of the 1970s," as selected by CRITICS.  (The earlier polls that we were discussing were based on readers' votes.) 

Here are the critics' ten picks: 

  • Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
  • Freddie Hubbard - Red Clay
  • Mahavishnu Orchestra - The Inner Mounting Flame
  • Chick Corea - Return to Forever
  • Herbie Hancock - Headhunters
  • Dave Holland - Conference of the Birds
  • Keith Jarrett - The Köln Concert
  • Wayne Shorter - Native Dancer
  • Pat Metheny - Bright Size Life
  • Weather Report - Heavy Weather

Sheesh, there are hardly any differences between the two lists! 

Adding Holland's Conference of the Birds is a nice touch.  Good to see Anthony Braxton & Sam Rivers represented, even if it's just as sidemen.  

On the other hand, I dig Wayne's Native Dancer.  Sure, it's a nice record and the Brazilian fusion thing is cool -- but is it really a more impressive record than Odyssey of Iska ?!?! ... Not in my book. Er, blog rather. ;) 

 

Posted

I realize Bitches Brew was released in March of 1970, but the album is a “1969” album in practically every way anyone steeped in Miles would and surely does think of it (recorded in Aug, 1969).

I always recoil a bit when I see Bitches Brew listed on “best of the 1970’s” lists.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rooster_Ties said:

I realize Bitches Brew was released in March of 1970, but the album is a “1969” album in practically every way anyone steeped in Miles would and surely does think of it (recorded in Aug, 1969).

I always recoil a bit when I see Bitches Brew listed on “best of the 1970’s” lists.

I'm with you, Rooster.  It feels like a bit of a cheat.  That's why I chose Live at the Fillmore East, March 7, 1970: It's About that Time as my Miles selection for my blog.

OTOH, if I were to make an argument why Bitches Brew SHOULD be on 70s jazz lists: The record was massively influential on SO MUCH music made during the decade (and after). 

... So I guess I can see both sides. ;) 

 

Posted
5 hours ago, HutchFan said:

More fodder for discussion.

Yesterday, Jazztimes published their "10 Best Jazz Albums of the 1970s," as selected by CRITICS.  (The earlier polls that we were discussing were based on readers' votes.) 

Here are the critics' ten picks: 

  • Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
  • Freddie Hubbard - Red Clay
  • Mahavishnu Orchestra - The Inner Mounting Flame
  • Chick Corea - Return to Forever
  • Herbie Hancock - Headhunters
  • Dave Holland - Conference of the Birds
  • Keith Jarrett - The Köln Concert
  • Wayne Shorter - Native Dancer
  • Pat Metheny - Bright Size Life
  • Weather Report - Heavy Weather

Sheesh, there are hardly any differences between the two lists! 

Adding Holland's Conference of the Birds is a nice touch.  Good to see Anthony Braxton & Sam Rivers represented, even if it's just as sidemen.  

On the other hand, I dig Wayne's Native Dancer.  Sure, it's a nice record and the Brazilian fusion thing is cool -- but is it really a more impressive record than Odyssey of Iska ?!?! ... Not in my book. Er, blog rather. ;) 

 

The most surprising thing about that list for me is that critics would go for Heavy Weather over earlier Weather Report but then pick the first Return to Forever over later

Posted
On 16.11.2020 at 0:08 AM, HutchFan said:

Weekly Recap - PLAYING FAVORITES: Reflections on Jazz in the 1970s 

Chet Baker – Broken Wing (Sonopresse/Inner City/Gitanes Jazz, 1979)
John Coates, Jr. – In the Open Space (Omnisound, 1979)
Ronnie Mathews – Roots, Branches & Dances (Bee Hive, 1979)
Curtis Fuller – Fire and Filigree (Bee Hive, 1979)
Zbigniew Seifert – Passion (Capitol, 1979)
Mick Goodrick – In Pas(s)ing (ECM, 1979)
Bill Evans & Toots Thielemans – Affinity (Warner Brothers, 1979)

 

Last week, work was busy and stressful, so there's no new write-ups -- except for a piece on the Polish jazz violinist Zbigniew Seifert that I'd put together months ago.  You can check it out here.

Turning to the other albums, there's some lovely, lyrical entries this week: the Chet Baker, the Bill Evans & Toots, and the John Coates. 

The Goodrick is an excellent below-the-radar ECM (recently reissued, coincidentally), and the Fuller and Mathews Bee Hives are among the best releases from that label.

So, all in all, another solid batch. ;) 

 

"Broken Wing" a winner for sure ....

Posted
18 hours ago, HutchFan said:

I'm with you, Rooster.  It feels like a bit of a cheat.  That's why I chose Live at the Fillmore East, March 7, 1970: It's About that Time as my Miles selection for my blog.

Silly Billy, *IF* Bitches Brew is a 70’s album (not saying you said it was!) — then Miles’ Live at the Fillmore East, March 7, 1970: It's About that Time is a 2001 album.

Maybe it’s a factor of my only getting into jazz starting in the late 80’s — but when particular albums were released is really quite a secondary data-element, though I’ll admit it can be interesting to look at the history of the PUBLIC’s experience of someone like Miles, through the lens of when THEY first got to experience particular albums — particularly when they came out 2-3 or 5+ years after they were recorded.

But that’s an entirely different lens than when/how/why things actually got recorded at the time, and what preceded and followed what, and by how long — weeks, months, half-a-year, etc. And what tours might have interceded between the ventures into the studio — particularly with someone as “evolving” as Miles.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rooster_Ties said:

Silly Billy, *IF* Bitches Brew is a 70’s album (not saying you said it was!) — then Miles’ Live at the Fillmore East, March 7, 1970: It's About that Time is a 2001 album.

Maybe it’s a factor of my only getting into jazz starting in the late 80’s — but when particular albums were released is really quite a secondary data-element, though I’ll admit it can be interesting to look at the history of the PUBLIC’s experience of someone like Miles, through the lens of when THEY first got to experience particular albums — particularly when they came out 2-3 or 5+ years after they were recorded.

But that’s an entirely different lens than when/how/why things actually got recorded at the time, and what preceded and followed what, and by how long — weeks, months, half-a-year, etc. And what tours might have interceded between the ventures into the studio — particularly with someone as “evolving” as Miles.

Yeah, I hear you. :P You gotta be consistent one way or the other.  Either release date or recording date.

With my blog, I chose to go with recording date.  Because my intention is for the blog to be retrospective in nature, looking back on things from the perspective of the present.  In other words, I'm taking full advantage of the benefit of hindsight.

My blog is NOT an account of how things were to listeners and musicians who were experiencing 70s jazz at the time.  If that were my intention, I would have chosen release date instead.  (Plus I would need to take into account factors like the availability of records, the popularity of records, how "relevant" or "important" certain records were perceived to be, etc., etc. ... That's precisely the sort of history that I'm free to ignore on my blog -- if I want to.)

That make sense?

 

 

EDIT
The stuff that I wrote above made me think some more about those Jazztimes lists.  Perhaps my beef with them is that they're more focused on what was perceived as important or popular back then, rather than using the opportunity to re-contextualize what was happening from the viewpoint of the present.   An analogy: Think about a film like "Vertigo."  When it was released, it was a flop.  Nobody -- neither viewers nor critics -- seemed to get it.  But, with the passage of time, it came to be recognized as a masterpiece.  Time should give us all a clearer -- and at a minimum a different -- perspective. 

Likewise, those Jazztimes lists should NOT be exactly the same as if they had been compiled in 1980!  More than forty years have passed!  What was important and relevant then might not be what's important and relevant now.  Today, most critics think of "Vertigo" as a classic.  There's been a profound shift in the way people think about the movie, both its value and its importance.  On the other hand, the jazz critics' perceptions regarding 70s jazz seem to be immobile; they're no different now than they were back in the day. 

... That bums me out.

 

Edited by HutchFan
Posted
1 hour ago, HutchFan said:

Yeah, I hear you. :P You gotta be consistent one way or the other.  Either release date or recording date.

With my blog, I chose to go with recording date.  Because my intention is for the blog to be retrospective in nature, looking back on things from the perspective of the present.  In other words, I'm taking full advantage of the benefit of hindsight.

My blog is NOT an account of how things were to listeners and musicians who were experiencing 70s jazz at the time.  If that were my intention, I would have chosen release date instead.  (Plus I would need to take into account factors like the availability of records, the popularity of records, how "relevant" or "important" certain records were perceived to be, etc., etc. ... That's precisely the sort of history that I'm free to ignore on my blog -- if I want to.)

That make sense?

 

 

EDIT
The stuff that I wrote above made me think some more about those Jazztimes lists.  Perhaps my beef with them is that they're more focused on what was perceived as important or popular back then, rather than using the opportunity to re-contextualize what was happening from the viewpoint of the present.   An analogy: Think about a film like "Vertigo."  When it was released, it was a flop.  Nobody -- neither viewers nor critics -- seemed to get it.  But, with the passage of time, it came to be recognized as a masterpiece.  Time should give us all a clearer -- and at a minimum a different -- perspective. 

Likewise, those Jazztimes lists should NOT be exactly the same as if they had been compiled in 1980!  More than forty years have passed!  What was important and relevant then might not be what's important and relevant now.  Today, most critics think of "Vertigo" as a classic.  There's been a profound shift in the way people think about the movie, both its value and its importance.  On the other hand, the jazz critics' perceptions regarding 70s jazz seem to be immobile; they're no different now than they were back in the day. 

... That bums me out.

 

That's definitely one thing wrong with those lists, among many.  On the recorded v. release date issue, I find that generally jazz people are recorded date people and rockists are release date people.  In fact recently on SHF there were many who insisted that the 'original lineup' of a band was who played on the first album, regardless of how long a member might have been in before that or how many singles they played on.  Fiddlesticks.

Posted

Was the list free-form suggestions or pick from a larger group pre-selected by the editors?

I don't think anyone should be surprised about such a  list and I actually disagree that the gift of a 40 year time span should automatically make a material difference, not in the eyes of a group of readers of a publication about a niche genre. Now, if you had a critic of some repute to look back and pick "most influential" or something maybe he comes up with a different and/or more interesting list.

But in the "wisdom of the crowd", you get exactly these types of results.

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Was the list free-form suggestions or pick from a larger group pre-selected by the editors?

I don't think anyone should be surprised about such a  list and I actually disagree that the gift of a 40 year time span should automatically make a material difference, not in the eyes of a group of readers of a publication about a niche genre. Now, if you had a critic of some repute to look back and pick "most influential" or something maybe he comes up with a different and/or more interesting list.

But in the "wisdom of the crowd", you get exactly these types of results.

It was a mix. There were drop-down lists with suggestions, and space to enter your own choices - a bit like entering what state or country you live in when filling out an online form.

What that meant of course is that readers must have slanted heavily towards the suggestions, particularly the earlier ones.  
 

The suggestions themselves were not too bad and certainly included more interesting fare than the bleakly predictable results.

Edited by Rabshakeh
Posted

As someone said not too far back, it's a crime that Charles Tolliver and Billy Harper aren't better recognized for their contributions to the decade (and more generally) -- and of course, Woody Shaw too.   Cripes -- how any "top-whatever" list from the 70's would leave off Woody Shaw is astounding.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Rooster_Ties said:

As someone said not too far back, it's a crime that Charles Tolliver and Billy Harper aren't better recognized for their contributions to the decade (and more generally) -- and of course, Woody Shaw too.   Cripes -- how any "top-whatever" list from the 70's would leave off Woody Shaw is astounding.

There’s a whole school of great musicians who have no general recognition because they committed the heinous crimes of coming of age musically at the very end of the sixties and not being on ECM. 

Edited by Rabshakeh
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

There’s a whole school of great musicians who have no general recognition because they committed the heinous crimes of coming of age musically at the very end of the sixties and not being on ECM. 

ECM didn’t get serious momentum going for quite a few years after the late 60s. Most likely more of a culprit, as well as the rise of rock, was that their coming of age coincided with the old Blue Note’s switch into more commercial forms of jazz. Certainly seems to have been the case with Shaw, who even did a session with Lion which went unissued until Muse picked it up.

First time I saw Tolliver was as a fairly low key member of a Louis Hayes group. At the time I found this low profile astonishing, knowing what I did about his 70s work and Strata East. I guess he had just emerged from decades of teaching.

Edited by sidewinder
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sidewinder said:

ECM didn’t get serious momentum going for quite a few years after the late 60s. Most likely more of a culprit, as well as the rise of rock, was that their coming of age coincided with the old Blue Note’s switch into more commercial forms of jazz. 

I'm not blaming ECM.

It's just that ECM-signed artists like Jarrett and Garbarek are the only ones who I can think of who do have much name recognition from that period. 

Perhaps being on ECM is a defence to the crime of coming of age musically at the very end of the sixties! 

Edited by Rabshakeh
Posted
6 hours ago, sidewinder said:

ECM didn’t get serious momentum going for quite a few years after the late 60s.

Pat Metheny, Keith Jarrett, and to some extent Gary Burton.

Interesting(?) that Burton & Jarrett had both come off runs at Atlantic, even had that joint record that was a bit of a hit.

Posted
9 hours ago, Rooster_Ties said:

As someone said not too far back, it's a crime that Charles Tolliver and Billy Harper aren't better recognized for their contributions to the decade (and more generally) -- and of course, Woody Shaw too.   Cripes -- how any "top-whatever" list from the 70's would leave off Woody Shaw is astounding.

Yeah, Woody was big enough in the 70s that somebody should have remembered. Mosaic/Michael Cuscuna have. Hardly an "industry", but they have done their part.

But...

Charles Tolliver spent the 70s running his own reengage label and then trying to recuperate financially and professionally from that.

Billy Harper was out of Max World and was not interested in playing the big label game. Just NOT interested, nor, apparently, they in him.

To this day, Strata-East has never had market-impact, and Billy's records...they are hiding, and not really in plain sight.

The market/the business...if you want to know why these pollslistsetc are what they are, you must understand - people know what they know, and most people DO NOT WANT to do the work of finding things they don't know. That's why there have been labels and trade publications and all that - to put stuff in your face so you can buy it. NOT to elevate your spirit or broaden your scope, but to get you to spend your money on their products.

For most people, music is an act of consumption, a lifestyle accessory that projects a self-image. Most people not now know about music, do not want to learn about music, do not delight in the unfamiliar (unless it is already familiar), most people buy what they want because they want what they buy before they even know it's there.

Do not be astounded by the narrowness of the majority taste, just know that it exists, that it will always exist, and know that it is not where you want to live, ever. For that matter, they don't really want you there, you and your unconventional choices of people with names without  images for them to put on a bevy of black t-shirts that will signify superior hipness in the world of sheeps and goats. bah bah DING go the behooved cash registers as they buy their own personal pieces of souls to put on display. Pity them, for it is the only souls they will ever have.

Walk away, keep waking, and know that morass is not inevitable. Know that the underground will never go away. The deeper you go, the better it is.

 

 

Posted (edited)

I dunno. I've watched the rock canon refresh itself a couple of times now in my life. I don't get why the jazz canon seems so resistant.

At the end of the day, there's money to be made in selling "new" re-discoveries as much as selling the same old albums.  The same two or three companies own it all anyway.

And these are hardly niche artists or albums. 

 

Edited by Rabshakeh
Posted

It isn't even really the "jazz" canon, per se.

The view of the "top ten fusion" records has changed pretty heavily in the last twenty years, I think.  There's more disco and funk oriented albums at the expense of the rock and new age stuff than you used to see (e.g., more Byrds, less Pontys). 

Perhaps it's just a bop thing.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Yeah, Woody was big enough in the 70s that somebody should have remembered. Mosaic/Michael Cuscuna have. Hardly an "industry", but they have done their part.

But...

Charles Tolliver spent the 70s running his own reengage label and then trying to recuperate financially and professionally from that.

Billy Harper was out of Max World and was not interested in playing the big label game. Just NOT interested, nor, apparently, they in him.

To this day, Strata-East has never had market-impact, and Billy's records...they are hiding, and not really in plain sight.

The market/the business...if you want to know why these pollslistsetc are what they are, you must understand - people know what they know, and most people DO NOT WANT to do the work of finding things they don't know. That's why there have been labels and trade publications and all that - to put stuff in your face so you can buy it. NOT to elevate your spirit or broaden your scope, but to get you to spend your money on their products.

For most people, music is an act of consumption, a lifestyle accessory that projects a self-image. Most people not now know about music, do not want to learn about music, do not delight in the unfamiliar (unless it is already familiar), most people buy what they want because they want what they buy before they even know it's there.

Do not be astounded by the narrowness of the majority taste, just know that it exists, that it will always exist, and know that it is not where you want to live, ever. For that matter, they don't really want you there, you and your unconventional choices of people with names without  images for them to put on a bevy of black t-shirts that will signify superior hipness in the world of sheeps and goats. bah bah DING go the behooved cash registers as they buy their own personal pieces of souls to put on display. Pity them, for it is the only souls they will ever have.

Walk away, keep waking, and know that morass is not inevitable. Know that the underground will never go away. The deeper you go, the better it is.

 

Jim, 

Sadly, what you're saying makes a lot of sense.  The machinations of business, buying & selling, are at the root of our gripes about the narrowness and lack of imagination on these sorts of lists.  I hear you.  Loud and clear.

... But I do think -- I've GOT to think -- there's some possibility for some "movement" in popular conceptions.

Heck, I remember discovering the Dusty Groove website back in the day.  Their idea of what constituted good or interesting jazz was very different than more mainstream thinking.  They really dug lots of music that was WAY off the radar of most sites -- soul jazz, underground jazz, etc.  Of course, DG is not in business to change people's thinking.  They want to move product.  But the mere existence of a site like that indicated that there was a market for it.  People wanted it -- or DG wouldn't still be in operation.

I had the same reaction when I first stumbled across the Kozmigroove site.  It's not a commercial site -- but it represents the same sort of thing: a re-contextualization of music that had happened in the past, a re-evaluation or -- maybe more accurately -- a re-valuation.  I had similar reactions when I discovered sites dedicated to Muse and MPS back in the days of file sharing, downloading.  I kept discovering stuff I'd never even heard of -- much less heard -- and I'd say to myself, "DAMN, this is GOOD."  People were stirring the pot, questioning narratives about what was supposed to be important, worthwhile, valuable.

Bringing it back around to your original point: I don't have ANY commercial aspirations with my little blog project. None. I get enough of that at my day job!  But I guess I see my blog project as being as being similar to those non-commercial sites, offering a wider angle view on the world of jazz.  So much of this music is so valuable to me -- in completely non-monetary terms -- that I feel like I'm obligated to share it however I can because people are missing out!  When you read a great novel or see a wonderful movie or hear a hilarious comic, you wanna tell people about it:  "Hey, look at this!  It's fantastic!  It will enrich your LIFE."   That's what I'm doing.

And that's why I can't help but think "Good grief!" when I see the same names AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN when people who love jazz talk about jazz in the 1970s.  It bugs me.  It's lazy.  And people are missing out on GOOD and IMPORTANT music that can eff them up in the best possible way.

 

Edited by HutchFan

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...