Your Favorite Jazz Records of the 1980s?

[JSngry]

16 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

Two things I immediately noticed:
 - Practically no LATIN JAZZ.
 - Practically no jazz from EUROPE or anywhere outside of the U.S.

and yet....each critic gave 10 records that are all pretty good from within their known areas of interest. It's not like they left anything out. They had 10 slots, they gave 10 records.

Some of these guys...I didn't care what they thought then, REALLY don't care now, but for the ones I share tastes with, hey, nothing there to get rid of.

So, what are you saying, they should have made/asked the critics to make sure they made "more inclusive" lists? In 1990, American critics (mostly), with all the great American jazz still getting out? Don't make me laugh.

OTOH, Cadence's critics were a more diverse lot and you could probably get a broader look there than in the Voice. Village Voice, provincial by definition. A bigass provincialism, sure, but still, provincial.

My advice to anybody reading this Voice list is to get anything on there that you don't already have, unless you know it's not something for you. Otherwise, no, not a panoramic worldview of improvised music, but still a good bunch of records to fill your collection with.

I mean, 1990, look at how many people on that list are dead now but were still making lively, vital records then. Times changed much, maybe?

And Ed Wilkerson...if you don't know Ed Wilkerson, you are wrong for that. Wrong.

[soulpope]

On the positive side :

Jerry Gonzalez "Rumba Para Monk" (Sunnyside)

is mentioned  ....

[HutchFan]

49 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

I think I wrote the first review they got. It was enthusiastic.

P.S. I think John Litweiler may have been the first.

Larry -- Why weren't YOU represented on the list?  Did you get an invitation to contribute?

 

39 minutes ago, JSngry said:

and yet....each critic gave 10 records that are all pretty good from within their known areas of interest. It's not like they left anything out. They had 10 slots, they gave 10 records.

Some of these guys...I didn't care what they thought then, REALLY don't care now, but for the ones I share tastes with, hey, nothing there to get rid of.

Well, I think they did leave stuff out -- things that you probably "don't share tastes with."

Why not ask one or two aficionados of Latin Jazz to contribute?  Why not ask some critics/authors based in other countries to contribute?  What's the harm in that?

I'm NOT saying that there's something "wrong" with these lists.  I'm just saying that more perspectives would have made for a more well-rounded -- and, ultimately -- more interesting picture.

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by HutchFan

[HutchFan]

40 minutes ago, JSngry said:

My advice to anybody reading this Voice list is to get anything on there that you don't already have, unless you know it's not something for you. Otherwise, no, not a panoramic worldview of improvised music, but still a good bunch of records to fill your collection with.

Totally agree with this sentiment, by the way.  But why STOP there?   

 

One other thought: I am a pluralist by inclination and temperament.  That means that I like to include ALL SORTS of stuff.  Because a bigger picture -- even if it's messier -- is more accurate.  If I were a monist -- like I think you are, Jim -- I would be more comfortable with excluding stuff that I might think is of "secondary" or of "peripheral" importance.  That's also why you're comfortable saying things like, "XYZ is wrong, and ABC is right."  To a monistic thinker, there aren't standards; there is a standard. So, I guess I'm saying that even the way we think about these sorts of lists is a reflection of our individuality, our way(s) of thinking about the world.

Another way of thinking about it: Platonism = Monism. Aristotelianism = Pluralism.  William James said that everyone, at heart, is either one or the other -- monistic or pluralistic.  Not necessarily wholly but by tendency.  I think it explains a lot of things.

Sorry to take us down this quasi-philosophical rabbit hole.  I hope it clears the waters rather than muddies them!

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by HutchFan

[JSngry]

32 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

Why not ask one or two aficionados of Latin Jazz to contribute?  Why not ask some critics/authors based in other countries to contribute?  What the harm in that?

 

Dude, it was the Village Voice and if was, 30+ years ago. Wishing it wasn't like that won't make it so.

Do you really understand what the Village Voice was?

[Rabshakeh]

I think there's something in the nature of a list like this. If you are asked to pick the "Ten most worthy jazz releases of the decade" for an audience of mid-level enthusiasts, everyone would naturally pick those releases that they feel are capital-I Important and closest to the mainstream definition of the genre (in this case, US and "jazz" with no adjective in front of it). 

I'm sure if there were more slots, or if there was a further sub-list of "Records you also dug" or something to that effect you would start to get a more interesting and wider selection.

It's true of any end of year or decade list - the good stuff in a top 100 list is always in the 100-70 category. By the time you get to the top ten it's just the same old starchy dribble.

P.S., Glad to see this thread back. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Rabshakeh

[HutchFan]

12 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Dude, it was the Village Voice and if was, 30+ years ago. Wishing it wasn't like that won't make it so.

Do you really understand what the Village Voice was?

I'm not saying that the lists are flawed without those other perspectives.  To your point, given the circumstances, it wasn't gonna happen at the VV.

On the other hand, I am saying that -- with the benefit of hindsight -- it would have made for a fuller, more well-rounded picture if those other perspectives HAD been included.

Our sense of history -- an of what's important -- is always in flux, right?  What we think is important now might be different that we what we thought was important then.  That's all I'm talking about -- what WE are talking about -- here.

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by HutchFan

[JSngry]

7 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

One other thought: I am a pluralist by inclination and temperament.  That means that I like to include ALL SORTS of stuff.  Because a bigger picture -- even if it's messier -- is more accurate.  If I were a monist -- like I think you are, Jim -- I would be more comfortable with excluding stuff that I might think is of "secondary" or of "peripheral" importance.  That's also why you're comfortable saying things like, "XYZ is wrong, and ABC is right."  To a monistic thinker, there aren't standards; there is a standard. So, I guess I'm saying that even the way we think about these sorts of lists is a reflection of our individuality, our way(s) of thinking about the world.

Another way of thinking about it: Platonism = Monism. Aristotelianism = Pluralism.  William James said that everyone, at heart, is either one or the other -- monistic or pluralistic.  Not necessarily wholly but by tendency.  I think it explains a lot of things.

Sorry to take us down this quasi-philosophical rabbit hole.  I hope it clears the waters rather than muddies them!

 

Dude, you apparently have no idea how much of a pluralist I am. My inputs have been open to pretty much everything for a pretty long time, and they've gotten more open in the last 10-15 years or so.

But at some point...conclusions are reached. If they aren't one is not really learning, one is just playing on a playground from where one never has to go to work. Glittery unicorns and feel-good participation trophies forever. In order to move on., one has to have something to move on from. You can't just always not have a perspective, that's for children. Adults have to....make up their mind about things - and then get right back to pluralizing those inputs. There's no end to them, ever.

OTOH, if you reach some conclusions and don't resume the truly unanswered quest of what comes next, where to go from there, hell, you might as well die.

And yes - Edward Wilkerson - know him or be WRONG.

6 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

I'm not saying that the lists are flawed with those other perspectives.  To your point, given the circumstances, it wasn't gonna happen.

On the other hand, I am saying that -- with the benefit of hindsight -- it would have made for a fuller, more well-rounded picture if those other perspectives HAD been included.

Our sense of history -- an of what's important -- is always in flux, right?  What we think is important now might be different that we what we thought was important then.  That's all I'm talking about. 

 

Well, with the benefit of hindsight...jeesh. With the benefit of hindsight, all sorts of things could have been better, and Jazz Critics Polls would not be in the Top 1000 of things we wish could have been.

I used to read the Voice often enough to know what it was. It was NEVER going to be the thing that you are wishing. And I didn't read it for music, really. It was better for "issues". Their music coverage was...not prime. It was local, and "jazz" was not a regular component in a truly meaning ful manner, not for  loooooong time. Burt Korral? John McDonough? They got some names on their I don't think ever got published in the Voice?

You should look at the Cadence critics polls.

You can keep going down this rabbit hole of things that never were, or maybe...redirect to more fertile ground.

That, and listen to Ed Wilkerson.

[HutchFan]

OK, Jim.  I intended no offence.

All I was saying that some (many!) people believe that there is a jazz ideal or essence.  That's Platonism, monism.  But I don't think about jazz that way. 

I don't think that perspective makes me childish or foolish.  It's just how I make sense of things.

I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

Back to the topic at hand ...

1 hour ago, soulpope said:

On the positive side :

Jerry Gonzalez "Rumba Para Monk" (Sunnyside)

is mentioned  ....

Yes!  I was happy to see that!   

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by HutchFan

[Rabshakeh]

31 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

Our sense of history -- an of what's important -- is always in flux, right?  What we think is important now might be different that we what we thought was important then.  That's all I'm talking about. 

I should add that I was already aware of the VV's list that @HutchFan posted, having discovered it a few years ago.

For all its obvious flaws, when I first encountered it, it was extremely useful to me.

The fact is that jazz since the start of the 1980s is pretty much unmapped territory. Those who were there and listening know,  but if you weren't (or if you were more into nursery rhymes at the time, as I was) there's hardly any way in.

Most older jazz fans whom I know in real life's tastes had stopped moving around 1968, so there were no recommendations from those quarters, and such information as is available online might as well have been stamped "Columbia Records Marketing Department Press Release". The result is that it took me around 15 years of heavy listening before I moved in any serious way into 1980s jazz, other than the obligatory disappointing Marsalis purchase.

Discovering that VV list really opened up a lot of listening that would otherwise have not been available at all. I think it was the first time I had seen Special Edition mentioned, if that gives you an idea of the sort of information vacuum I am talking about.

I think that any sort of online list relating to the period post-1969 is valuable, and what is particularly useful about the VV one is that it presents a multiplicity of viewpoints, even if they are myopically focused on "jazz" as perceived by NY critics.

On a related note, I greatly enjoy the site "rate your music". The basic "rating" functionality of the site is not particularly great, but it has a very large number of user generated lists, which stretch into areas that are otherwise no much covered, even on the internet. It is one of the best resources I know of for exploring these areas. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Rabshakeh

[HutchFan]

Rab, I couldn't agree more.  

It seems like jazz abruptly stops for many listeners at the end of the 60s.  That's one of the biggest reasons that I wanted to build my 1970s jazz blog.  I felt like there was SO MUCH "uncharted territory" beginning in the 70s -- relative to what came before it.  ... Now, it seems like there's a broad re-assessment of the 1970s underway, and it has been happening for years.  My blog was just a tiny speck in a very big wave.

I hope that my 1980s blog can offer something similar for the decade after the 70s.  If I can point listeners toward some interesting (and often overlooked) music, then I'll be happy.

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by HutchFan

[Niko]

These perceptions of where territory starts to become uncharted are interesting... I got into jazz in the mid 90s, reading (many times) the 1989 edition JE Behrendt's jazz book... and while stuff did become a bit messier from the late 60s onwards, I thought he and his coauthor still did a fairly good job covering the 70s and 80s... after that territory is largely uncharted .... I wouldn't know how to explain how the jazz of 2000-2010 differs from the jazz of 2010-2020...

Edited July 26, 2021 by Niko

[Rabshakeh]

9 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

My blog was just a tiny speck in a very big wave.

I thought it was great! I found lots of good stuff there that I had never heard of before.

[HutchFan]

58 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

I'm sure if there were more slots, or if there was a further sub-list of "Records you also dug" or something to that effect you would start to get a more interesting and wider selection.

It's true of any end of year or decade list - the good stuff in a top 100 list is always in the 100-70 category.

You're probably right. 

Seems like the most interesting stuff often happens where there isn't consensus. 

 

[Rooster_Ties]

9 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

I hope that my 1980s blog can offer something similar for the decade after the 70s.  If I can point listeners toward some interesting (and often overlooked) music, then I'll be happy.

Woah, I don’t think I realized you were doing an 80’s jazz blog too. (I’ve been following the board less closely since I got to working again when the Museum I work for reopened at the beginning of May).

Linky, linky??

[HutchFan]

8 minutes ago, Niko said:

These perceptions of where territory starts to become uncharted are interesting... I got into jazz in the mid 90s, reading (many times) the 1989 edition JE Behrendt's jazz book... and while stuff did become a bit messier from the late 60s onwards, I thought he and his coauthor still did a fairly good job covering the 70s and 80s... after that territory is largely uncharted .... I wouldn't know how to explain how the jazz of 2000-2010 differs from the jazz of 2010-2020...

That's interesting, Niko.

From my point of view, the 1970s are the beginning of the present jazz world, that is, a world of so much diversity as to cause a lot of confusion and NON-consensus as to what's "important."

 

[JSngry]

27 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

OK, Jim.  I intended no offence.

All I was saying that some (many!) people believe that there is a jazz ideal or essence. 

 

For every voice, or group of voices working towards the same thing, yes, there is an essence that is being reached for. But not everybody shares the same goal, therefore, not the same essence. The Eddie Harris essence is not the Grover Washington essence...although, maybe it is, once you follow that essence outside of music and into the social spheres...but that's part of the music too, so....I strive, pray for, a holistic understanding of humanity and it's relation to linear time (a concept which I accept on begrudgingly as an organizational tool in the service of remunerative employment...so. how do you get to holism without pluralism - and if/when you get to holism, what next? the other side of the mountain? Or get off that mountain, right, what is a mountain anyway, it's just a piece of earth, and Earth is hardly the end of things!

I really do believe that the important thing is to be able to empathize with really, first, what is the goal there, and then, and only then, how are they doing with that?

And then, do I really care about that, and if so, to what degree.

And then, the big one, the one that never ends - what's next now?!?!?!

And as far as "pluralist"...tell me again how Gene Puerling is "too white" for your tastes...I still don't understand that concept. And hopefully never will.

and after that, go check out Ed Wilkerson.

[HutchFan]

6 minutes ago, Rooster_Ties said:

Woah, I don’t think I realized you were doing an 80’s jazz blog too. (I’ve been following the board less closely since I got to working again when the Museum I work for reopened at the beginning of May).

Linky, linky??

Haven't started it yet.  Still digging around, listening, doing "research."  I hope to begin at the start of 2022. 

On this blog, I'll be collaborating with a friend.  So there will be two perspectives this time, not just mine.

 

[John Tapscott]

Don't think I posted these before, but should have. 

[HutchFan]

7 minutes ago, JSngry said:

And as far as "pluralist"...tell me again how Gene Puerling is "too white" for your tastes...I still don't understand that concept. And hopefully never will.

Pluralism doesn't mean that I have to like everything.  Nothing is mandatory.  It just means that I have the freedom to like -- or not like -- many things.

I'm free to like the Swingle Singers.  And I'm under no obligation to like The Singers Unlimited. 

Pluralism means that a personal, even idiosyncratic, perspective is totally cool -- because no ONE perspective is "correct."

 

[Niko]

I guess there's also the simple mathematics of more generations of musicians living simultaneously as jazz got older... a productive jazz musician can produce new music for about 60 years... and, indeed, in the past year, we saw e.g. two great new albums by Archie Shepp and Pharoah Sanders who appeared in the 60s... in the 40s, most people had entered the scene in the 20s, 30s or 40s so there was more homogeneity... in the 70s you had for the first time the full six decade range of people who appeared in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s... (and of course that's not the whole story... I do agree that with the 70s jazz started to be a bit like it is today... but for the 70s and 80s you definitely have great albums that couldn't have been made any time else, afterwards I am not so sure... but I do start to get a bit of a feeling for the 90s...)

[JSngry]

12 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

From my point of view, the 1970s are the beginning of the present jazz world, that is, a world of so much diversity as to cause a lot of confusion and NON-consensus as to what's "important."

The beginning of the present "jazz world" was when they put a name on it and started to sell it. Everything else springs from that.

What was it Andrew said about "before the music got separated"...yeah, that.

Besides, population explosions, communication capacity follows suit, the smaller the world becomes the lot more things "make sense...and stop making sense.

It's so much bigger than "jazz". "Jazz no longer means people spirit, it means rote replications. Is it any wonder it's dead?

but the human spirit is not dead (at least in some), and let's see what THEY are up to! And let's not call it "jazz", "jazz was a marketing word for a specific mindset of a specific time, place, and people, almost all of whom are dead and gone now.

show the dead some respect and let them have their word...well, not THEIR word, the marketer's word. The people themselves have always been more than a marketing term.

 

[HutchFan]

28 minutes ago, John Tapscott said:

I really like that one.  

 

[HutchFan]

Fun discussion today.  I'm grateful to be a part of this forum.

As far as the one and the many stuff, I suppose lots of folks would be: "HutchFan, what the FUCK are you talking about?"  And maybe some of you were.   

Anyhow, even if you were, I appreciate that I can share what's on my mind with y'all.

 

Onward and upright, right?

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by HutchFan

[Niko]

3 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

Fun discussion today.  I'm grateful to be a part of this forum.

As far as the one and the many stuff, I suppose lots of folks would be: "HutchFan, what the FUCK are you talking about?"  And maybe some of you were.   

Anyhow, even if you were, I appreciate that I can share what's on my mind with y'all.

 

Onward and upright, right?

 

in for the journey