In With the In Crowd: Popular Jazz in 1960s Black America

[Big Beat Steve]

You are right with the aspects that you highlight ...
And yet ...

1 hour ago, Rabshakeh said:

I think there is something to be said for the need the CHALLENGE the NARRATIVE. ...

... But please don’t underestimate how difficult it is to access this stuff if you were not there at the time. For someone getting into jazz retrospectively there are very strong barriers up, that serve to kettle listeners into listening to a tiny portion of what is out there, which is placed under a spotlight. And the likes of Eddie Harris, Gene Ammons and Ramsey Lewis are certainly not in that tiny illuminated portion. They are out there in the darkness. People who were not there at the time do not have access to these records. They don’t show up in jazz histories and they don’t get posted on instagram.

... I understand what you are saying but at the same time I am puzzled. Is it really THAT difficult to think BEYOND the "accepted wisdom" (i.e. the usual categories) of the canon of the (canonized) scribes on jazz?
Your post has made me wonder about how I found out about all this. Soul Jazz (and similar 60s jazz) came fairly late for me and still is not my #1 style of jazz that makes me most easily take chances when buying records. But I have come to like it a lot, and after all this problem of what was (and is) considered worthy of "unconditional" JAZZ status did exist earlier too, i.e. with post-1945 (or post-Petrillo ban) horn-led "race music", Rhythm & Blues, Jump Blues (whatever ...).
As highlighted in the "Soul Jazz" book by Bob Porter (which gives fairly broad coverage to 1945-55 R&B - as a path leading up to Soul Jazz - as well) and more recently in "Jazz With A Beat" by Tad Richards.
Trying to think of how I explored that music way back, it may have helped that in addition to Swing and Bebop I had always been just as much interested in (real) Rock'n'Roll (not the way this is being defined in the U.S., mind you 😄) as well as the meatier styles of Blues (which invariably leads you towards R&B and Jump Blues). So anything that struck a chord (style-wise) in more than one way - as a sort of "cross-over" - caught my fancy.  And almost from Day One I was curious enough to search out almost anything in that vein that I was able to get my hands on (and afford finance-wise ) in those late 70s, figuring there must be "more discoveries" out there.
I remember that in the beginning I was a bit uneasy about where to file the very first records I bought by Louis Jordan - his Mercury stuff - and Buddy Johnson (I think I still was in high school then), but this was soon overcome and I gradually worked my way further in.
What did I use for guidance or source material? Honestly, I don't remember ... A couple of books by Arnold Shaw helped. And I also remember I always tried to find PERIOD printed matter (books/mags) that talked about the music at the time it was current and did not want to rely exclusively on sources that were published much later (and were of course colored by whatever narrative hads come to dictate the way the story of jazz was "supposed" to be seen then). But access to such primary source material for reference was TOUGH in those pre-internet days.  In many cases I did not manage to catch up until much later.

I cannot even tell you what triggered me not to take the usual documentary sources as the "gospel" of what to appreciate as a "true" jazz fan. But I remember i always felt the urge to discover more in order to "flesh out" the bare-bones skeleton of the BIG names in jazz of any period and styles and look BEYOND that towards those who (at least to my tastes) were much more than "also-rans". Which, for example, is why I much prefer the "Jazz Masters of the 40s" book by Ira Gitler (who looks beyond the biggest names of the "usual suspects" and mentions tons of others for any given instrument), as opposed to the "Jazz Masters of the 50s" book that tries to cover 50s jazz by focusing on only a dozen (or so) of real big names but stops (and fails) there. 

In short, this exploratory route happened with me for jazz of the 1940-45 to 1955 period much in the same way it can happen with others for the late 50s to late 60s period covered by the book discussed here.

At any rate, the music IS out there, and no doubt it today is much, much easier to access than it was back in the 70s or early 80s. It just takes a good dose of curiosity and an attitude of taking the long-established narratives with a grain of salt, particularly if they reek of trying over and over again to "make a lady out of jazz" (even decades after Paul Whiteman) because they stuff jazz into a strict "art music" or "the classical music of the USA" corner. And ABOVE ALL not to forget that one purpose of jazz at ALL times was to entertain (including as a music for dancing).

[JSngry]

There's not a lot about Gene Ammons in this book, which seems odd to me.

And although there's mention made and photos of the Black Is Beautiful direction in female album cover models, there's no mention made of Grandassa (which is hardly a well-known thing, although a book has recently come out).

The more I read into this book, the more I feel an ineffectual irony in making an academic argument about a populist concern. Maybe further up the road we can get a Questlove Netflix series about this music that takes it directly (back) to the people. That would be slammin'!

 

[AllenLowe]

does he talk about predecessors? Louis Jordan? Pete Brown? Horsecollar Williams?

I somehow doubt it, but those three - at the least - should be in a book like this.

[Big Beat Steve]

38 minutes ago, AllenLowe said:

does he talk about predecessors? Louis Jordan? Pete Brown? Horsecollar Williams?

I somehow doubt it, but those three - at the least - should be in a book like this.

FWIW, as for two books with a similar approach about rebalancing the narrative of jazz history but (also) covering an earlier period, Louis Jordan is discussed in detail both in "Soul Jazz" by Bob Porter and "Jazz With a Beat" by Tad Richards. But Pete Brown is only briefly mentioned in passing in "Soul Jazz" and not at all in "Jazz With a Beat". And Floyd Horsecollar Williams (almost predictably?) is not mentioned in either of the two.
So the problem may be a more wide-ranging one.

[JSngry]

Louis Jordan was a huge crossover success. The other two, not so much.

[AllenLowe]

6 hours ago, JSngry said:

Louis Jordan was a huge crossover success. The other two, not so much.

I  agree but they really both helped create the style. As did Earl Bostic.

[JSngry]

Bostic was a badass.That's not exactly a secret, but it's not exactly common knowledge either.

Tab Smith, there's another one. Not as much a badass as Bostic, but no lightweight either.

I'm still not sure if this book is intended as a social history or a musical one.

The "forgetting" (hell, erasure) of popular, R&B- adjacent jazz (and/or vice-versa) isn't limited to the 1960s. I don't know that it's any mystery why...

 

[medjuck]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Bostic was a badass.That's not exactly a secret, but it's not exactly common knowledge either.

 

 

I once heard an interview with Benny Golson where he said Earl Bostic was the greatest alto player he ever heard. (Or something like that -- it was 40 years ago. ) The only radio station in my home town (which never played jazz) did play Bostic's version of Harlem Nocturne. 

[JSngry]

 

[Big Beat Steve]

9 hours ago, JSngry said:

 

These clips underline the point I tried to make in my reply to Rabshakeh.

Lynn Hope was graced with two reissue LPs in the mid-80s (Saxophonograph BP-508 and Aladdin/Pathé-Marconi 1546661), and I bought them not long after they had hit the record stalls. Not familiar with the name at all but knowing more or less what to expect (somewhere between Earl Bostic, Maxwell Davis and more energetic sax men). So I figured they'd fit well in among what I already had in that "category". No desert island discs but worth having, and being able to make a "discovery" was enough incentive. So Lynn Hope became a household name for me some 35+ years ago. As the annual "First Pressings" volumes revealed, he figured regularly in Billboard from 1951 to 1954 (less frequently in 1955 to 1958) so he clearly had some status on the scene for a while even after his 1950 hit with "Tenderly". 

Getting back to the time frame of the "In With The in Crowd" book, I'd bet discoveries such as this wouild work just as well for anyone wanting to explore 60s jazz (soul, sax-and-organ or whatever). It just takes some willingness to dig deeper and look beyond the big names of the "usual suspects" too. Which after all is made easier today by the chanels that make the music available for rediscovery.
 

Edited October 27 by Big Beat Steve

[mjazzg]

13 hours ago, JSngry said:

 

Whoa, consider me educated, right there

[JSngry]

46 minutes ago, mjazzg said:

Whoa, consider me educated, right there

To be fair, most of his records are not that type of music. But he still played with commanding technique.

And he had hits!

 

[mjazzg]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

To be fair, most of his records are not that type of music. But he still played with commanding technique.

And he had hits!

 

I'll take that

[JSngry]

I believe that Coltrane was in his and is on record as saying that it was quite an education about playing the saxophone.

[HutchFan]

On 10/26/2024 at 6:01 AM, Rabshakeh said:

I think there is something to be said for the need the CHALLENGE the NARRATIVE.

I don’t think there’s been a wholesale top down decision here, more that a culture industry has grown up that highlights certain areas for various reasons, which often reflect either marketing choices, fashion, academic trends or the evolution of later musical tastes.

If you were there you were there and you know. Either you enjoyed this stuff at the time or you rolled your eyes at such commercial trash. Perhaps you are ready to re-evaluate. But fundamentally you know who Gene Ammons, Ramsey Lewis and Eddie Harris were, and can make decisions accordingly.

But please don’t underestimate how difficult it is to access this stuff if you were not there at the time. For someone getting into jazz retrospectively there are very strong barriers up, that serve to kettle listeners into listening to a tiny portion of what is out there, which is placed under a spotlight. And the likes of Eddie Harris, Gene Ammons and Ramsey Lewis are certainly not in that tiny illuminated portion. They are out there in the darkness. People who were not there at the time do not have access to these records. They don’t show up in jazz histories and they don’t get posted on instagram. 

Something small like a book or one tastemaker can therefore have an effect and help to widen the area under the spotlight. In the last forty years we have watched electric Miles (journalist), disco fusion / rare groove (DJ), soul jazz organ work (DJs and book), the AACM (book), ‘spiritual jazz’, Strata East and Black Jazz (social movements and aesthetic developments), Japanese postbop and fusion, and British modernist jazz (books) be granted a place in the light. But it takes effort, and it really helps when people do publish books like this. Any push to widen the scope of what people have access to is helpful. Especially if it means that a young person might get to know the name Gene Ammons.

This commentary makes all sorts of sense to me.  Especially as someone who, like Rab, was NOT there at the time and has come to the entire body of 1960s jazz retrospectively.

I think the historiography of jazz -- which is in a continuous state of evolution, and apart from the evolution of the music itself -- is an important piece of the puzzle for understanding why some artists are ignored by critics, historians, and other cultural "taste makers." 

Think about an artist like Ahmad Jamal.  When I first was digging into jazz in the 1980s, authors would go out of their way to denigrate him as a mere "cocktail pianist."  In short, his most important attribute was the influence he exerted on (the "far more important" artist) Miles Davis.

But the critical narrative around Jamal has changed dramatically since the 1980s.  This is due to all sorts of factors.  But, in essence, his body of work hasn't changed but people's perceptions of his body of work have changed. 

You could say the same thing about many artists.  Their perceived value varies depending on circumstances that have nothing to do with their art itself.  It has more to do with the values of the people making judgments about it.

 

 

Edited October 29 by HutchFan

[Big Beat Steve]

34 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

This commentary makes all sorts of sense to me.  Especially as someone who, like Rab, was NOT there at the time and has come to the entire body of 1960s jazz retrospectively.

I think the historiography of jazz -- which is in a continuous state of evolution, and apart from the evolution of the music itself -- is an important piece of the puzzle for understanding why some artists are ignored by critics, historians, and other cultural "taste makers." 

Think about an artist like Ahmad Jamal.  When I first was digging into jazz in the 1980s, authors would go out of their way to denigrate him as a mere "cocktail pianist."  In short, his most important attribute was the influence he exerted on (the "far more important" artist) Miles Davis.

But the critical narrative around Jamal has changed dramatically since the 1980s.  This is due to all sorts of factors.  But, in essence, his body of work hasn't changed but people's perceptions of his body of work have changed. 

You could say the same thing about many artists.  Their perceived value varies depending on circumstances that have nothing to do with their art itself.  It has more to do with the values of the people making judgments about it.

I fully agree with you (and Rabshakeh's impressions), yet it keeps baffling me that so many seem to feel that it is sooo difficult to explore (and, often, appreciate - yes, DIG) artists from past decades of jazz who are not among the oft-repeated big names ("usual suspects") who were granted the eternal headlines in jazz history.
Admittedly I feel better qualified to speak for the Jump Blues era of jazz (1945-55) and not (yet) so much for e.g. the Soul Jazz (et al.) period, but the basic problem of artists being denigrated and put down by those who wrote (or should I say "recycled"?  😄 ) jazz history is largely the same.
I wasn't there either when the music was current (far from it, and on top of it I was and am removed geographically too) but I really cannot see that it was insurmountable to get into these artists who were bypassed or given short shrift by the jazz scribes. And I sincerely don't believe my own approach (call it "curiosity", if you want to) was such a "one-of-a-kind" experience.
And with the info available TODAY all these explorations of the "great unknowns" are made even easier.

Re-Ahmad Jamal, my first exposure to him on radio over here (in the second half of the 70s) was on AFN FM radio where (for hours and hours each day) they at the time played music that you might kindly describe as "retro MOR" background oldies (which was what must have made me curious enough to listen in) but which actually was more a case of "sophisticated elevator sounds". Now if you are served Ahmad Jamal in a program that places him in the middle of a string of tracks by the likes of Mantovani, Hugo Winterhalter, Percy Faith, etc., (believe me, I am NOT kidding!!) then this does not exactly make his jazz credentials skyrocket. Though in the midst of all these 50s/60s style retro sounds Jamal was among the more palatable offerings to my ears. And yet ...
 

[HutchFan]

3 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I fully agree with you (and Rabshakeh's impressions), yet it keeps baffling me that so many seem to feel that it is sooo difficult to explore (and, often, appreciate - yes, DIG) artists from past decades of jazz who are not among the oft-repeated big names ("usual suspects") who were granted the eternal headlines in jazz history.
[. . .]
And with the info available TODAY all these explorations of the "great unknowns" are made even easier.

BBS, I completely agree with you it's easier than ever to explore the less popular byways of jazz.  Without a doubt, that's true.  The internet has been a game changer in terms of making music available.  Nearly all of the financial and availability constraints that were there in past decades are gone.  So, YES, it's a great time to be a jazz listener.

On the other hand, that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about value assessments that happen at a cultural level.  How do we determine -- as a culture -- what is important & what has currency?  For example, which artists are part of the canon?  Who made the canon?  Who has been excluded and why?  Is it even good to think in terms of "canon"?  What deserves to be re-assessed and why? . . . All of this is part of a wider discussion than the individual exploration thing.

My 2 cents.

 

[Rabshakeh]

I don't think that the difficulties with retrospectively getting to know this music are "insurmountable".  But the problem is that Gene Ammons and Ramsey Lewis are not located on any of the pathways of exploration laid out for further exploration. 

People getting into jazz who want to move past the big names have to know how to look. Typically this could be by looking for recommendations for the greatest jazz records, by learning from generalised jazz histories, or, in later stages, looking to find out more about a specific subject: Blue Note, spiritual jazz, free jazz, independent black jazz of the 1970s, jazz vocal records, ECM, soul jazz, great American songbook albums, exotica etc.

Ramsey Lewis and Gene Ammons are not located on any of those pathways. They were never really critically acclaimed, so their records don't show up on top 100 lists. But, in contrast to other non-critically acclaimed areas of jazz (which in 2024 might include Stan Kenton's big band records, or smooth jazz), they are not in the history books, and there is not even a name for this genre for people to explore around.

To be honest, I identified Ramsey Lewis and Gene Ammons myself only at the point that I had exhausted getting into jazz, and was starting to sniff around the less fashionable records that you see in discount bins. That's ridiculous in retrospect. 

I second the references to Ahmad Jamal as being in the same category as other artists in discussion here. Jamal of course benefits by the fact that the Miles Davis connection puts his name prominently into every jazz history book (similar to Cannonball Adderleys's outsized prominence in this area of jazz), and from the fact that some of his (circa 2024) most popular records are on Impulse! and have cool covers.

Both of those factors do put Jamal on the pathway to discovery in a way that Ramsey Lewis is not. But I think that the pull factors for Jamal do apply equally to the likes of Ammons and Lewis, and the effect of Jamal's rising stature may well hold the key to increasing the prominence of the likes of Ammond, Lewis or Atlantic Ray Charles acolytes. 

Edited October 29 by Rabshakeh

[Big Beat Steve]

57 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

On the other hand, that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about value assessments that happen at a cultural level.  How do we determine -- as a culture -- what is important & what has currency?  For example, which artists are part of the canon?  Who made the canon?  Who has been excluded and why?  Is it even good to think in terms of "canon"?  What deserves to be re-assessed and why? . . . All of this is part of a wider discussion than the individual exploration thing.

My 2 cents.

 

Yes, this is an important aspect. And this is why the recent books that focus on this aspect are important. Because they make the case that there is no overruling, everlasting single way of deciding (or should I say "decreeing"?) "what is important and what has currency".
And part of understanding this is to try to find out why those value assessments came into being in the first place.
But isn't it so that in the end the value assessments and the decisions of what constitutes the "canon" are made on a fairly PERSONAL level by everyone of "us" (on this forum) or in general among jazz (or blues or rock, etc.) fans? Even within the realm of what undisputedly is part of "acknowledged" Modern Jazz I could rattle off a dozen leader names of whom I have more (sometimes many more) records on my shelves than by John Coltrane or Charles Mingus. (And no doubt many of these would be considered "lesser" artists by some or even many.) And this was only partially dictated by the undisputable fact that - if I decided to dig much deeper into Coltrane or Mingus, for example - the records would be accessible out there in SOME packaging at any time. Would I need to defend these choices? (Would anyone make excuses for his individual choices and preferences?) Of course not. This does not keep me from acknowledging the objective greatness of Coltrane or Mingus but in the end it is above all a matter of personal tastes and preferences. Like with everyone else. 

 

Edited October 29 by Big Beat Steve

[Rabshakeh]

I think that classic R&B and Jump Blues are maybe in a different category, which is more similar to the difficulties in accessing classic trad jazz or Dixieland.  These genres are sufficiently different to "Jazz" as your average non jazz fan now pictures it that they are not really natural entry points for a first timer.

But if you do specifically want to explore those genres, the more well known names are quite accessible.

Beyond the Louis Jordans and Big Jay McNeelys, you maybe hit the problem that is frequent with Jukebox Genres in general where the focus is on occasional hit singles and careers are short and disposable by design.

[Big Beat Steve]

12 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

I don't think that the difficulties with retrospectively getting to know this music are "insurmountable".  But the problem is that Gene Ammons and Ramsey Lewis are not located on any of the pathways of exploration laid out for further exploration. 

...

Ramsey Lewis and Gene Ammons are not located on any of those pathways. They were never really critically acclaimed, so their records don't show up on top 100 lists.

I understand what you are saying, but - at least in the case of Gene Ammons - you may have walked on the "wrong" pathways. It is hard for me to recap where Gene Ammons figured (or not) in generally accessible pre-internet jazz source material but to the best of my recollection he DID figure enough to be taken note of. Admittedly among those names that you ahd to dig a bit deeper for. My introduction to Gene Ammons, for example, came through his links to some of the more R&B-ish 50s jazzmen (documented on EmArcy, Chess and the early Ammons-Stitt team on Prestige). And in the end his "typical" Soul Jazz albums on Prestige were a natural extension and continuity of all this. In a way he is one of the "classic" cases to prove those wrong who indulged into too much (written and printed) pigeonholing. In short, stop bothering with "critical acclaim" as a criterion of what would be "worthy" for YOU as soon as you have even the FAINTEST notion that a given artist would fit your tastes and stylistic interests or preferences. Just go out on your own. It is unlikely that you would round up that many duds in your music purchases that way. 😄

[JSngry]

Ramsey Lewis and Gene Ammons are far more not the same thing than they are. And yet...

Why and how that is, or if it even matters, that's something everybody has to figure out for themselves. 

Do your own damn work and make your own damn canon. There are no wrong answers nearly as much as there are wrong questions.

And at some point, it's about people. So know people. 

[Dan Gould]

Does no one browse record stores anymore?

Nobody is stuck on the path of THE NARRATIVE.

I started a good bit before the Internet but not as far back as BBS.  At that time there were plenty of OJC vinyl (and Liberty BNs for that matter) where you could find Gene Ammons records, I am quite sure. And Ramsey Lewis Argos.  

 

Edited October 29 by Dan Gould

[Big Beat Steve]

8 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

I think that classic R&B and Jump Blues are maybe in a different category, which is more similar to the difficulties in accessing classic trad jazz or Dixieland.  These genres are sufficiently different to "Jazz" as your average non jazz fan now pictures it that they are not really natural entry points for a first timer.

But if you do specifically want to explore those genres, the more well known names are quite accessible.

Beyond the Louis Jordans and Big Jay McNeelys, you maybe hit the problem that is frequent with Jukebox Genres in general where the focus is on occasional hit singles and careers are short and disposable by design.

Things CAN be looked at it that way but (though I realize that I am biased here) I tend to disagree. R&B and Jump Blues were given short shrift (or outright denigrated) in the post-1945 Modern Jazz era in a way that was not all that different from the way that "popular" artists (Ramsey Lewis, Ahmad Jamal, Ray Charles, etc. etc., everyone in their own way) were belittled later on by many jazz scribes. And this also seemed to apply to many Soul Jazz artists (see period reviews of certain Gene Ammons records, for example). 

Bob Porter describes this continuum nicely in his "Soul Jazz" book (of which at least a third covers the 1945-55 era and the key acts in that field as some of those who laid out the pathway that ultmately led to Soul Jazz.  I've just started re-reading that book to let its contents sink (again) alongside "Jazz With A Beat" by Tad Richards (that covers much of the same ground yet does differ in how it makes the case - worth a separate thread in due course ...).

[Rabshakeh]

2 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Does no one browse record stores anymore?

Nobody is stuck on the path of THE NARRATIVE.

Good point. As mentioned above, it was record shops that alerted me to these names. Not canons. 

But we are all deep in. 99.9% of jazz fans are not.