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

[Big Beat Steve]

4 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Does no one browse record stores anymore?

Nobody is stuck on the path of THE NARRATIVE.

Well, I still do (from time to time). And I am happy to see that many (others who browse the stores) apparently still stick with "THE NARRATIVE" - which not all that rarely leaves nicely priced goodies off the beaten tracks of the usual suspects for me. Which confirms the point made by Rabshakeh that "99.9% are not".

[JSngry]

Ok, I just finished reading this book.

3 stars.

If one is unfamiliar with the genre and is looking for a fulsome list of names and album titles to use as a starting point for further explorations, here one is.

Same thing for anybody looking for an explanation about the intrinsic blackness of this (and so much other) jazz.

But...too much of the book is dry, almost academic, which is not the tone I would hope for in a book about "Popular Jazz in 1960s Black American".

The two times I feel that the author is digging in is two of the few times where he stops making lists and such and engages in the actual music - Oliver Nelson's Black Brown and Beautiful  aand the possibly eternally legendary Swiss Movement.

I hesitate to be too harsh, because this music is deeply personal to the author (and to his late father as well), and he's obviously got a valid point (when it is made) about how this music matters, maybe not as "art" music but as social music ( two sides of the same coin if you ask me). But the point is blunted far more than not, and that's really too bad. I can tell that the passion is simmering there.

Otherwise, yes, better editing, please. Freddie Roach and Freddie Green are not the same person, and too many adjectives before a noun...uh-oh!

And Albert Murray is only too be taken so far literally. Just saying...

Now as for Ramsey Lewis and the purported subject of this book - it might be interesting and/or useful to look at the evolution of his records from The In Crowd  through, say, Sun Goddess. A LOT of changes along the way, musical and cultural alike.

 

[medjuck]

4 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

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.

I don't think Ray Charles should be on this list. I don't think he was ever belittled anywhere despite his popularity.  (I, of course could be wrong.) 

[Rabshakeh]

9 hours ago, JSngry said:

Now as for Ramsey Lewis and the purported subject of this book - it might be interesting and/or useful to look at the evolution of his records from The In Crowd  through, say, Sun Goddess. A LOT of changes along the way, musical and cultural alike.

 

This recent prompt reminds me that a lot of what I was saying about about Ramsey Lewis actually applies only to 1960s Ramsey Lewis records like The In Crowd.

In London at least his 1970s records are comparatively well known. I think that's an effect of the rare groove and acid jazz scenes, and it reflects the fact that a record like Sun Goddess very much does lie on the line of enquiry for those kinds of music. 

I am not sure why I didn't make that clear above. 

[Big Beat Steve]

6 hours ago, medjuck said:

I don't think Ray Charles should be on this list. I don't think he was ever belittled anywhere despite his popularity.  (I, of course could be wrong.) 

Certainly not to the extent of many others, I'll admit that. "Belittled" was not an appropriate term either. And he certainly was acknolwedged in jazz circles in Europe. But OTOH what baffled me was that I recently read a statement somewhere to the effect that with the "Genius + Soul = Jazz" album he established his jazz credentials at last. Which sounded odd to me for two reasons: Did this mean that his credentials in jazz circles somehow were different (short of "true jazz"?) before that LP? And were his collaborations with Milt Jackson prior to that LP not enough, then?

[JSngry]

Here is the probably unintentional "money quote" of the book for me.

Discussing Wes Montgomery's Verve and A&M records, the author drops this imo little truth bomb:

 ...They are well-produced and engineered, and although they were not on the cutting edge, they are very listenable for many different jazz tastes...There is never a time when you get the sense that Montgomery (or any other player) is coasting or phoning it in...

And there you have it.

There's a LOT of legit reasons to dislike those type of records, but lack of purposeful intent and top-shelf execution of of that intent is not one of them.

I find it increasingly difficult to respect any opinion that does not recognize well-honed craft. Liking the uses to which it is or is not out is one thing, but not bothering to recognize that, say. Grady Tate worked his ass off so he could in fact work his ass off and get paid...I don't like that.

 

 

16 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Certainly not to the extent of many others, I'll admit that. "Belittled" was not an appropriate term either. And he certainly was acknolwedged in jazz circles in Europe. But OTOH what baffled me was that I recently read a statement somewhere to the effect that with the "Genius + Soul = Jazz" album he established his jazz credentials at last. Which sounded odd to me for two reasons: Did this mean that his credentials in jazz circles somehow were different (short of "true jazz"?) before that LP? And were his collaborations with Milt Jackson prior to that LP not enough, then?

There's a lot of stupid people who say stupid shit for you to read. That would appear to be one of them.

[felser]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Discussing Wes Montgomery's Verve and A&M records, the author drops this imo little truth bomb:

 ...They are well-produced and engineered, and although they were not on the cutting edge, they are very listenable for many different jazz tastes...There is never a time when you get the sense that Montgomery (or any other player) is coasting or phoning it in...

In my later years, I have learned to greatly appreciate and allow myself to enjoy works like those Montgomery albums and the ca. early 70's CTI albums on which Don Sebesky did expert work.  I listen to those types of albums frequently.

[JSngry]

I can appreciate the type of sincerity that is applied to the gig and not (just) to the self.

[Big Beat Steve]

On 10/29/2024 at 10:12 PM, JSngry said:

Ok, I just finished reading this book.

3 stars.

If one is unfamiliar with the genre and is looking for a fulsome list of names and album titles to use as a starting point for further explorations, here one is.

Same thing for anybody looking for an explanation about the intrinsic blackness of this (and so much other) jazz.

But...too much of the book is dry, almost academic, which is not the tone I would hope for in a book about "Popular Jazz in 1960s Black American".

The two times I feel that the author is digging in is two of the few times where he stops making lists and such and engages in the actual music - Oliver Nelson's Black Brown and Beautiful  aand the possibly eternally legendary Swiss Movement.

I hesitate to be too harsh, because this music is deeply personal to the author (and to his late father as well), and he's obviously got a valid point (when it is made) about how this music matters, maybe not as "art" music but as social music ( two sides of the same coin if you ask me). But the point is blunted far more than not, and that's really too bad. I can tell that the passion is simmering there.

Otherwise, yes, better editing, please. Freddie Roach and Freddie Green are not the same person, and too many adjectives before a noun...uh-oh!

And Albert Murray is only too be taken so far literally. Just saying...

Now as for Ramsey Lewis and the purported subject of this book - it might be interesting and/or useful to look at the evolution of his records from The In Crowd  through, say, Sun Goddess. A LOT of changes along the way, musical and cultural alike.

 

Received my copy - as intended - as a Christmas gift from my better half and am now about 70% through reading it (not counting the Annex and Notes, of course). And I had the above "review" in mind, and see that one and the same subject can be approached quite differently. 
Agreed that it no doubt is a useful starting point for someone unfamiliar with the genre (I am no newbie to 60s jazz but OTOH very far from an expert, yet the book does not tell me that much that's all new). 
OTOH the core topic of the book is a much more specialized one that is not likely to be grasped easily by "those unfamiliar" because most of them are likely to have been conditioned after reading more "standard fare" about the history of jazz (that is likely to dwell on "oh, the 60s, the age or Free and Avantgarde!" ).
All in all I find he states his case of the need to rebalance the history of jazz (and above all of the need to reassess what is legitimately considered jazz and accepted as such, even if it was "popular with the masses" ) quite well. But the strange thing is that so far I somehow feel that the author made his point in the most clear-cut manner in his (fairly lengthy) Introduction. This almost could have served as a magazine story all by itself to get his message across.
What is disturbing to me through the main sections is his sometimes excessive use of lengthy quotes from a plethora of other authors where he often almost falls over himself to mention how important this or that opus or author is. At times this comes across a bit too much like "look at how important my writings are because I draw together so many other important works" ... Is that is what may come across as "academic" to others?
IMO it somehow lessens the impact of the points he makes - which would have been more poignant yet if he had said it all in his own words (which would not have precluded the use of footnotes to refer to source documents anyway - like other authors do all the time ...).
At any rate, an interesting read and I'm looking forward to the "rest".
The author states his case in a clearer way (and deserves to be taken seriously by future scribes who write about jazz from that era) than, alas, "Jazz With A Beat" by Tad Richards. This basically argues along the same lines for the 1945-60 period of jazz but is marred IMHO by too many factual errors and some debatable assertions on the one hand and a confusing use of stylistic terms on the other. These combine to blur the impact of his arguments (and, sadly, might make it too easy for conservative/mainstreamish jazz scribes to dismiss his reasoning). But that's a different story for maybe another time ...

[Dan Gould]

54 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

The author states his case in a clearer way (and deserves to be taken seriously by future scribes who write about jazz from that era) than, alas, "Jazz With A Beat" by Tad Richards. This basically argues along the same lines for the 1945-60 period of jazz but is marred IMHO by too many factual errors and some debatable assertions on the one hand and a confusing use of stylistic terms on the other. These combine to blur the impact of his arguments (and, sadly, might make it too easy for conservative/mainstreamish jazz scribes to dismiss his reasoning). But that's a different story for maybe another time ...

I did not see a lot of factual errors or debatable assertions in "Jazz with a Beat" which was written by board member @ListeningToPrestige ... could you please elaborate BBS?

 

[Big Beat Steve]

1 hour ago, Dan Gould said:

I did not see a lot of factual errors or debatable assertions in "Jazz with a Beat" which was written by board member @ListeningToPrestige ... could you please elaborate BBS?

 

Ouch ...
This would be likely to turn into a LENGTHY treatise of mine (apologies beforehand!), and this is why I have been unsure for quite some time about whether to go that route at all ...
But if you wish I will start a separate thread.

[Dan Gould]

35 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Ouch ...
This would be likely to turn into a LENGTHY treatise of mine (apologies beforehand!), and this is why I have been unsure for quite some time about whether to go that route at all ...
But if you wish I will start a separate thread.

I hadn't realized there was never a thread for the earlier book. Perhaps a new thread is in order anyway. I could start it because I am a fan and then you can tell us all the mistakes that you saw.

 

[Big Beat Steve]

I am getting my text (written earlier) finalized now, but it will probably take a while ...