Bandcamp's Best Jazz of 2024

[tranemonk]

Never heard of most of these but based on the sample tracks there's a couple that interest me. I'm not real fond of the over-the-top reviews but... what can you do?

https://daily.bandcamp.com/best-of-2024/the-best-jazz-albums-of-2024

 

[rostasi]

Dave gets excited over all of the new things coming out these days (been following him for over 10 years on another forum). He's a winner in my book when it comes to taste. Sometimes we share, but it's his recognition of the good that keeps me listening to all of these new titles over the year(s).

Edited Thursday at 01:11 PM by rostasi

[Rabshakeh]

I find these bandcamp reviews a bit useless. Not only are they breathless but they are also bland to the point where it isn’t really possible to identify characteristics of what is being reviewed. That said, I take was Rostasi says and will give these a go.

[soulpope]

Although not interested in these releases I do appreciate reviews in general .... they can be used as guidelines but no obligation to do so ....

[mhatta]

I like some of them (e.g. Patricia Brennan Septet's
Breaking Stretch is good, but mainly because of Mark Shim's gritty tenor), but I still don't think they're the kind of “jazz” I like. It's good music based on different aesthetics.
I guess I'm getting old and I'm starting to lose touch with the younger generation's sensibilities.  Being an old fart is sad.

[mjazzg]

I thought this is an interesting and varied list.

I was aware of maybe a third of them. I "saved" about a further five to my Tidal account for further investigation.

I'm not sure the reviews have enough word count to be very informative or in depth but I use the links to BC to do my own reviewing and in that way I'm grateful for being alerted. 

It's good that the list isn't made up of too many established names (Halvorson, Parker , Sorey aside) that's how the genre grows and prospers with new listeners.

[soulpope]

1 hour ago, mhatta said:

Being an old fart is sad.

But you are not alone 😇👹 ....

[rostasi]

I'm not sure how someone can be both breathless and bland, but being a music reviewer must be, in some ways, a crap job of walking a tightrope over a pit of wildly conflicting expectations. On one hand, you have the "just give me the facts" crowd who want a review stripped down to basics, and on the other, the "paint me a vivid word-picture" readers who thrive on colorful prose and deep dives. Reviewers are tasked with not only assessing the music but doing so in a way that resonates with a vast array of tastes, experiences, and even attention spans. That's no small feat.

If you're accused of purple prose, it feels like a cheap shot because you're trying to review music - its sound and possible intentions behind it. Plus, music being poetic and abstract with layered meanings, trying to pin it down in words without straying into metaphor and mood-setting is like describing a sunset with just the hex codes for its colors - it’s technically accurate, but it misses the spirit.

And then there's the question of tone. Too critical, and the reviewer risks sounding like a snob; too effusive, and they’re accused of being a sellout. It’s almost an art form unto itself, balancing critique with celebration, context with brevity, and somehow making it all accessible without watering it down. The expectation of tailoring every review to match the preferences of every potential reader is pretty unreasonable.

I think the best music reviews come from writers who are unapologetically themselves - whether that means concise and punchy or sprawling and introspective. When a reviewer shows his or her personality, you're not obligated to instantly like that personality, but you have the choice to either stick with it to see if they say something that's enlightening or move on to someone who has a style that meets your desires. For me, that's sometimes even a daily thing that I contend with - even with people whose newsletters I subscribe to. I used to get a bit peeved by Peter Margasak's occasional macho-isms and his Berlin-centric reviews, but, hey! a lot of folks go thru Berlin and give performances and interviews that you might not see in many other places, so I've learned a lot about their approaches to sound and its made me not only want to listen to their new albums, but, if exceptional, to present them regularly on my show.

As a reviewer, it's impossible to please everyone, and when you try, the review loses its personality. At their best, music reviewers aren’t just telling you about an album; they’re showing you a new way to hear it. And for that, they deserve a lot more credit than they often get. 

[jazzbo]

I remember I tried my hand at it and allaboutjazz took a few of my reviews and then told me "try not to include an opinion." Well, I tried. That didn't turn out to be something I was really comfortable with.

[Rabshakeh]

A good review is an art. My favourite is reviews that contain wider information. A lot of what I know about music has been hints I followed from well-written reviews: names referenced, etc. 

[JSngry]

I don't like a whole lot of adjectives.

[HutchFan]

6 hours ago, rostasi said:

I'm not sure how someone can be both breathless and bland, but being a music reviewer must be, in some ways, a crap job of walking a tightrope over a pit of wildly conflicting expectations. On one hand, you have the "just give me the facts" crowd who want a review stripped down to basics, and on the other, the "paint me a vivid word-picture" readers who thrive on colorful prose and deep dives. Reviewers are tasked with not only assessing the music but doing so in a way that resonates with a vast array of tastes, experiences, and even attention spans. That's no small feat.

If you're accused of purple prose, it feels like a cheap shot because you're trying to review music - its sound and possible intentions behind it. Plus, music being poetic and abstract with layered meanings, trying to pin it down in words without straying into metaphor and mood-setting is like describing a sunset with just the hex codes for its colors - it’s technically accurate, but it misses the spirit.

And then there's the question of tone. Too critical, and the reviewer risks sounding like a snob; too effusive, and they’re accused of being a sellout. It’s almost an art form unto itself, balancing critique with celebration, context with brevity, and somehow making it all accessible without watering it down. The expectation of tailoring every review to match the preferences of every potential reader is pretty unreasonable.

I think the best music reviews come from writers who are unapologetically themselves - whether that means concise and punchy or sprawling and introspective. When a reviewer shows his or her personality, you're not obligated to instantly like that personality, but you have the choice to either stick with it to see if they say something that's enlightening or move on to someone who has a style that meets your desires. For me, that's sometimes even a daily thing that I contend with - even with people whose newsletters I subscribe to. I used to get a bit peeved by Peter Margasak's occasional macho-isms and his Berlin-centric reviews, but, hey! a lot of folks go thru Berlin and give performances and interviews that you might not see in many other places, so I've learned a lot about their approaches to sound and its made me not only want to listen to their new albums, but, if exceptional, to present them regularly on my show.

As a reviewer, it's impossible to please everyone, and when you try, the review loses its personality. At their best, music reviewers aren’t just telling you about an album; they’re showing you a new way to hear it. And for that, they deserve a lot more credit than they often get. 

Very insightful stuff, imo.

 

[Rabshakeh]

6 hours ago, rostasi said:

I'm not sure how someone can be both breathless and bland, but being a music reviewer must be, in some ways, a crap job of walking a tightrope over a pit of wildly conflicting expectations. On one hand, you have the "just give me the facts" crowd who want a review stripped down to basics, and on the other, the "paint me a vivid word-picture" readers who thrive on colorful prose and deep dives. Reviewers are tasked with not only assessing the music but doing so in a way that resonates with a vast array of tastes, experiences, and even attention spans. That's no small feat.

If you're accused of purple prose, it feels like a cheap shot because you're trying to review music - its sound and possible intentions behind it. Plus, music being poetic and abstract with layered meanings, trying to pin it down in words without straying into metaphor and mood-setting is like describing a sunset with just the hex codes for its colors - it’s technically accurate, but it misses the spirit.

And then there's the question of tone. Too critical, and the reviewer risks sounding like a snob; too effusive, and they’re accused of being a sellout. It’s almost an art form unto itself, balancing critique with celebration, context with brevity, and somehow making it all accessible without watering it down. The expectation of tailoring every review to match the preferences of every potential reader is pretty unreasonable.

I think the best music reviews come from writers who are unapologetically themselves - whether that means concise and punchy or sprawling and introspective. When a reviewer shows his or her personality, you're not obligated to instantly like that personality, but you have the choice to either stick with it to see if they say something that's enlightening or move on to someone who has a style that meets your desires. For me, that's sometimes even a daily thing that I contend with - even with people whose newsletters I subscribe to. I used to get a bit peeved by Peter Margasak's occasional macho-isms and his Berlin-centric reviews, but, hey! a lot of folks go thru Berlin and give performances and interviews that you might not see in many other places, so I've learned a lot about their approaches to sound and its made me not only want to listen to their new albums, but, if exceptional, to present them regularly on my show.

As a reviewer, it's impossible to please everyone, and when you try, the review loses its personality. At their best, music reviewers aren’t just telling you about an album; they’re showing you a new way to hear it. And for that, they deserve a lot more credit than they often get. 

If you want to read a series of reviews that is simultaneously breathless but also bland, please follow the link in the initial post. The reviews neither give the facts nor paint a "word picture". The reviewer just strings together exaggeratedly positive adjectives in a way that transfers no meaning to the reader. It is just garbage copy. The reviewer shows no personality. The reviews might as well have been written by AI as by a human reviewer, and may well have been, in this case.

[mjazzg]

40 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

If you want to read a series of reviews that is simultaneously breathless but also bland, please follow the link in the initial post. The reviews neither give the facts nor paint a "word picture". The reviewer just strings together exaggeratedly positive adjectives in a way that transfers no meaning to the reader. It is just garbage copy. The reviewer shows no personality. The reviews might as well have been written by AI as by a human reviewer, and may well have been, in this case.

But the reviews on the linked page are just thumbnail reviews for the end of year list. He references the full reviews in a number of them. I've not gone on to read them but I think that's where criticism is probably more justly levelled, no?

I've spent a fair amount of time with the Sorey, Kinoshi and Tomin, enjoyed each a lot and I think in these limited sketches he does well to capture some of their attributes.

1 hour ago, HutchFan said:

Very insightful stuff, imo.

 

In mine too

Edited Thursday at 09:39 PM by mjazzg

[rostasi]

Just now, mjazzg said:

But the reviews on the linked page are just thumbnail reviews for the end of year list. He references the full reviews in a number of them. I've not gone on to read them but I think that's where criticism is probably more justly levelled, no?

I've spent a fair amount of time with the Sorey, Kinoshi and Tomin, enjoyed each a lot and I think in these limited sketches he does well to capture some of their attributes.

I was going to respond to the fact that these aren't reviews, but an end-of-year synopsis with links to the albums so you can hear for yourself why the album still resonates with the person months after the initial review. I have a couple of paragraphs written by him talking about the expectations of Bandcamp end-of-year lists and his method of what to say, but I'll point him over to here to see if he's interested in saying something about it.

[Rabshakeh]

I accept that the top-linked page is just thumbnails, but the underlying reviews are no better.

No doubt, this is a feature of Bandcamp's editorial preferences. I'm sure that Mr Sumner could write better reviews than the original reviews. I would not presume to judge a writer by the copy that he or she generates for a platform like Bandcamp, which is essentially a corporate copyrighting job, no different to "Top 5 Best Footbaths in Yekaterinburg". I certainly don't expect Mr Sumner to appear here and start to slag off Bandcamp's editorial process. Overall, I appreciate anyone bringing records to my attention, and I like the fact that these are a different set to those that have appeared on other lists.

But whatever the case may be, it is not true at all that it is rare to encounter a good album review or that criticism of these particular album reviews reflects the impossibility of pleasing everyone. 

Edited Thursday at 10:12 PM by Rabshakeh

[Д.Д.]

At this point, with full-tracks streaming available, I do not see any value in music reviews for me. Instead of trudging through randomly stringed pet hyperboles, I would be more happy with a simple list of albums by a person whose taste I trust. I can take it from there myself.  

When reviews influenced my record-bying decisions I really enjoyed the ones by Eugene Chadbourne and Dan Warburton.     

Edited Thursday at 10:29 PM by Д.Д.

[mhatta]

Just for fun, I tried having Claude AI output a review of the best jazz album of 2023 (because the current data cutoff is Apr. 2024, so AI doesn't know much about this year).  The personality (or lack of personality) is similar to reviews on Bandcamp, etc.

-----

"The Territory" by Mary Halvorson
A masterful display of avant-garde jazz guitar, this album showcases Halvorson's unique approach to composition and improvisation. Her signature bent notes and complex rhythmic structures are woven into compositions that manage to be both challenging and surprisingly accessible. The interplay between Halvorson's guitar and the horn section creates fascinating textural landscapes, particularly on standout tracks like "Incarnadine" and "Motion Picture."

"In Common 4" by Walter Smith III & Matthew Stevens
This collaboration brought together an exceptional lineup including Kris Davis, Dave Holland, and Terri Lyne Carrington. The album strikes a perfect balance between structured composition and free improvisation. The quintet's interpretation of space and timing is remarkable, especially in pieces like "Familiar Signs" where the musicians demonstrate their ability to both lead and support with equal skill.

"Today and Tomorrow" by Lakecia Benjamin
A powerful statement from the alto saxophonist, this album bridges traditional jazz with contemporary influences. Benjamin's fierce, soulful playing is backed by an all-star band including Ron Carter and Patrice Rushen. The album particularly shines on "Amerikkan Skin," where Benjamin's passionate saxophone work addresses social justice themes while maintaining musical excellence.

"Live at the Detroit Jazz Festival" by Wayne Shorter & Terri Lyne Carrington
One of Wayne Shorter's final recordings, this live album captures the legendary saxophonist in brilliant form alongside Carrington, Leo Genovese, and esperanza spalding. The performances are both exploratory and deeply emotional, especially on the extended version of "Endangered Species." This recording serves as both a celebration of Shorter's legacy and a testament to his continued innovation until the end.

"Phoenix" by Melissa Aldana
The Chilean saxophonist delivered a compelling album that showcases her evolution as a composer and bandleader. Her tenor saxophone tone is warm and commanding, while her compositions demonstrate sophisticated harmonic understanding. The album's centerpiece "The Bluest Eye" is particularly notable for its narrative arc and emotional depth.

 

[Д.Д.]

3 minutes ago, mhatta said:

Just for fun, I tried having Claude AI output a review of the best jazz album of 2023 (because the current data cutoff is Apr. 2024, so AI doesn't know much about this year).  The personality (or lack of personality) is similar to reviews on Bandcamp, etc.

-----

"The Territory" by Mary Halvorson
A masterful display of avant-garde jazz guitar, this album showcases Halvorson's unique approach to composition and improvisation. Her signature bent notes and complex rhythmic structures are woven into compositions that manage to be both challenging and surprisingly accessible. The interplay between Halvorson's guitar and the horn section creates fascinating textural landscapes, particularly on standout tracks like "Incarnadine" and "Motion Picture."

"In Common 4" by Walter Smith III & Matthew Stevens
This collaboration brought together an exceptional lineup including Kris Davis, Dave Holland, and Terri Lyne Carrington. The album strikes a perfect balance between structured composition and free improvisation. The quintet's interpretation of space and timing is remarkable, especially in pieces like "Familiar Signs" where the musicians demonstrate their ability to both lead and support with equal skill.

"Today and Tomorrow" by Lakecia Benjamin
A powerful statement from the alto saxophonist, this album bridges traditional jazz with contemporary influences. Benjamin's fierce, soulful playing is backed by an all-star band including Ron Carter and Patrice Rushen. The album particularly shines on "Amerikkan Skin," where Benjamin's passionate saxophone work addresses social justice themes while maintaining musical excellence.

"Live at the Detroit Jazz Festival" by Wayne Shorter & Terri Lyne Carrington
One of Wayne Shorter's final recordings, this live album captures the legendary saxophonist in brilliant form alongside Carrington, Leo Genovese, and esperanza spalding. The performances are both exploratory and deeply emotional, especially on the extended version of "Endangered Species." This recording serves as both a celebration of Shorter's legacy and a testament to his continued innovation until the end.

"Phoenix" by Melissa Aldana
The Chilean saxophonist delivered a compelling album that showcases her evolution as a composer and bandleader. Her tenor saxophone tone is warm and commanding, while her compositions demonstrate sophisticated harmonic understanding. The album's centerpiece "The Bluest Eye" is particularly notable for its narrative arc and emotional depth.

 

Bandcamp HR will reach out to you shortly. 

[JSngry]

That's a whole lot of adjectives.

 

[Rabshakeh]

8 hours ago, mhatta said:

Just for fun, I tried having Claude AI output a review of the best jazz album of 2023 (because the current data cutoff is Apr. 2024, so AI doesn't know much about this year).  

On the basis of this performance, I question how much AI knows about 2023...

At least one of those five albums exists, so that's a step, I guess.

Edited yesterday at 07:34 AM by Rabshakeh

[HutchFan]

Just stumbled across a quote and immediately thought of this thread:

"Music is that which cannot be said but upon which it is impossible to be silent." 

                                                                                                                 -- anon., attributed to Victor Hugo

 

[clifford_thornton]

On 12/19/2024 at 9:34 AM, rostasi said:

I'm not sure how someone can be both breathless and bland, but being a music reviewer must be, in some ways, a crap job of walking a tightrope over a pit of wildly conflicting expectations. On one hand, you have the "just give me the facts" crowd who want a review stripped down to basics, and on the other, the "paint me a vivid word-picture" readers who thrive on colorful prose and deep dives. Reviewers are tasked with not only assessing the music but doing so in a way that resonates with a vast array of tastes, experiences, and even attention spans. That's no small feat.

If you're accused of purple prose, it feels like a cheap shot because you're trying to review music - its sound and possible intentions behind it. Plus, music being poetic and abstract with layered meanings, trying to pin it down in words without straying into metaphor and mood-setting is like describing a sunset with just the hex codes for its colors - it’s technically accurate, but it misses the spirit.

And then there's the question of tone. Too critical, and the reviewer risks sounding like a snob; too effusive, and they’re accused of being a sellout. It’s almost an art form unto itself, balancing critique with celebration, context with brevity, and somehow making it all accessible without watering it down. The expectation of tailoring every review to match the preferences of every potential reader is pretty unreasonable.

I think the best music reviews come from writers who are unapologetically themselves - whether that means concise and punchy or sprawling and introspective. When a reviewer shows his or her personality, you're not obligated to instantly like that personality, but you have the choice to either stick with it to see if they say something that's enlightening or move on to someone who has a style that meets your desires. For me, that's sometimes even a daily thing that I contend with - even with people whose newsletters I subscribe to. I used to get a bit peeved by Peter Margasak's occasional macho-isms and his Berlin-centric reviews, but, hey! a lot of folks go thru Berlin and give performances and interviews that you might not see in many other places, so I've learned a lot about their approaches to sound and its made me not only want to listen to their new albums, but, if exceptional, to present them regularly on my show.

As a reviewer, it's impossible to please everyone, and when you try, the review loses its personality. At their best, music reviewers aren’t just telling you about an album; they’re showing you a new way to hear it. And for that, they deserve a lot more credit than they often get. 

I agree with all of this. I stopped reviewing in maybe 2018 for a variety of reasons, but I still write about music. Hopefully some of the personality, facts, and word-pictures still come through. It's definitely not something that comes easily for most people.

[JSngry]

I remember as a youngster reading reviews with a lot of adjectives that got me excited to buy a record and then buying that record and then being unimpressed and even disappointed because those adjectives did not come true for me.

Yes, adjectives are necessary, but they are quite often subjective, personal/emotional reactions and should be handled with care.

Part of the problem is that there's a lot of reviewers who do not have the knowledge to address music objectively. If a review displays an awareness of what is happening with the music itself, then I'm more than willing to listen to the reviewer's subjective responses to that.

But all these adjectives...holographic word salad.