|
|
Post by bassman on Jan 26, 2023 18:45:49 GMT
Down Beat Archives
In addition to the source quoted lately, I found another one which covers the years 1937 - 1999, offering full colour, HQ scans (though downloading may turn out to be a bit tedious):
As for recent digital issues, I think they are only for subscribers, such as myself (I didn't get paid for dropping this remark - not yet  ).
Here, again, is the source I quoted lately:
In contrast to the title, it only seems to cover the years 1934 - 1961, which still means that it relates to a considerable part of the music discussed on the LJC website.
"Original" record reviews can be a thrill to jazz collectors, and thus far I can say that we would largely agree with the critical opinions offered back in those days. However, there is the odd exception where either the facts are wrong (see my take on Curtis Fuller) or the rating is debatable. Example: Horace Silver, "Silver's Blue" (Epic 16005).
For the jazz lover, such websites open up a world of information. And fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Jan 31, 2023 8:58:39 GMT
Here's John A. Tynan's take on "the" Hank Mobley album, from Oct. 30, 1958:
EDIT: ... and this is what Dom Cerulli had to say about "Cool Struttin'":
Pardon me ... I'm not going to make this thread a grumbler's paradise  ... I just couldn't resist this time. |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Feb 1, 2023 14:34:29 GMT
grumble away, bassman. critics are idiots and deserve our scorn. especially the ones from the 50s and 60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doom Girl on Feb 1, 2023 19:15:56 GMT
..... critics are idiots and deserve our scorn. especially the ones from the 50s and 60s. ...a misguided generalization ...see Amiri Baraka, Don Heckman, Nat Hentoff, Ralph Gleason, Frank Kofsky, Robert Christgau etc etc etc |
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Feb 1, 2023 20:16:44 GMT
..... critics are idiots and deserve our scorn. especially the ones from the 50s and 60s. ...a misguided generalization ...see Amiri Baraka, Don Heckman, Nat Hentoff, Ralph Gleason, Frank Kofsky, Robert Christgau etc etc etc ... and those precious few who know their subject because they play the music (Billy Taylor, Leonard Feather ...). But do I have to be a musician to be entitled to criticize? Blindfold tests can be very revealing (both enlightening and embarrassing) ...
(Gregory, we all know this mischievous tongue in your cheek ...  - No?) |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Feb 2, 2023 14:40:33 GMT
i'm mostly being goofy, but tons of critics of that era were truly morons. ira gitler was a racist, leonard feather completely tanked jutta hipp's career because she wouldn't fuck him, benny green was a terrible writer and also pretty racist.
i do tend to like nat hentoff.
amiri baraka is a bad example. one of the most hatefully homophobic of the "black power" critics, beaten only in terms of general nastiness by stanley crouch. both men had political positions i greatly agree with, but both were also viciously hateful towards gay and trans folks, which is unforgivable to me.
christgau knows a pittance about jazz, imo, but his other writings occasionally contain pearls.
i really dislike the very concept of music criticism, or art criticism in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Feb 3, 2023 8:26:07 GMT
[ ... ] leonard feather completely tanked jutta hipp's career because she wouldn't fuck him [ ... ] ... but if you want me to burn my copy of his Encyclopedia, I will not oblige. |
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Feb 3, 2023 9:59:18 GMT
Feather's encyclopedia in 3 volumes has been one of my first sources in pre-web era.
as I've always been devoted to "LISTEN AND LEARN", I read tons of critiques and reviews but actually I've seldom been influenced, the choice was fully mine. and still is.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Feb 3, 2023 17:32:56 GMT
Feather's encyclopedia in 3 volumes has been one of my first sources in pre-web era. as I've always been devoted to "LISTEN AND LEARN", I read tons of critiques and reviews but actually I've seldom been influenced, the choice was fully mine. and still is. But it is an educated choice, isn't it? Everything you read or hear will "influence" you to some degree. (But who am I talking to, Dottore? ) Sifting through those old reviews, I have often said to myself: This is a rather blunt description of what's going on musically, but he (and it is "he", more often than not - especially back in those days) still has a point. Returning from criticism to music itself, it reminds me of what a great drummer I had the pleasure to know (https://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/erich-kleinschuster-vol-3-jones-hampton-farmer-1968-71-wallen-bink-2022/) once told me about the lessons he was giving at a conservatory: "I am still learning. I even learn from beginners." |
|
|
|
Post by bassman on May 15, 2023 14:08:42 GMT
I have been reading quite a few of those old reviews since the time I started this thread, and I've been getting quite some fun out of doing so - no, really, it has often added to my appreciation of the music. These reviews are a mirror of the period, inevitably, and some of them inevitably contradict the impression I have of the music. So here's a quote from Ira Gitler's take on "That's Right! Nat Adderley and the Big Sax Section" (Riverside), which I consider a thoroughly enjoyable record: "[ ... ] The wedding of Nat Adderley and sax section is a good one insofar as contrast and complement of sounds are concerned. There are some out-of-tune moments from the section and some of the principal soloists. The end of the otherwise beautiful Hill is marred by this. Lateef is out of tune in his That's Right! solo, Heath on his Tadd effort, and leader Adderley sounds quavery in portions of Hill and Night after Night, the two ballads of the date. [ ... ]" (Down Beat, April 27, 1961) I thought if he wasn't aiming at those charming little imperfections that are part and parcel of improvised music, there must be something more "serious" to upset him. After all, it caused him to reduce the rating to three stars out of a possible five (Penguin Guide: Three-and-a-half out of four, no complaints). All I can say is the end of The Folks Who Live on the Hill is "marred" by - nothing. It is dissonant on purpose. And if Jimmy Heath is "out of tune" on Tadd, it's beyond my listening capacities. I didn't have the patience to check the other pieces ( That's Right! is nine minutes long). If you haven't encountered this record, I'm sure you will like it!
|
|
).
... I just couldn't resist this time.
- No?)