|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jul 20, 2015 20:51:03 GMT
once Jazz moved beyond the dancehall phase it stopped holding any fascination for majority of black audiences I stopped for a while on this sentence, it maybe right but: the majority of young people, those who bought records, left Jazz for R&R when it came to light in the 50's. rock 'n' roll was made for dancing and record companies were made for selling. I'm European, so I'm not aware of musical tastes in Black community, I don't know if they liked rock as white did. white AND black artists played rock, as well as black AND white musicians played Jazz. I don't know anything about Radio programs then. actually was rock that turned away listeners from Jazz. was this only to dance? classical was danceable for centuries: nowadays no one dances with Chopin or Mozart, but it's not dead. in this community no one dances with Jazz but it's much loved yet. young Afro Americans still study and play Jazz, as well as white cats. for whom do they play? for all that are passionate yet: Black, White, Yellow, Red, any color. Jazz is soul's food, not skin's. true that European (and Japanese) are much more fond than Americans. it's America's fault, not ours. and it's a mortal sin. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jul 21, 2015 0:30:06 GMT
The fact is, Coltrane, Ayler, Miles and just about any other jazz artist you can think of would have played whatever they could get paid for in the 70s, 80s ans 90s. This would almost certainly have been as true of Lee Morgan and Clifford Brown as it was of most very other jazz artist you can think of, Miles included. The great Stan Tracey, who as resident pianist at Ronnie Scott's played with everyone, almost became a postman in the 1970s. We tend to forget that by the 1970s the jazz generation we have grown to revere were playing music they couldn't even give away - assuming they lived long enough to see that, of course. Yes, of course there were exceptions, but these were almost happy accidents as much anything else. Monk's beautiful, playful, elegiac London sets from 1971 recorded by Alan Bates for his Black Lion label, for instance, are to be treasured precisely for the fact that it was in some respects a miracle tag they happened at all. It was a very small number of jazz musicians indeed who carried on mKing first class acoustic jazz into the 70s, and then typically not in the U.S. Or the UK, but in Europe and for small European labels - Steeplechase, Soul Note, Enja, and so on. Small European labels kept ' lassical' and a av ante garde jazz alive throughout the 70s and 80s. And in the UK it wasn't until the later 1980s jazz and jazz-dance boom that labels started to re-sign jazz artists and to 'discover' the latest rising jazz stars (most inevitably with chiselled good looks). What we should be thankful for is two things. First, that there is such a lot of great 'classical' jazz on record, and second that there is such a lot great new jazz still being made. You are so right on this. I've given it some thought; it can be argued that Kind of Blue and many of the greatest jazz records we've come to cherish were aimed at white audiences in America and Europe. One of the least understood aspect of Jazz in America is that most people take it for granted that once Jazz moved beyond the dancehall phase it stopped holding any fascination for majority of black audiences who started to view the music as being "uppity". It stands to reason that Miles and others would play the music that would get them work. Europe in some ways sustained Jazz more than America. It maybe an American art form but European fanfare kept it going. Hence, it's no surprise that Jazz started to incorporate more aspects of European music into its vernacular I agree with Dott that Spencer has made some thought-provoking comments, and I'd like to chime in with a (modern) American perspective: First and foremost, I am not one to shy away from discussions including the topic of race, as I firmly believe generalizations regarding race can be made without being hateful or prejudice in any way. (I did happen to notice that the conversation on Kind of Blue ventured into this territory.) That being said, I ask the question: If we're talking about an album like Kind of Blue being intended for a particular audience, whose intentions are we talking about? The artist (Miles in this case) or the company i.e. the label (Columbia)? It sounds like you are under the impression that Miles himself may have made a record likeKind of Blue for a white audience. Perhaps his musical interests conveniently aligned with Columbia's understanding of the demands of the white American record buying audience at that time, but based on how passionate Miles seemed to be about race in his life and how much pride he seemed to display for his roots, I can't help but doubt that he would have made any music with the sole goal of catering to a white audience in order to sell more records. Remember that he objected to a white woman being on the cover of Miles Ahead and then insisted that a black woman grace the cover of Someday My Prince Will Come (ultimately his wife). As for other musicians playing music that would cater to a white audience, again my understanding is that hits like Horace Silver's "The Preacher" and "Song for My Father", Lee Morgan's "The Sidewinder", and Lou Donaldson's funky tunes all would have been popular 45s on jukeboxes in black neighborhoods. I don't have any evidence on hand to back these claims, I just feel like I've heard this from reading and talking to veterans in the jazz community as I've learned about the music. Spencer, the only reason I'd disagree with you regarding the fact that bebop and its offspring were not well received by the black community is because I'm pretty sure that the majority of independent labels marketed and shipped their records to black communities. A friend of mine who is a record dealer makes house calls on a regular basis and he has told me that whites usually don't have Blue Notes and Prestiges; if they have any jazz records at all, they usually have records by, well, white jazz musicians: Dave Brubeck, Benny Goodman etc. My friend usually has to promote his service in black communities to get big jazz scores including records on labels like Blue Note and Prestige. (In 20 years, dealers may be finding more and more rare jazz LP collections coming from white owners but for the time being it looks like blacks may have been the majority of the buying audience when the music was new.) I'm curious: Where does your premonition that blacks found jazz 'uppity', as you said, come from? I don't mean to be argumentative, I'd genuinely like to know. As for Europe sustaining jazz more than America, we'll never know if jazz would have flourished to a lesser, greater, or similar degree in Europe if Americans did not record the musicians, produce and buy the records, and manage and attend the venues that promoted the live performances, as they did. It might be argued that Lion and Wolff, for example, were more German than American but Blue Note sold all their LPs domestically, nothing was exported directly by them as far as I know. Please keep in mind that this is all informally based on my own personal reading and conversations with others. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jul 21, 2015 0:39:10 GMT
once Jazz moved beyond the dancehall phase it stopped holding any fascination for majority of black audiences I stopped for a while on this sentence, it maybe right but: the majority of young people, those who bought records, left Jazz for R&R when it came to light in the 50's. rock 'n' roll was made for dancing and record companies were made for selling. I'm European, so I'm not aware of musical tastes in Black community, I don't know if they liked rock as white did. white AND black artists played rock, as well as black AND white musicians played Jazz. I don't know anything about Radio programs then. actually was rock that turned away listeners from Jazz. was this only to dance? classical was danceable for centuries: nowadays no one dances with Chopin or Mozart, but it's not dead. in this community no one dances with Jazz but it's much loved yet. young Afro Americans still study and play Jazz, as well as white cats. for whom do they play? for all that are passionate yet: Black, White, Yellow, Red, any color. Jazz is soul's food, not skin's. true that European (and Japanese) are much more fond than Americans. it's America's fault, not ours. and it's a mortal sin. I get the same impression, Dott, that newer, more danceable forms of music took many potential listeners away from jazz in the later '50s and the '60s. For whites, it may have been more about rock and roll, for blacks, it may have been more about R&B/soul. I'm willing to entertain the idea the Europeans generally are more appreciative of jazz than Americans today (a friend of mine who is a well-known saxophonist in upstate New York is disappointed that the crowds seem to keep getting both smaller and older), but I'm not sure if that was the case in the '50s and '60s...? |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 30, 2015 18:03:03 GMT
You are so right on this. I've given it some thought; it can be argued that Kind of Blue and many of the greatest jazz records we've come to cherish were aimed at white audiences in America and Europe. One of the least understood aspect of Jazz in America is that most people take it for granted that once Jazz moved beyond the dancehall phase it stopped holding any fascination for majority of black audiences who started to view the music as being "uppity". It stands to reason that Miles and others would play the music that would get them work. Europe in some ways sustained Jazz more than America. It maybe an American art form but European fanfare kept it going. Hence, it's no surprise that Jazz started to incorporate more aspects of European music into its vernacular I agree with Dott that Spencer has made some thought-provoking comments, and I'd like to chime in with a (modern) American perspective: First and foremost, I am not one to shy away from discussions including the topic of race, as I firmly believe generalizations regarding race can be made without being hateful or prejudice in any way. (I did happen to notice that the conversation on Kind of Blue ventured into this territory.) That being said, I ask the question: If we're talking about an album like Kind of Blue being intended for a particular audience, whose intentions are we talking about? The artist (Miles in this case) or the company i.e. the label (Columbia)? It sounds like you are under the impression that Miles himself may have made a record likeKind of Blue for a white audience. Perhaps his musical interests conveniently aligned with Columbia's understanding of the demands of the white American record buying audience at that time, but based on how passionate Miles seemed to be about race in his life and how much pride he seemed to display for his roots, I can't help but doubt that he would have made any music with the sole goal of catering to a white audience in order to sell more records. Remember that he objected to a white woman being on the cover of Miles Ahead and then insisted that a black woman grace the cover of Someday My Prince Will Come (ultimately his wife). As for other musicians playing music that would cater to a white audience, again my understanding is that hits like Horace Silver's "The Preacher" and "Song for My Father", Lee Morgan's "The Sidewinder", and Lou Donaldson's funky tunes all would have been popular 45s on jukeboxes in black neighborhoods. I don't have any evidence on hand to back these claims, I just feel like I've heard this from reading and talking to veterans in the jazz community as I've learned about the music. Spencer, the only reason I'd disagree with you regarding the fact that bebop and its offspring were not well received by the black community is because I'm pretty sure that the majority of independent labels marketed and shipped their records to black communities. A friend of mine who is a record dealer makes house calls on a regular basis and he has told me that whites usually don't have Blue Notes and Prestiges; if they have any jazz records at all, they usually have records by, well, white jazz musicians: Dave Brubeck, Benny Goodman etc. My friend usually has to promote his service in black communities to get big jazz scores including records on labels like Blue Note and Prestige. (In 20 years, dealers may be finding more and more rare jazz LP collections coming from white owners but for the time being it looks like blacks may have been the majority of the buying audience when the music was new.) I'm curious: Where does your premonition that blacks found jazz 'uppity', as you said, come from? I don't mean to be argumentative, I'd genuinely like to know. As for Europe sustaining jazz more than America, we'll never know if jazz would have flourished to a lesser, greater, or similar degree in Europe if Americans did not record the musicians, produce and buy the records, and manage and attend the venues that promoted the live performances, as they did. It might be argued that Lion and Wolff, for example, were more German than American but Blue Note sold all their LPs domestically, nothing was exported directly by them as far as I know. Please keep in mind that this is all informally based on my own personal reading and conversations with others. Miles Davis definitely guided the direction of the music on Kind of Blue, but look at where he's coming from, prior to making Kind of blue Miles me under the influence of a European named Gil Evans and they recorded a few popular orchestral albums that by no means would be called soulful nor funky. Though Gil Evans is not given credit on Kind of Blue; in his biography Miles mentions him as helping him shape his vision for the record. In the big band albums with Gil Evans, Columbia, Davis and Evans I assure you were not thinking of black populace when they recorded those musical arrangements. You mention the cover on Miles Ahead, and that controversial cover proves my case. When the Columbia Execs decided to grace the cover of Miles Ahead with a white model, Miles knew they were doing so because the majority of buyers for the album will be whites. The reason he later insisted on having a black representation on the cover is because he felt that the white audiences who will be buying the records already knew he was a black artist, so why continue the charade of pretending the album was made under a different circumstances. If the Columbia execs felt the buyers would be predominantly black they would not have insisted on a white girl on the cover that would not make any sense in late 50s America. As an American, I can tell you without hesitation, when it comes to ethnic and racial issues in American history, 9 out of 10 times you should believe the worst case scenario-this is not just an opinion it borne out by historical facts. About black interaction with bebop and later forms of Jazz; I will say this much, there was and will always be certain black segment who cherished jazz. Same could be said for white audiences. The make up of these two segments is a topic best left to a sociologist, but I suspect in both cases they share a lot in common. True there were white audiences in America who would not buy Jazz unless it was by a white artist, but that is one of the unique trends in American pop music. The same thing happened in rock 'n' roll a lot of white Americans of the time could not bring themselves to listen to rock 'n' roll until Elvis and the beatles took over the airwaves; however, the predominant Jazz buying public in America are whites. It is simply economics at work here. Whites have more disposable income therefore whites bought more records and if whites are selling classic Blue Notes or other jazz records less than blacks it is because they can afford to keep them more often than black households. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 30, 2015 19:40:55 GMT
I would like to clarify one thing with my remarks about race and Jazz. These remarks are not intended as a criticism, they are mostly observations. That said, I wish to point out that there is one segment of white population in America that sustained Jazz and that is the Jewish Americans. Most of the Jazz label proprietors are Jewish Americans (I suspect the same situation existed in Europe to some degree). In part because they have endured mistreatment in Europe and America, Jewish Americans were able to embrace black musical culture more readily. When you discuss the history of black Americans, especially the civil rights movement, an invisible force for good that is often overlooked is the role played by the Jewish community.
As others have pointed out it is a miracle that some of this music were even made in the first place. I for one I eternally grateful that we have this timeless music for posterity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 30, 2015 19:42:07 GMT
once Jazz moved beyond the dancehall phase it stopped holding any fascination for majority of black audiences I stopped for a while on this sentence, it maybe right but: the majority of young people, those who bought records, left Jazz for R&R when it came to light in the 50's. rock 'n' roll was made for dancing and record companies were made for selling. I'm European, so I'm not aware of musical tastes in Black community, I don't know if they liked rock as white did. white AND black artists played rock, as well as black AND white musicians played Jazz. I don't know anything about Radio programs then. actually was rock that turned away listeners from Jazz. was this only to dance? classical was danceable for centuries: nowadays no one dances with Chopin or Mozart, but it's not dead. in this community no one dances with Jazz but it's much loved yet. young Afro Americans still study and play Jazz, as well as white cats. for whom do they play? for all that are passionate yet: Black, White, Yellow, Red, any color. Jazz is soul's food, not skin's. true that European (and Japanese) are much more fond than Americans. it's America's fault, not ours. and it's a mortal sin. Amen! |
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Aug 15, 2015 12:36:31 GMT
I can't remember ever reading anything to suggest that Miles recorded music that he thought would appeal to a wider white audience. In many respects he was a fierce anti-racist and wouldn't put up with anyone slighting him or his band mates on the basis of race or colour. But what he did want was to reach the audiences - white, black, hippies, straights, whatever - that he saw spending vast sums of money on rock records and rock concert tickets. Specifically, he wanted to secure the same kind of income and the same kind of advances (and publicity and marketing) as he saw being achieved by Columbia's (largely white) rock acts. That was what really pissed him off.
|
|
|
|
Post by DobermanBoston on Aug 21, 2015 21:04:05 GMT
I can't remember ever reading anything to suggest that Miles recorded music that he thought would appeal to a wider white audience. In many respects he was a fierce anti-racist and wouldn't put up with anyone slighting him or his band mates on the basis of race or colour. But what he did want was to reach the audiences - white, black, hippies, straights, whatever - that he saw spending vast sums of money on rock records and rock concert tickets. Specifically, he wanted to secure the same kind of income and the same kind of advances (and publicity and marketing) as he saw being achieved by Columbia's (largely white) rock acts. That was what really pissed him off. Good point. He was motivated largely by the success of mixed bands with mixed audiences, like Sly and The Family Stone. I remember reading this in an interview with his ex-wife Betty, who said he was first irritated then intrigued by her being a fan of Stone, Hendrix, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Aug 22, 2015 10:19:07 GMT
In fact, if I remember correctly, DB, Miles even planned to record with Hendrix, but Hendrix's death intervened. Rock acts and audiences were also very much what drove Miles to give ever greater emphasis to guitarists in his line-up. This worked fantastically well with. McLaughlin, who was the perfect vitalist at that time) for Miles, but in my view much less well with some of the other histrionic non-entities he went on to employ....
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Aug 22, 2015 16:56:18 GMT
i've never much cared for hendrix but damn i would love to hear what he would have made with miles. such a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by bopmodalfree on Aug 30, 2015 12:31:48 GMT
Hi Everyone,
This post is somewhat inspired by recent comments about McCoy Tyner's music somewhere on this forum. What I recall is some expressed lack of enjoyment of his The Real McCoy album. If i'm wrong about this, my sincere apologies and just ignore this brief preamble, but I'm here to "defend" this album. I've owned it for many years on CD, and I've actually listened to it only a few times (maybe just once or twice) over this whole span. Honestly, I remember putting it on for the first time and thinking "OK, I'm putting this away immediately and don't have much desire to put it back on for quite a while". Well, tastes change and, frankly, our ability to appreciate things change as we listen to more music and evolve our ears and brains.
Fast forward 5-10 years to the present and I put this CD back on. I should first say that since I first discovered jazz ~25 years ago I have been a Coltrane nut and have always loved McCoy's playing, especially in the Coltrane band. So anyway I put on The Real McCoy and find it pretty enjoyable...especially now that I have an ear to recognize and appreciate Joe Henderson's playing (his work on Horace Silver records is perhaps my favorite). Fine. A few days later I put TRM on again, and Wow, I'm pretty blown away. After a few good listens to this record, I now view it as a real classic, very original, GREAT songwriting, and of course great playing. I now cherish this CD and hopefully someday I can get the vinyl, but I"m also excited to get some of McCoy's other stuff on Blue Note from this era. Of the 5 tunes on my CD, I love four of them currently. Passion Dance and Contemplation are wonderful, powerful, and elegant. Search For Peace is absolutely gorgeous, lyrical tune, and Blues On The Corner is just great, with a familiar sound and feel. The one I'm still working on is Four By Five, which I like but feel I have a bit more work to do on this one.
So, I put forth that this is a classic, indispensable album, and am curious if others enjoy this or at least should give it another listen. In my opinion it is the songwriting that is the key... all McCoy originals. I remember some less-than-complimentary remarks about McCoy's Sahara album, which I also have on CD and have owned for many, many years. I put this one on too and I'm afraid that this one is not for me. The songwriting seems less strong and there are indeed more histrionics compared to TRM. Perhaps this is my failing, but I will probably sell it for a buck. But I strongly recommend The Real McCoy.
-Drew
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Aug 31, 2015 14:56:33 GMT
Hi Everyone, This post is somewhat inspired by recent comments about McCoy Tyner's music somewhere on this forum. What I recall is some expressed lack of enjoyment of his The Real McCoy album. If i'm wrong about this, my sincere apologies and just ignore this brief preamble, but I'm here to "defend" this album. I've owned it for many years on CD, and I've actually listened to it only a few times (maybe just once or twice) over this whole span. Honestly, I remember putting it on for the first time and thinking "OK, I'm putting this away immediately and don't have much desire to put it back on for quite a while". Well, tastes change and, frankly, our ability to appreciate things change as we listen to more music and evolve our ears and brains. Fast forward 5-10 years to the present and I put this CD back on. I should first say that since I first discovered jazz ~25 years ago I have been a Coltrane nut and have always loved McCoy's playing, especially in the Coltrane band. So anyway I put on The Real McCoy and find it pretty enjoyable...especially now that I have an ear to recognize and appreciate Joe Henderson's playing (his work on Horace Silver records is perhaps my favorite). Fine. A few days later I put TRM on again, and Wow, I'm pretty blown away. After a few good listens to this record, I now view it as a real classic, very original, GREAT songwriting, and of course great playing. I now cherish this CD and hopefully someday I can get the vinyl, but I"m also excited to get some of McCoy's other stuff on Blue Note from this era. Of the 5 tunes on my CD, I love four of them currently. Passion Dance and Contemplation are wonderful, powerful, and elegant. Search For Peace is absolutely gorgeous, lyrical tune, and Blues On The Corner is just great, with a familiar sound and feel. The one I'm still working on is Four By Five, which I like but feel I have a bit more work to do on this one. So, I put forth that this is a classic, indispensable album, and am curious if others enjoy this or at least should give it another listen. In my opinion it is the songwriting that is the key... all McCoy originals. I remember some less-than-complimentary remarks about McCoy's Sahara album, which I also have on CD and have owned for many, many years. I put this one on too and I'm afraid that this one is not for me. The songwriting seems less strong and there are indeed more histrionics compared to TRM. Perhaps this is my failing, but I will probably sell it for a buck. But I strongly recommend The Real McCoy. -Drew Hi Drew, I have a digital copy of The Real McCoy (had an original stereo pressing at one point as well) and I like this album. To me, Tyner is a highly developed, rather 'complex' soloist at this time, as are all the musicians on the record, and thus this is a heady listen for me. "Passion Dance" jumped out at me right away, and it even has this sort of conclusive, hopeful energy that for me is the perfect 'credits/exit music' for the bop era of jazz. I also like the nervous energy of "Four by Five", and similar to your experience, "Search for Peace" didn't jump out at me right away but it has grown on me and I like it a lot now.  If I saw another original pressing of this album, I'd definitely snatch it up. |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Aug 31, 2015 23:19:50 GMT
i'm with drew, actually. i got the same sense, but i am lukewarm on tyner in general and have not yet heard "real mccoy". i enjoy tyner's solo material. i am only really familiar with his impulse albums, but what i've heard is very nice. it is no match for his work with the classic quartet, but i still really do enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bopmodalfree on Sept 1, 2015 2:49:38 GMT
Hi Drew, I have a digital copy of The Real McCoy (had an original stereo pressing at one point as well) and I like this album. To me, Tyner is a highly developed, rather 'complex' soloist at this time, as are all the musicians on the record, and thus this is a heady listen for me. "Passion Dance" jumped out at me right away, and it even has this sort of conclusive, hopeful energy that for me is the perfect 'credits/exit music' for the bop era of jazz. I also like the nervous energy of "Four by Five", and similar to your experience, "Search for Peace" didn't jump out at me right away but it has grown on me and I like it a lot now. If I saw another original pressing of this album, I'd definitely snatch it up. Rich, I like your comment about "credits/exit music for the bop era". One of the reasons this album is interesting to me is that this time period is interesting to me....after the mid-60s and moving into the 70s. Jazz definitely suffered a lot, but I like to think (or at least hope) that there is some great, original music still to be had that I can discover from this period. I certainly haven't exhausted the '50s and '60s, but I at least want to give the late '60s and '70s a chance. I do love Woody Shaw's stuff in the latter part of the 70's....truly amazing horn playing and still in the bop/modal idiom. I've actually been finding it easier to discover things I like in the 70's compared to the late 60's....again, the reason I bring up The Real McCoy. I recently picked up an original vinyl of Andrew Hill's Grass Roots from the late 60's. Have only played side 1 so far, great stuff. Back to another McCoy plug. I have really enjoyed 'Supertrios' on Milestone (from '77 I think) and recommend it for anyone who like's McCoy's playing and enjoys the trio format. Really powerful piano there, with amazing support. All this said, I too (referring to Greg The Fish here) get the biggest rush from McCoy's paying when he was with Trane. -Drew |
|
|
|
Post by bopmodalfree on Sept 1, 2015 11:58:50 GMT
One more thing about Supertrios. It also has Blues on the Corner and Five by Four, both of which are on The Real McCoy. Could be an interesting comparison with these performances separated by a decade.
|
|
If I saw another original pressing of this album, I'd definitely snatch it up.