Is there anybody who likes jazz?

luka

Well-known member
I'm.sitting in a wine bar in Greenwich listening to middle aged white men play smooth jazz when I just wanna get a bit pissed and read my book
 

Numbers

Well-known member
Does anyone have a link to Woebot's top 100 Jazz records list? The only list of his i've ever been able to find is his top 100 records, which I love. Would love to see his favourite jazz records.

Unfortunately it disappeared from its original source, I don't know why. You can find it though in the Big Book of Woe. Or you can browse Last.fm, as far as I know all albums have been tagged as Woebotjazz.
 

luka

Well-known member
Looking at that ecm thread is a reminder of the days when Dissensus had people posting that knew a,lot about music. Wasn't even all that long ago.
 

luka

Well-known member
the scholars have departed and all we're left with is dilletantes and enthusiasts, at best. People like me. I suppose it's generational.
 

Leo

Well-known member
ay, it's an old internet story...people grow up, get families, get real jobs. and probably even get bored with the level of discussion. first-movers don't overstay their welcome, it's part of their character, on to the next thing. also, dissensus was a unique, or at least rare, thing at the time but there have since sprouted thousands of other online places where they can have that dialogue, oftentimes their own blogs. a tumblr, heavy on the photos. i miss many of them, for sure, although the discussion could get uber-insidery on occasion.
 

Woebot

Well-known member
there's very little good jazz that is actually jazz.

good jazz that is actually jazz - miles davis "relaxin" and pretty much anything ellington did - and that's about all. ellington is 100% jazz and is 100% genius.

everything else that is any good is merely music which is associated with jazz: free jazz, electric jazz, soul jazz, jazz-funk, space-jazz. most of the time if it's not essentially soul or funk it's actually rock music in disguise. or in the case of mingus modern classical in disguise.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Matt, I would like to apologise for my recent behaviour on this forum. Particularly on this thread. I will carry the shame to my grave.
 

bruno

est malade
there's very little good jazz that is actually jazz.

good jazz that is actually jazz - miles davis "relaxin" and pretty much anything ellington did - and that's about all. ellington is 100% jazz and is 100% genius.

everything else that is any good is merely music which is associated with jazz: free jazz, electric jazz, soul jazz, jazz-funk, space-jazz. most of the time if it's not essentially soul or funk it's actually rock music in disguise. or in the case of mingus modern classical in disguise.

re: good jazz, i think it was probably equally good to someone in the 40s as to someone in the 70s, but it's reasonable to expect the latter to resonate more with us as we identify with change and take pleasure in progression.

re: what is jazz, if you liken jazz to a chair for example one could make many different chairs and they would all be chairs, even the odd ones. if there is a jazz idea or essence the little sticks, backrest and horizontal sitting place that define jazz as jazz will all be there however weird the form (i think). the advantage of this is that one can overlap with other musical forms and still be jazz, and not fear contamination, which is i think more fruitful than building a moat around a certain form, however perfect.

having said that i do agree that there are moments that define ideal forms along the way, that one could isolate to represent certain variations and perhaps the pure or blueprint idea as in the examples you mention is lost in later variations, but one could equally say that later forms are full and defined and essential, and perhaps a better expression of the ideal form than the early budding stages. perhaps there is more than one perfect form.

one thing that i miss (not only in jazz) is a discussion of or attention to context. with 60s/70s music especially one could argue the evolutions/ramifications of the music are a reflection of general social change rather than something intrinsic to the music, it's a potential realised almost by accident via cheap electronic instruments, eastern philosophy, travel, politics and general throwing the old order out the window. the end result is thrilling and wonderful as in the case of free jazz (brown/cherry/etc.) but also depressing in that this change/liberation brings about the end (or natural conclusion) of the form, the famous 'death of jazz' which leaves us to scavenge the remains or turn into early jazz purists..

perhaps with time these distinctions will fade away into the broader idea of convulsion/liberation from older forms? perhaps improvisation or immediate composition will be the name of all this and the venues and brass instruments and genre minutae of jazz and rock and so on will long be forgotten.
 
Last edited:

bruno

est malade
i may have said this before, but one jazz musician that needs attention is vibraphonist walt dickerson, his 70s output is wonderful and sadly not well known. i would defy anyone to find and not be moved by shades of love and to my son (both in print and available via steeplechase).
 

Woebot

Well-known member
re: good jazz, i think it was probably equally good to someone in the 40s as to someone in the 70s, but it's reasonable to expect the latter to resonate more with us as we identify with change and take pleasure in progression.

i'm not sure i can agree with you. i think a lot of the music that got made used the genre's distinct form as a crutch. see i don't think ellington can be bested - but he would be classed as quintessentially jazz - he invented the crutch itself.

like this - for instance - this is totally sick

 
Last edited:
Top