Another great episode. Billie Holiday would have been in my top 5 and would certainly have made my top 10. Would have included Lester Young in the top 10. He had everything for me. Mingus must be close to top 10 material too. In terms of innovation, Yusef Lateef (too me) was an important innovator in bringing the whole Eastern influence into jazz. He would certainly be in my top 15.
Putting Ornette ahead of Coltrane is a spicy take, haha. But seriously, I think the level of reverence and almost spiritual devotion that vast, vast numbers of musicians over the past 50+ years have maintained for Coltrane says a lot about his impact. To use an analogy: Ron Carter once said of Elvin Jones something like: to get a sense of Elvin’s importance, listen to a jazz drummer before Elvin Jones, and then listen to a jazz drummer after Elvin Jones. I think the same could be said about Coltrane. He changed the template of a jazz sax player in a huge way, I think.
I dont disagree about Tranes spirituality.... U still feel Ornnette had a larger direct impact on jazz.... BTW I like Trane a whole let more t han I do Coleman
Dan - love these two videos and largely agree (not on Ornette, though I respect why you picked him!) In regards to Art Blakey - of course you had to pick him. I did want to say I love the Jazz Messengers and his drumming was huge. But I don’t love him….. so thank you for mentioning his pushing heroin onto his players (Lee Morgan and Bobby Timmons). I personally find it difficult separate his art from his behavior - thus far I have been able to, but it is difficult. No different than Ryan Adams beautiful music and prodigious output, offset by his mysoginy. Well I will stop, thanks again.
I never feel intelligent listening to music on the ECM label, just intrigued. Also, it’s interesting to me that certain types of “out there” or even psychedelic music can only be appreciated by some of they’re under the influence of some mind altering substance. For me, it’s the mental trip of those kinds of music that “gets me there”. Nothing else is required, that’s a big part of the appeal.
You are the man, man. Listening to you is like listening to a Ornette Coleman record or any old brilliant jazz record. The shit is alive. It’s now, if you know what i mean. Thanks.
Virtuosity is a byproduct. I love it. It's so very true. There's a lot of newer fusion and such that I really enjoy listening to, but it doesn't hit me. These albums from the hard bop era hit me.
Onya Dan! Great to hear some defence of Wynton Marsalis’ and his “old guard” of the heritage of jazz. He does know his shit as you say, and it is fascinating how our YT “vocal critics” think he is shite…love all these backstories to our passion, and describing how “passion” is what counts in our music- not ego!! You are so accurate, precise and hard hitting in this soft cock world. Continue to dig deep Dude, dig Jazz.
Hi Dan. I would like to come at this a little differently. Jazz started out as a popular music. In fact it was the popular music of the land in the early days. We talked about Monk is our last conversation and he often said that for the music to work for him it had to make him dance. I buy that thought so for me, my esthetic only, the whole subject of jazz has to start with a music that has melody, harmony and rhythm. A lot of jazz is based on songs that were written by Cole Porter, Rogers and Hart, Duke Ellington, Irving Berlin, George and Ira Gershwin, Harold Arlen, Jerome Kern, and Johnny Mercer. Today these songs are collectively known as the Great American Song Book. This was not always so. Each of these songs was originally composed for a specific play or movie, some were successful right away, some foundered for years before gaining traction. None of them were appreciated as part of a complete body of work by their creators, much less part of a complete part of a larger subset of work until they were performed in a systematic and cohesive manner by Ella Fitzgerald. This effort was the brain child of Norman Granz. The beauty of the effort is enhanced because Ella sang each song straight, not as jazz at all. Rather jazz came from the backing musicians, sometimes big bands, sometimes small groups, sometimes just a single accompanist. In any event I think Ella under the supervision of Norman is my pick for maybe right next in importance. The Great American Song Book is still wildly popular today. within the past few weeks Rod Stewart released a new album in the idiom. You are a little too young to remember this but in the late 1950s a great surge in popularity in jazz occurred because of a television show called Peter Gunn. It was a run of the mill detective show, but what set it apart was the music, live jazz. It launched the career of Henry Mancini, who had a wildly successful Hollywood career writing jazz for movies and TV that set the stage for a whole bunch of guys such as Quincy Jones. So he is next. You mentioned John Coltrane and Sonny Rollins, but forgot Stan Getz, to me the most important of the three. His influence particularly in the latin jazz arena resulted in signficantly broader appeal, more danceable tunes, and of course a lot more record sales. Read between the lines, he was more popular. Get it: jazz - popular, almost like the good old days. I know this is a little different approach, but I would like to conclude by agreeing with your comments on Wynton Marsalis. The more I think about the importance about Norman and Ella, though, and the current popularity of the Great American Song Book, the more significant their contribution seems.
Ella was one I strongly considered and you make a srong case that I agree with in totality... However who would you remove to include her?? Granz is a top notch figure in importance as well no question.. As for Mancini, I have almost all of his work from the 50s n 60s and love his body of work tho little of it is jazz... N altho I love his work fom Baby Elelpant to Moon river to Gunn to Pink Panther, I can not even consider him for this list. Getz was certainly popular... but I have rarely read about his influence on other players or his sty-lings being copied, he and Al Cohn , Mulligan, Baker and others were wonderful players and are all top of the mark...but would NOT make MY list at this point..In fact Mulligan would come before Getz for me by a mile. Marsalis KNOWS more than most of his critics combined ..esp the internet loud speakers...who arent qualified to carry h is lunch. BTW I h ave seen some Peter Gunn...I also loved Naked City, n Sweet Smell of Success.. the latter which was great jazz
@@TheJazzShepherd We are thinking along very different lines. I would put Ella/Granz and specifically the Song Book series ahead of your entire second list. Ornette would be on no list of mine and Coltrane would be on a B list at best most of the time. Mancini set the stage for the entire TV and Motion Picture music scene for guys like Gerald Wilson, and a whole generation of jazz people. I am not thinking of him as a player, but as a monumental force for an entire industry. Way more influential than all but a handful of players. Keep in mind too, that while jazz was flourishing on stage and screen in the 1960-1970 era, the Beatles and so on were dominating the music scene otherwise. Your comments on Getz are from Mars. Anybody after Diz and Cal Tjader who played latin, particularly the entire Bossa Nova movement, owes a big tip of the hat to Stan Getz. And that is just for starters. There were 3 tenors that dominated that era: Coltrane, Rollins and Getz. Dig out your old copies of Down Beat and read up about it. I am not dreaming this stuff up for you. Of those 3 the dominant player at the box office was Getz. Mulligan was not even on the same playing field. BTW, while we are talking about great tenors from the previous generation you mentioned Ben Webster, rightly so, and doing so reminds me to mention Don Byas. Byas was peerless. Another guy you mentioned is Freddie Hubbard, they didn't get any better really, and of course that opens a whole host of others, but one who rarely comes up who is a favorite of mine is Blue Mitchell, so sweet.
@@TheJazzShepherd thinking about this some more, first I want to apologize for coming across for being way too abrasive in my last post. I get passionate about this subject, but that is no excuse for being rude. I think the difference in our approaches here is that you, at least in a general sense, seem to be focused on the influence that an artist had on individual performers, whereas I am looking at it from the viewpoint of the influence that the artist(s) had on broad movements within the whole field of jazz. To begin let me use your example of Art Blakey. We both agree that he was all that you claimed for him. His influence was based on his leadership, his ability to find and nurture talent, to lead small groups who played a significant role in the evolution of the music. At the same time it must be said that he was not a great drummer. He was adequate for what he was trying to do. There were and are a lot of better drummers then and now. In fact the Duke and the Count, for example, both said that the best drummer they ever had in their band was Louis Bellson. A great drummer to be sure, but his contribution to the canon overall is a shadow of Blakey's. So, with that as backdrop, when I say the Ella/Granz Song Books are more important than others on your list, it is because of what they started rather than because of anything intrinsic in their actual musical performance. The Great American Song Book is alive and well and growing today. Likewise when I nominate Henry Mancini, it is not because he is a great jazz man, it is because of what he started, which is nothing less than a literal avalanche of TV shows and Movies that used jazz scores and musicians from then to now. This in spite of the otherwise overwhelming dominance of rock in mainstream popular music. Stan Getz, like him or not, was instrumental in popularizing latin music and particularly Brazilian music and infusing it into jazz. He did much else, but starting there new Bossa Nova records are still being released today. If you doubt his influence take a quick look at the numbers on Discogs.
Where would you put Billie Holiday? I feel like she is more influential in the pop world than in jazz (though surely she's influenced a number of jazz singers). She's quoted as saying she was influenced by Bessie Smith and Armstrong (though I hear more Monk in her singing than either of those). Or do you mentally separate vocalists from instrumentalists? Great series.
Another great episode. Billie Holiday would have been in my top 5 and would certainly have made my top 10. Would have included Lester Young in the top 10. He had everything for me. Mingus must be close to top 10 material too. In terms of innovation, Yusef Lateef (too me) was an important innovator in bringing the whole Eastern influence into jazz. He would certainly be in my top 15.
Love these kind of lists. I miss Bud Powell who seems to have inspired a whole generation of great pianists.
Great list. the only one me persanaly miss is Mingus. Take care
Putting Ornette ahead of Coltrane is a spicy take, haha. But seriously, I think the level of reverence and almost spiritual devotion that vast, vast numbers of musicians over the past 50+ years have maintained for Coltrane says a lot about his impact. To use an analogy: Ron Carter once said of Elvin Jones something like: to get a sense of Elvin’s importance, listen to a jazz drummer before Elvin Jones, and then listen to a jazz drummer after Elvin Jones. I think the same could be said about Coltrane. He changed the template of a jazz sax player in a huge way, I think.
I dont disagree about Tranes spirituality.... U still feel Ornnette had a larger direct impact on jazz.... BTW I like Trane a whole let more t han I do Coleman
I thought Mingus would make the second list for sure. I would switch Ornette for Mingus on my list.
Dan - love these two videos and largely agree (not on Ornette, though I respect why you picked him!)
In regards to Art Blakey - of course you had to pick him. I did want to say I love the Jazz Messengers and his drumming was huge. But I don’t love him….. so thank you for mentioning his pushing heroin onto his players (Lee Morgan and Bobby Timmons). I personally find it difficult separate his art from his behavior - thus far I have been able to, but it is difficult. No different than Ryan Adams beautiful music and prodigious output, offset by his mysoginy. Well I will stop, thanks again.
I never feel intelligent listening to music on the ECM label, just intrigued.
Also, it’s interesting to me that certain types of “out there” or even psychedelic music can only be appreciated by some of they’re under the influence of some mind altering substance. For me, it’s the mental trip of those kinds of music that “gets me there”. Nothing else is required, that’s a big part of the appeal.
I love Listening to You Dan . Respect.
Shep, you are 1000% right... I love Trane's "One Up One Down" until he hits the acoustic feedback. Then I turn the volume down until it passes....
You are the man, man. Listening to you is like listening to a Ornette Coleman record or any old brilliant jazz record. The shit is alive. It’s now, if you know what i mean. Thanks.
Thx my friend, I speak from the heart
Yes. You do.
Virtuosity is a byproduct. I love it. It's so very true. There's a lot of newer fusion and such that I really enjoy listening to, but it doesn't hit me. These albums from the hard bop era hit me.
Onya Dan! Great to hear some defence of Wynton Marsalis’ and his “old guard” of the heritage of jazz. He does know his shit as you say, and it is fascinating how our YT “vocal critics” think he is shite…love all these backstories to our passion, and describing how “passion” is what counts in our music- not ego!! You are so accurate, precise and hard hitting in this soft cock world. Continue to dig deep Dude, dig Jazz.
tHNX my brutha!!!
Hi Dan. I would like to come at this a little differently. Jazz started out as a popular music. In fact it was the popular music of the land in the early days. We talked about Monk is our last conversation and he often said that for the music to work for him it had to make him dance. I buy that thought so for me, my esthetic only, the whole subject of jazz has to start with a music that has melody, harmony and rhythm. A lot of jazz is based on songs that were written by Cole Porter, Rogers and Hart, Duke Ellington, Irving Berlin, George and Ira Gershwin, Harold Arlen, Jerome Kern, and Johnny Mercer. Today these songs are collectively known as the Great American Song Book. This was not always so. Each of these songs was originally composed for a specific play or movie, some were successful right away, some foundered for years before gaining traction. None of them were appreciated as part of a complete body of work by their creators, much less part of a complete part of a larger subset of work until they were performed in a systematic and cohesive manner by Ella Fitzgerald. This effort was the brain child of Norman Granz. The beauty of the effort is enhanced because Ella sang each song straight, not as jazz at all. Rather jazz came from the backing musicians, sometimes big bands, sometimes small groups, sometimes just a single accompanist. In any event I think Ella under the supervision of Norman is my pick for maybe right next in importance. The Great American Song Book is still wildly popular today. within the past few weeks Rod Stewart released a new album in the idiom.
You are a little too young to remember this but in the late 1950s a great surge in popularity in jazz occurred because of a television show called Peter Gunn. It was a run of the mill detective show, but what set it apart was the music, live jazz. It launched the career of Henry Mancini, who had a wildly successful Hollywood career writing jazz for movies and TV that set the stage for a whole bunch of guys such as Quincy Jones. So he is next. You mentioned John Coltrane and Sonny Rollins, but forgot Stan Getz, to me the most important of the three. His influence particularly in the latin jazz arena resulted in signficantly broader appeal, more danceable tunes, and of course a lot more record sales. Read between the lines, he was more popular. Get it: jazz - popular, almost like the good old days.
I know this is a little different approach, but I would like to conclude by agreeing with your comments on Wynton Marsalis. The more I think about the importance about Norman and Ella, though, and the current popularity of the Great American Song Book, the more significant their contribution seems.
Ella was one I strongly considered and you make a srong case that I agree with in totality... However who would you remove to include her??
Granz is a top notch figure in importance as well no question..
As for Mancini, I have almost all of his work from the 50s n 60s and love his body of work tho little of it is jazz...
N altho I love his work fom Baby Elelpant to Moon river to Gunn to Pink Panther, I can not even consider him for this list.
Getz was certainly popular... but I have rarely read about his influence on other players or his sty-lings being copied, he and Al Cohn , Mulligan, Baker and others were wonderful players and are all top of the mark...but would NOT make MY list at this point..In fact Mulligan would come before Getz for me by a mile.
Marsalis KNOWS more than most of his critics combined ..esp the internet loud speakers...who arent qualified to carry h is lunch.
BTW I h ave seen some Peter Gunn...I also loved Naked City, n Sweet Smell of Success.. the latter which was great jazz
@@TheJazzShepherd We are thinking along very different lines. I would put Ella/Granz and specifically the Song Book series ahead of your entire second list. Ornette would be on no list of mine and Coltrane would be on a B list at best most of the time. Mancini set the stage for the entire TV and Motion Picture music scene for guys like Gerald Wilson, and a whole generation of jazz people. I am not thinking of him as a player, but as a monumental force for an entire industry. Way more influential than all but a handful of players. Keep in mind too, that while jazz was flourishing on stage and screen in the 1960-1970 era, the Beatles and so on were dominating the music scene otherwise. Your comments on Getz are from Mars. Anybody after Diz and Cal Tjader who played latin, particularly the entire Bossa Nova movement, owes a big tip of the hat to Stan Getz. And that is just for starters. There were 3 tenors that dominated that era: Coltrane, Rollins and Getz. Dig out your old copies of Down Beat and read up about it. I am not dreaming this stuff up for you. Of those 3 the dominant player at the box office was Getz. Mulligan was not even on the same playing field. BTW, while we are talking about great tenors from the previous generation you mentioned Ben Webster, rightly so, and doing so reminds me to mention Don Byas. Byas was peerless. Another guy you mentioned is Freddie Hubbard, they didn't get any better really, and of course that opens a whole host of others, but one who rarely comes up who is a favorite of mine is Blue Mitchell, so sweet.
@@TheJazzShepherd thinking about this some more, first I want to apologize for coming across for being way too abrasive in my last post. I get passionate about this subject, but that is no excuse for being rude. I think the difference in our approaches here is that you, at least in a general sense, seem to be focused on the influence that an artist had on individual performers, whereas I am looking at it from the viewpoint of the influence that the artist(s) had on broad movements within the whole field of jazz. To begin let me use your example of Art Blakey. We both agree that he was all that you claimed for him. His influence was based on his leadership, his ability to find and nurture talent, to lead small groups who played a significant role in the evolution of the music. At the same time it must be said that he was not a great drummer. He was adequate for what he was trying to do. There were and are a lot of better drummers then and now. In fact the Duke and the Count, for example, both said that the best drummer they ever had in their band was Louis Bellson. A great drummer to be sure, but his contribution to the canon overall is a shadow of Blakey's. So, with that as backdrop, when I say the Ella/Granz Song Books are more important than others on your list, it is because of what they started rather than because of anything intrinsic in their actual musical performance. The Great American Song Book is alive and well and growing today. Likewise when I nominate Henry Mancini, it is not because he is a great jazz man, it is because of what he started, which is nothing less than a literal avalanche of TV shows and Movies that used jazz scores and musicians from then to now. This in spite of the otherwise overwhelming dominance of rock in mainstream popular music. Stan Getz, like him or not, was instrumental in popularizing latin music and particularly Brazilian music and infusing it into jazz. He did much else, but starting there new Bossa Nova records are still being released today. If you doubt his influence take a quick look at the numbers on Discogs.
Where would you put Billie Holiday? I feel like she is more influential in the pop world than in jazz (though surely she's influenced a number of jazz singers). She's quoted as saying she was influenced by Bessie Smith and Armstrong (though I hear more Monk in her singing than either of those). Or do you mentally separate vocalists from instrumentalists? Great series.
Interesting idea