Showing posts with label miles davis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label miles davis. Show all posts

Thursday, October 11, 2012

FOUR DECADES ON THE CORNER



Miles Davis's On the Corner, which is my favorite album by anyone, ever, was released 40 years ago today—October 11, 1972. In my book Running the Voodoo Down, I devote an entire chapter to it; in that chapter, I wrote the following:

It's hard for me not to get hyperbolic about the importance of On the Corner in the development of Miles's music, and music as a whole, throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Sure, it's a dead end, artistically. Davis never attempted a record of On the Corner's complexity again. His sound became more guitar-heavy, and rhythmically simpler, in the three years that followed. The studio recordings on Get Up With It, while still employing overdubs and careful, dramatic post-production editing, were for the most part more organic-sounding than On the Corner's electronic sound-storm.

But on the other hand, the album was so forward-looking that it's not really surprising that its impact took years to register and is in fact still being felt. Many of its rhythms sound more like the disco-punk of the late 1970s and early 1980s (the music of bands like Konk, Material and the Contortions) than like anything else in fusion. Further, its overdubbing, thick and repetitive basslines, and looped percussion link it to hip-hop and dub reggae. Far from ceding any ground to pop trends, On the Corner directly challenged funk, rock, and jazz players alike: Everyone working at the time had to deal with what they were hearing.

Every time I listen to On the Corner, I seem to hear a new sound, whether it's a percussive rattle or a mewling or growling trumpet, guitar, saxophone, organ, or unidentifiable instrument. It hypnotizes me, focuses my attention, makes my nerves twitch, makes me walk funny...like I said, it's not just my favorite Miles Davis album, it's my favorite album by anyone, ever. To my ear, it's a perfect piece of music, an endlessly swirling, chaotic puzzle I don't really want to ever "solve."

Here; listen for yourself.


Sunday, October 09, 2011

LOU, LOU


The steady trickle of information about Lulu, the collaboration between Lou Reed and Metallica, is kind of wondrous to behold. Stanley Crouch once quoted Nietzsche on Wagner in describing Miles Davis's electric period as "the greatest example of self-violation in the history of art." I think we have a new trophy contender.

I confess a bias. I have never liked Lou Reed's music very much. I have tried, many times, to like it, but it has never sunk in with me. I bought The Velvet Underground & Nico on vinyl when I was in high school, and listened to it over and over. There were one or two songs I sort of liked - "I'm Waiting for the Man" had a piano part that stuck in my head, and "Run Run Run" was sort of catchy. But the bulk of it was, to my ear, extremely poorly played attempts at rock, and little more. The band seemed to be stumbling all over itself just trying to get through the songs, and nobody involved could sing worth a shit. Reed just seemed to be reciting the lyrics, as though they wanted to get rough versions down on tape which they would then provide to the real singer, once he or she turned up.

I have listened to several other Reed and/or Velvet Underground albums over the years: Loaded, White Light/White Heat, Rock 'n' Roll Animal, Lou Reed Live, The Blue Mask, Legendary Hearts, New York, The Raven, Metal Machine Music, and Songs for Drella - oh, and the old RCA Walk On the Wild Side: The Best of Lou Reed compilation - have all lived in my house at one time or another. Out of all those records, exactly four songs have actually, really worked for me:

"Waves of Fear," from The Blue Mask;
"Nowhere At All," from Walk On the Wild Side: The Best of Lou Reed;
"Sweet Jane," from Rock 'n' Roll Animal;
"Strawman," from New York.

So no, I am not a fan. And in fact I bear Reed a kind of animus at this point, because as a music critic, I pay attention to artists other critics tell me I should care about, and Lou Reed is fucking worshipped by critics. He invented punk; he's some kind of genius of the electric guitar; his lyrics cut through the flesh and bone to the beating heart of contemporary human existence...blah blah blah. If it wasn't for all the rapturous reviews over the years, I would have given up trying to like Lou Reed years before I did.

With this in mind, I have thoughts about Lulu. Based on the one song I've heard, "The View," I think it's going to be a staggeringly bad album. Reed sounds cranky, tired, and old; Metallica sound like a band recruited to accompany him, like one of the local outfits hired to back Chuck Berry in whatever town he's playing that night. I don't know James Hetfield, Kirk Hammett, Robert Trujillo or Lars Ulrich. I don't know if they're lifelong Lou Reed fans, or if they're just there because he asked them to be there and they were too intimidated to say no, just like for years I was too intimidated by the reputations of the critics praising Lou Reed to say no, this album (whichever one I was being told to love at the time) is boring, lazy bullshit. But what they're playing behind Reed on "The View" has none of the power of their own most recent studio album, Death Magnetic.

Metallica are a great band. By making this kind of ham-fisted doom-thrash as Lou Reed mutters and shouts (and the song is mixed in such a way that it sounds like he's reciting the lyrics over a tape of the band he's playing on a boombox), they are throwing away their reputation as songwriters, as riff craftsmen...for what? For the chance to have their names next to Lou Reed's on an album cover? They don't need him. The worst-selling Metallica studio album has likely outsold every Lou Reed and/or Velvet Underground album put together. All Reed brings to the equation is near-unanimous critical approbation and the prestige that comes with that. But Metallica have critical respect on their own, hard-won through decades of solid work (minus a bad stretch in the '90s and early '00s) and brutal, breathtaking live shows. I genuinely don't know why they took this project on. And I suspect I'll never have the opportunity to ask. But at least I know better than to listen to the thing when it's shat onto store shelves a little over three weeks from now. I've been burned by Lou Reed enough times already.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

THIS WEEK ON BURNINGAMBULANCE.COM

Here's what you may have missed:

• Monday, a review of Bongripper's Satan Worshipping Doom
• Tuesday, a review of Miles Davis's Bitches Brew Live
• Thursday, a review of Mostly Other People Do the Killing's The Coimbra Concert
• Friday, a review of Hans-Joachim Roedelius's Geschenk des Augenblicks

Saturday, January 22, 2011

LAST WEEK AT BURNING AMBULANCE

Here's what I wrote for BurningAmbulance.com this past week:

• Monday, a live review and photos (also by me) of the Matthew Shipp Trio
• Tuesday, a review of Fela Kuti's Teacher Don't Teach Me Nonsense
• Wednesday, a review of The Bug's Infected EP
• Friday, a review of Hugo Antunes' Roll Call
• also on Friday, this photo:

Sunday, January 09, 2011

RECENTLY AT BURNING AMBULANCE

There was a bunch of content posted at BurningAmbulance.com during December, and the beginning of January. Here's the rundown:

Nov. 30: Luis Lopes' Humanization 4tet, Electricity
Dec. 1: Endless Boogie, Full House Head
Dec. 3: Ivo Perelman, Mind Games/The Stream of Life
Dec. 8: Nicki Minaj, Pink Friday
Dec. 13: Knut, Wonder
Dec. 14: Thomas Köner, Knut•Teimo•Permafrost
Dec. 15: our third issue came out, with stories on Anthony Braxton, Jon Irabagon, David Weiss, the Moritz von Oswald Trio, 1960s Hollywood, and composing for orchestra, and an excerpt from Jeff Wagner's book on progressive metal, Mean Deviation. Buy it!
Dec. 16: Seijaku, Mail from Fushitsusha/You Should Prepare to Survive Through Even Anything Happens
Dec. 18: a tribute to Captain Beefheart
Dec. 21: Henry Threadgill Zooid, This Brings Us To, Volume II
Dec. 22: Miles Davis live circa 1982 (video)
Jan. 3: Rodrigo Amado, Searching for Adam
Jan. 4: Kings Destroy, And the Rest Will Surely Perish
Jan. 5: Diddy-Dirty Money, Last Train to Paris
Jan. 7: Rich Halley Quartet Featuring Bobby Bradford, Live at the Penofin Jazz Festival

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

SONNY ROLLINS: THE LONG VERSION

[The other week, I interviewed Sonny Rollins for MSN Music. The abridged version ran here; this is the full transcript of our conversation. Some questions are now moot 'cause the 80th birthday concert has already happened; see my last post for details. But anyway, here 'tis.]

You were considering going into the studio back in December, right? Did that happen?
I do intend to go back in the studio next year. So if I had claimed that earlier, I didn’t get in the studio this year, but I do plan to get in there next year, depending on my schedule.

Some jazz musicians are well known for their compositions, but you’re more recognized for your abilities as a soloist. Do you ever wish you’d devoted yourself more to composition?
Well, writing tunes, composer, those can be qualified, I guess. I spend some time when I’m composing. If I have to compose, I have to spend time at it and I usually do this if I’m composing for a project of some kind. I’m an extemporaneous improviser, that’s what I do, so I compose things as vehicles to get to that part of my output, you know, they’re vehicles for me to get to my extemporizing. But some people – I haven’t done any Stravinsky-like works. I was involved in a tenor saxophone concerto but that’s about it. What do you want me to say? That I’m a great composer, that I’m not a great composer?

Well, I'm just curious, what’s your process?
Well, my process is generally if I’m walking through the airport and I have an idea I always have a piece of paper and I jot it down. If I’m at home going to sleep, I always jot it down. If I’m in the car and I get some idea that I think would work out to be a composition I pull the car over and write it down. Then I also go to the piano sometimes and work out things. But that’s something that unless I’m composing for a project I don’t really do. And then a lot of things come to me while I’m practicing, while I’m playing by myself, some idea might strike me that I think might work as a tune.

A lot of what are known as jazz standards were originally songs from Broadway shows or from movie musicals. Where are new standards coming from?
Well, a standard I think really implies Broadway shows or movies or something like that. So if you mean songs that everybody will start playing, well, I always have the hopes that some of the things that I’m composing might turn out to be played by a lot of other people, but the thing is that these days with the business of music being what it is, most people will compose a line for themselves and therefore they’ll be able to get the copyright, the publishing money, et cetera, et cetera. So that whereas years ago, musicians were apt to record standards and well known songs they did it probably because of the fact that the business of music set it so we didn’t own our own material. A lot of jazz musicians now will write something that they own. They probably won’t become standards, but they fit the needs of the particular player.

You never moved fully into fusion the way groups like Weather Report or Return to Forever did in the 1970s. Did that sound not interest you?
Return to Forever? Well, that’s not my métier, you know. Those were all great groups, great musicians and everything like that, but I’m Sonny Rollins. I’m not the sort to follow the bus. I have my own idea, my own things that I feel are best expressed through my particular talent. So I keep current but in another sense I’m not a copier, if you know what I mean. But I certainly appreciate all of the things Return to Forever and all those guys were playing, the musicianship and everything, but it’s got to fit me also. I have something unique, or so they tell me, so that I have to kind of work on developing that and have the confidence to feel that that’s of equal stature or at least in the same ballpark with Return to Forever or whoever else is coming out tomorrow.

You’ve mentioned in the past that you’re a yoga practitioner, and are you also a vegetarian?
I eat fish. I’m not a complete vegetarian. I do eat fish and yogurt, and other than that, vegetables. So no, I’m not a complete vegetarian. I do eat fish, I’m careful which fish I eat and everything like that, and I do eat yogurt. But do I eat red meat? No. And I don’t eat chicken. That’s about as close as I’m gonna get to being a vegetarian.

And how does your diet or exercise impact the physical aspects of music-making?
You mean through my diet? Well, you know, not particularly. I think what I was doing at that time was trying to perfect myself as a human being. I was trying to sort of get myself able to survive and to thrive in this world we live in. It wasn’t so much about the effect it would have on my playing, and I don’t really know what effect it did have except that it made me a more confident human being. So I’m sure that impacted my music. But I can’t draw a line and say, I stopped eating meat and that’s when I started playing better. I couldn’t say that. But by stopping eating meat and other detrimental habits I was engaged in, by discarding all of those habits I became a more aware, conscious person, and I’m sure that had an effect on me and of course on my music.

You’ve got some special guests coming to your 80th birthday concert – have you rehearsed with them, or does everyone just sort of know what song is going to be played and is prepared?
We haven’t rehearsed yet but we’ve talked. We’re going to start rehearsals, some extensive rehearsals, soon.

Do you listen to young players? How do you find people when you’re recruiting bandmembers?
Well, I have friends of mine in the business who send me records or CDs I guess of people who they think I should hear and that they’re excited about. So I sort of try to keep up through my friends in the business, because I myself don’t go out. I live some distance from the city and I’m somewhat of a recluse, I could say, so I’m not around to hear anybody in person. But I do listen to people when I’m playing festivals, sometimes I have an opportunity to hear other groups, and then I keep up by guys sending me records – ‘You should hear this guy, Sonny,’ blah blah blah, like that.

Are there particular performances that linger in your memory, or does a show disappear as soon as you play it?
Well, unfortunately, shows disappear the next day after I play them. But I do record my performances, so if there’s something that happens that’s of exceptional quality I can refer to it later. As a rule, it’s very difficult to really – and I don’t listen to my records, I don’t listen to the mix of what I played that night. I don’t do it. So I would say that unless it was something exceptional that I played and the night itself was exceptional, I probably forget about it in a day or two.

Have you ever retired a song because you’ve decided after hundreds of versions, I’ve said everything I can say with this melody?
Yes, that has happened, but strangely enough, after I’ve retired a song for the reasons you suggested, that I’ve played it so much it plays itself, it comes back to me some years later and then I want to play it again. There’s certain songs that’s happened to that I used to play and then I’d gotten everything I could get out of them and I’d stop playing them for a year, two years, three years, four years, whatever. And then somehow they’ll come back to me and I’ll feel like, wow, I can do something with this song, it has such a strong affinity with who I am that I think I want to try it again, I have some more to say on it.

A lot of the records that people associate with you most strongly are of you playing with no piano. Is the enforced chord structure of the piano something you rebel against?
Well, the piano is an instrument which has 88 keys on it as you know, and it is a very dominant instrument. In other words, if you play in a piano trio, piano and a bass player and a drummer, the piano fills up the whole landscape. As well it should in that configuration. But as a performing artist and as a person who composes in my own mind while I’m playing, I’m creating my own landscapes, and the piano can be too dominating. I’ve played with some great piano players in my life, fortunately, but I’ve gravitated to the pianoless format because it gave me more of a chance to think and to create my own images of what I want to create. And it’s hard to do that with a piano. I remember when I had a piano player with me – a very fine piano player, by the way – I’d go into the club that night, if it was a club I was playing or a concert or whatever – and the piano player would be playing, you know warming up, and these chords would be so dominant they would crowd out of my mind anything that I might be thinking. So I realized that for the type of work that I do, it’s better for me to have – if I want a chordal instrument or a harmonic instrument, I get a guitar, because a guitar has the chords and harmonics but it’s not constantly playing. It’s not always there. I want the freedom, I want the space, I want to create my own images, and I can’t do that with a piano.

What kind of drummers are you generally attracted to playing with? Cause when I saw you in 1997 you had Al Foster behind you, a really heavy hitter…
When you say heavy hitter, you mean it in what sense?

He hits very hard and swings very hard, and there are other players who have a more subtle, dancing rhythm…
Like Roy Haynes, you mean.

Exactly. Or like Tony Williams was.
Right, Tony Williams. Who I played with. So which do I prefer? Well, it depends. Sometimes I prefer one approach, sometimes I prefer another. It depends on the talent of the particular drummer. If I have a drummer playing with me who has the hard approach like Al Foster, he might bring enough to the table that I can accept everything else because what he brings is strong enough that it makes up for the fact that he’s not as subtle as somebody else might be. So it depends on the individual. Roy Haynes was an example of a subtle drummer. Tony might also be described as a heavy hitter, he might not have swung the way that Al Foster did. He played a lot of drums, with a lot of volume going on. I don’t know if you agree with that or not.

Well, when he was playing with Miles there was a lot of light touch going on. They would really pull the rhythm apart.
Yeah, back then you had Herbie Hancock and Ron Carter and they were playing more, accompanying Miles. But once he left Miles, I wouldn’t put him in the category of a light-hitting drummer. But it depends on the musician. There’s so much to music that I never want to inhibit a person from playing the way they play. And so I’m very careful. When a person has great musical sensibilities, great time feeling, then I’m inclined to give them a head, so to speak, and that would be playing less time than I would play with a lighter touch. I’m very open, I don’t have any strict dictums that I say people must do this or that. I believe in the freedom of jazz. I think jazz is suck a beautiful force because it is free and it lets people express themselves. As long as we are on basically the same page, which you have to be otherwise it’s cacophony and not harmony. As long as people have that sensibility, then I like things to be not planned out. Miles was like that too. Miles never wanted to talk to anybody and tell them what to play, and I’m like that. I hate to talk to musicians. If they’re capable of playing with me then they should know what to do. And Miles was like that, too. Yes, you have to at times, but generally, no. I don’t want to talk and have to explain well, this is what you should do and this is what happens here and this happens there. I think I shouldn’t have to do that, so I believe in that jazz is free expression. It’s the only music that gives the performer that much freedom, and that’s sort of the aspect of it that I love.

Is there still an element of surprise? Can a musician you’re playing with still catch you off balance?
Well, throw me off balance, I don’t like the term much. But sure, I’m open to anything a guy plays. I don’t prescribe what my accompanists should play at all, so yeah, I hear lots of things that make me say, wow, great. And I surprise myself. I’ve played and heard things come out of me that – of course, the way I improvise is I don’t think. The thinking goes to the subconscious. I just learn the basic materials, harmony, melody and all these things, then I forget it so that the subjective can really come to the fore. That’s what I feel is real jazz improvisation. I’m not looking to just play the same licks as before over and over again. I think that’s not really improvisation. So I surprise myself at times because as I said I’m not thinking. As a matter of fact, you might have read this before because I’ve said it a couple of times, but I used to pick out little clever riffs, I’d hear it somewhere and think, wow, that would go well with this particular song in our repertoire, I’ll bring this into the gig tonight and I’ll fit it in there and everybody will think Sonny Rollins is really clever. But I can’t do it. I can’t do it, because the music is going so fast that by the time I’m trying to think of a way to put this clever little riff in, it’s too late, it’s gone by already. The moment that it would fit. So you see it’s impossible to think and play at the same time when you’re doing real improvisation. And I’ve tried it, but now I think the heck with it. I’ll try to get to a state where your subconscious is working. That’s real improvisation. Then something’s happening that hasn’t been played out already. And that’s what I do, that’s what I try to do, that’s what I’ve been working towards all my life and I’m still working towards it, you know.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

THE BORIS BRAND


I'm listening to the BXI EP, four songs recorded by Japanese rock band Boris with vocals (on three tracks) by Ian Astbury. The usual wave of hype that surrounds anything and everything Boris does is slowly building. It will crest in a week or so—the disc comes out on August 17, the same day as the new Iron Maiden album, which I also wrote about today, over here.

Anyway, BXI. The first song, "Teeth and Claws," sounds like Sonic Youth circa Daydream Nation with Astbury on vocals. The guitar riff is slightly "off" and distorted/fuzzy in that way SY perfected on "Teen Age Riot." But the histrionic Cult vocalist doesn't really fit with the music. Things get quirky when a small child begins reciting lyrics toward the end of the song. (I think it might be the daughter of Boris guitarist Wata and drummer Atsuo, whose name I can't remember. Nice kid; I met her when Boris were having their photo taken for Metal Edge.) The second track, "We Are Witches," is fuzzier and more in the hard psych-rock vein of Boris's Pink album. The drums are heavily effected for a sound that reminds me of late '90s "alternative metal." The third track is a cover of the Cult's "Rain," sung in a very breathy voice by Wata. Based on this evidence, she should sing more Boris material. They become quite a convincing shoegaze/dream-pop act with her up front. The fourth and final track, "Magickal Child," starts with Astbury imitating Bruce Springsteen as Wata makes enraged-hornet guitar noises like John McLaughlin on Miles Davis's "Go Ahead John," minus the speaker-switching effect. There's a big crashing sound when the whole band comes in, but they disappear again. This is the pattern for the whole track, which isn't a song so much as five minutes of music.

If this EP was by a band you'd never heard of, and you randomly slotted it into your CD player or streamed the tracks from MySpace, you'd probably quit about halfway through the first song. It's occasionally pretty, but it's not compelling stuff, and Ian Astbury's vocals are, if possible, even more of an acquired taste than they were in the late '80s, when his ultra-earnest attempts to be Jim Morrison won the Cult a medium-sized following and got them on Headbanger's Ball during the hair metal era. And frankly, the songs are underwritten. It feels like the band said, "Hey, it'd be fun to work with Ian Astbury!" and he said yes (because Cult records aren't selling, and the version of the Doors he fronted isn't on the road), and nobody thought it was necessary to invest more than ten minutes in writing material.

I don't get why people like Boris as much as they do. I saw them a few years ago, and thought they were deadly dull live, despite Atsuo's over-the-top theatrics (he's got a big gong, and he likes to use it). Their albums are almost always middling, wedded to a concept or a conceit rather than being built around a collection of strong songs, and have a rushed feel like they're already impatient with the concept, and can't wait to get to the next one, even as they're recording the material. And yet, they've somehow become a cult band, and a brand. So people are gonna buy this record out of brand loyalty. Which disappoints me, but I'm sure it pleases them, 'cause it means they don't have to change their strategy to hold onto their fan base.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Thursday, March 11, 2010

MUSIC BOXES

Last week, Amazon offered a pretty damn good deal on the Led Zeppelin 10CD Complete Studio Recordings box from 1993. Ordinarily it's $115, but they were selling it for $70, so I decided to grab it, since I've only ever owned Physical Graffiti on CD. Also, I wanted to get this version, rather than the 2009 Definitive Collection, because, frankly, the newer remasters were likely to be compressed and limited all to hell. (I visited a couple of audio-nerd burrows to figure out whether this is in fact the case; opinions varied.) Also, the fetishistic quality of that set actually turned me off - the idea of miniature reproductions of all six In Through the Out Door sleeves and a version of the Led Zeppelin III sleeve with a working pinwheel just felt obsessive and pathetic. Music is sound. I care about sound quality, not playing with (or just sitting and reverently staring at) packaging.

I think I made the right choice. The discs sound fantastic. (Assuming you like Led Zeppelin, of course.)

I have this weird ambivalence about packaging. On the one hand, as a reader and writer, I love a really well-written essay, and some boxes/deluxe reissues have terrific liner notes. The Robert Palmer essay in the Ornette Coleman box Beauty is a Rare Thing is a good example of this, and I'm sure I could dig through my collection and come up with a bunch of others, but you get my point. The trouble is, boxes are also frequently (especially now when they emerge as labors of love from indie labels desperate to dissuade folks from just downloading the audio content) loaded down with extraneous crap. The Albert Ayler box Holy Ghost had a pressed flower, postcards, reproductions of zines, and on and on, when all I wanted was the music and the book. And the new 3CD/1DVD/7"/book/photos edition of Iggy and the Stooges' Raw Power just seems absurd to me. (The essays and "testimonials" are pretty much guaranteed to be a total waste of everyone's time, and I like Henry Rollins.)

So I like that the 1993 Led Zeppelin box pairs up the discs into little books, in the process juggling them out of release order so Physical Graffiti can get its own book. I like it because the perversity, the non-deluxeness of it, is so thoroughly in keeping with the spirit of Led Zeppelin, as I understand it: "Here's the album. No, there's no single. No, we don't have a publicist. See you on the road."

I also like it because it's that much easier to reconcile spending $70 on CDs that I'll immediately import into my MacBook and thence to my iPod. Maura Johnston, a writer who's too smart to waste her time talking about American Idol as much as she does, had a pretty good essay about ridding oneself of physical music and going digital-only on pastemagazine.com the other day. She's still got a romantic attachment to the idea of physical music-objects qua objects; "There was value in music having a physical presence—even those records that you’d only pull out for very specific reasons reminded you of their existence during a routine house-cleaning," she writes. "As music becomes less physical, its whole essence becomes more disposable."

I like having some stuff around in physical form, for the simple reason that my iPod and headphones are a unit, in my head. I have a cable that allows me to plug my iPod into my stereo, but I never do it. So there are certain CDs I keep around just because when I want to listen to them, I want to use speakers to do so. These range from Miles Davis's Agharta, which takes over my living room like a rabid animal when I let it loose in the apartment, to Ryoji Ikeda's Matrix, which uses ultra-high frequencies and panning to create effects that headphones simply can't duplicate - it's as much about audiology as aesthetics. And I have the feeling that although these Led Zeppelin albums are, indeed, gonna be permanent fixtures in my iPod, there are going to be plenty of times when I'm gonna want to hear "No Quarter" or "Achilles Last Stand" through speakers, at room-filling volume.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

SUNDAY AFTERNOON JAZZ TALK

A summary of a conversation I had on Twitter today:

@pdfreeman Jazz proselytizers need to stop saying “you need to listen to jazz” and start saying “you need to listen to [specific album].” Rock fans can say “I like Elvis” or “I like Metallica.” Jazzheads shouldn’t feel pressured to rep the whole genre. I love many different kinds of jazz but wouldn’t listen to most jazz vocal albums, or a Miles Davis/Bill Evans disc, on a dare. Albert Ayler for noise kidz. Ella Fitzgerald for folks who like VH1 girl-with-piano stuff. Mahavishnu Orchestra for metalheads.

@garrettshelton i'd add the first album suggested shouldn't be Kind of Blue. It has ZERO to do what's going on today

@pdfreeman Neither do the Beatles, but they still sell.

@garrettshelton not about sales but about the relationship. i hear more influence on rock over the last decade by the beatles, than KoB in jazz.

@epicharmus For some new listeners, though, there's more appeal in saying "I'm listening to jazz" than "I'm listening to [specific album]." Another way of putting it: some newbies come to jazz because of its "cool" rather than a visceral response the music qua music gives. Liking music for its "coolness" may seem stupid (tho I'm not totally down on cool), but it can be a gateway to appreciating other qualities.

@garrettshelton rock fans can say they like modern groups, without referencing legacy acts or dead artists - and not be looked down upon too

@pdfreeman At some point historical ignorance will earn ridicule, but yeah, w/rock you can come in just about anywhere. Folks can, and do, come to jazz cold - I sure did; started w/"KoB" but heard "On the Corner" weeks later & liked it better.

@pdfreeman How much do jazz artists hurt themselves by explicitly referencing history - releasing "[New Guy] Plays [Dead Guy]" CDs all the damn time? No rock artist could expect to be taken seriously releasing a covers album as their debut. "Standards" = Sha Na Na.

@Cave17Matt Never hurt anyone's sales! Most people are scared of "jazz," need a familiar entry point. Like the oldies. Come on - Sha Na Na wasn't trying to put their own spin on anything.

@epicharmus I'm not sure most jazz newcomers know the originals well enough to be tempted!

@Cave17Matt New jazz artists have no percentage in selling to jazz newcomers though. Sadly their audience is well-educated middleagers.

@pdfreeman Young jazz players should hit the road, open for indie-rock bands or play the jam band circuit. Leave jazz clubs to geezers. Jazz festivals give all the big money to veteran headliners anyway - new players'd better off aggressively chasing new fans. Biggest obstacle: jazz-player mindset/temperament - upscale, educated & probably resistant to punk-rock squalor in service of art. "I didn't go to Juilliard so I could sleep in a beer-puddle on the floor of some basement!"