Hello.These are the jazz albums I consider essential. They are the first jazz albums I would recommend to someone new to the genre. What do you think of these albums? >Inb4 'i hate these'. Okay. What albums would you replace them with? What would YOUR essential jazz list look like? Let's have fun constructive discussion.
many great picksI was listenign to roland kirk in copenhagen just nowprops for steve grossmansorry going to sleep now
I'm tired of people treating jazz like it's some superior genre of music. I've checked multiple jazz albums and heard a ton and more jazz music in movies etc and virtually none of them made any impression on me (the only exception being picrel). And yet it seems like everybody is trying to make it sound like it's such a big goddamn deal. To be honest, it's pretty much all glorified elevator / coffee shop background music to me.
>>129505388better than the "essentials" i usually see on here for sure.yeah, i think this is pretty good. i would have put more swing, like Fats Waller or Django or the band that Bird played in or even way earlier stuff, but that doesn't usually come in albums.>>129505500this is an elevator reply
>>129505388I can tell from your chart you like rock more than jazz. I think a jazz essentials chart should come from someone with more open-minded taste than the usual "golden-age bop padder + fusion rockcore" mixture that I always see on 4chan.
>>129505500It could just be a genre that's not your taste. Nothing wrong with that. Though I will say it's a bit odd to call albums like Ascension and Jazz Composers Orchestra 'elevator music'. >>129505527Haven't heard of Django, honestly. I'll have to check him out.
>>129505539Well I'd love to see yours if you're interested in sharing your jazz taste in-depth.
>>129505549Maybe I'll make one later. How long did it take you to do yours?
>>129505541Yeah, but why are so-called serious people and tastemakers so bent on portraying jazz as such a big deal? Some unis even have jazz composition programs, wtf. Meanwhile a genre of music which, in my opinion, is a gorillion times more diverse and relevant, ie progressive rock, is getting a fraction of the kind of attention jazz is getting. Is it because jazz is predominantly Black and therefore, everybody has to act all impressed because for once Blacks contributed something decent to society?Picrel is another (roughly speaking) jazz album I can think of that actually brings something interesting to the table.
>>129505388theres barely any jazz albums on there, its more about fusion?
>>129505500>>129505603go shit up another board will ya
oh look another instance of honk victimhood
>>129505388>all this fusionnot good>What albums would you replace them withliterally anything before the 70s when rockists ruined the genre
>>129505603Nice spacing
>>129505603>black jazz le bad>white jazz le goodstunning and brave take
>>129505591Well I've been listening to jazz since the mid to late 2010s and I made it mostly based on my personal taste and what I thought would give someone the best first impression of jazz that they could get along with at least SOME versatility. I know it's fairly fusion-heavy but frankly that's where a lot of my tastes like.And just like any guide chart I wanted to keep it one-per-artist so some cuts had to be made. I'd say as far as the list / chart specifically I started it in 2024 and made tweaks to it overtime as I discovered more and swapped albums in / out. >>129505603>so-called serious people and tastemakers so bent on portraying jazz as such a big deal?I think it's just them showing their personal taste. They're not trying to diminish other genres, they're just sharing that they find the genre worthwhile and what highlights someone should check out to better understand it. >more diverse and relevant, ie progressive rock, is getting a fraction of the kind of attention jazz is gettingNot to be rude but aren't some of the biggest and most successful / acclaimed bands of all time prog-based? King Crimson, Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis, ELP, Rush, and countless others are considered some of the most popular out there. People are likely highlighting Jazz because in comparison with the mainstream it doesn't get as much attention. >>129505627>literally anythingName some specifically. I'd love to learn more about it if you'd like to share it.
>>129505657you are not everybody.
>>129505388>jazz essential list>dr. strut>jeff beck>soft machine>chuck magnione>no sonny clark>no mal waldron>no ella fitzgerald>no duke ellingtonI bet you never get asked to post hand
>>129505677I never said I was. >>129505681I wanted to focus on instrumental jazz, so Ella wouldn't have made the list regardless. Why would I post a picture of my hand anyway? That'd be an odd request.
>>129505709Then call it instrumental jazz essentials, that's neither inaccurate nor misleading
man some things about /mu/ ought to die but watching the great reset play out with my own eyes is jarring.
i feel you, brother
>>129505714I figured since a vast majority of jazz is instrumental that it'd be redundant to clarify that. This may be a bit anecdotal but when I see jazz discussed I typically see vocal and instrumental jazz talked about in completely separate manners. so it'd look odd to include both on the same chart. >>129505722I don't know what that is. Can you explain it?
>>129505657You sure about that? Mind you, Coltrane has been dead for decades.
please fuck off new fag. you will never be an authority on anything.
>>129505734Utter retard
>>129505739Huh. This is a very pleasant surprise. >>129505742I never said I was. >>129505749Well that's not very nice.
>>129505388Here is a jazz chart anon. I think the least you could do when posting a jazz chart is have it be a chart with jazz in it.
>>129505810These are very interesting looking albums, anon. Thanks. I will certainly check out a few of these. The Potter and Bud Powell albums especially look interesting.
>>129505824>The Potter and Bud Powell albums especially look interesting.Based on what?
>>129505832Well I thrift a lot of my collection (including many in the OP pic) and those types of covers are the ones I get drawn to pretty often. They look like something I tend to blind buy; stuff that has interesting music on it even if I don't care for it.
>>129505845Maybe if you stopped listening to album covers you wouldn't have so much not-jazz in your jazz.
>>129505890>Maybe if you stopped listening to album coversWhat? I don't 'listen' to the album covers. I don't keep an album just based on whether I like a cover or not. And there's been plenty of jazz that I thought had cool or interesting covers that I either don't enjoy or don't consider essential. Also not to pull an ad hominem but what makes that Pat Metheny album (which is undeniably fusion) any more jazz than the ones I have in OP? What makes that one so different that it counts as jazz while the ones in OP don't? Especially since I have plenty of non-fusion albums on the chart.
>>129505921Alright. That's two albums out of 25, Tribal Tech is also fusion. I included them partly because there was a bunch of fusion anyway. They're still much more on the jazz side than Jeff Beck, Carlos Santana, or Soft Machine. Metheny's main guitar influence is Wes Montgomery, you can hear it in his improvisation. Tribal Tech's chord progressions are a fucking nightmare quite inline with the improvisational agility that the OG bebop players cared so much about.If I recommended either of those to someone who doesn't know any jazz, well actually I wouldn't if they were asking about jazz, because it's jazz fusion, and I certainly wouldn't call them jazz essentials, they do not really represent it, being at least part not jazz.Is "Jeff Beck" a good answer to "who is a jazz musician you like?"?
>>129506078>Is "Jeff Beck" a good answer to "who is a jazz musician you like?"?Yes. He is. If his music is heavily involved in jazz (which fusion typically is) and they genuinely enjoy the artist then it's a good answer. >they do not really represent it, being at least part not jazz.But they are still jazz and important to the genres evolution. And again it's not like my chart exclusively includes Fusion unless you're intentionally ignoring the first row and a half and the ECM / Chamber stuff I included after. >Tribal Tech's chord progressions are a fucking nightmare quite inline with the improvisational agility that the OG bebop players cared so much about.And you could say that about plenty of Fusion too, especially when you get to the more avant garde side of it with stuff like Sextant, Lenox Avenue, Liquidity, Space is the Place, Conference of the Birds, and plenty of other more niche stuff rampant in the genre. For you to include any fusion when you have insisted (or at least heavily implied) multiple times that fusion isn't jazz, that's hypocrisy.
>>129506123But anon your examples are made up entirely of one, sometimes two chord songs...This is what I'm talking about anon...
>>129505388boring and predictable taste, so perfect for a 4chan essentials list i suppose
>>129506203>entirelyPlenty of the albums on the chart don't. Even the fusion-y ones. I've already explained this.
>>129505388heres a chart that actually has more than 5 jazz albums on it>>129505681what do you think about mine?
>>129506233I don't care for the Oliver Nelson album but otherwise this chart is excellent.
>>129506223Yes but you did just name 5 maximally vampy albums saying they're like the one I put, when it's actually the exact opposite and much more like hard bop harmony which was my argument for its place in my chart. That means by transitivity that your albums are also the exact opposite of hard bop, so my argument doesn't apply to them, so you can't say "you could say that about plenty of Fusion", you specifically CAN'T say it about those fusion albums.I also did see that you had some ECM (meh) stuff on there. My problem is how much of it for something that is called "jazz essentials". If I was the one asking you for jazz and you gave me Jeff Beck I would feel cheated and vengeful.
>>129506314>you specifically CAN'T say it about those fusion albums.But the argument was about fusion in general and you did just admit there that there is fusion albums it can apply to. I suppose I could throw a few more of the Loft scene on there. >My problem is how much of it is on something called "jazz essentials"They are jazz albums and they are ones I consider high quality that I love, and they are the first ones I'd recommend to people, so yes. To me they're essentials. People are going to have different takes on which ones are essential or not; thats half the point of the thread. >If I was the one asking you for jazz and you gave me Jeff Beck I would feel cheated and vengeful. This is the third time you've singled him out specifically. Why? Do you just not like Jeff Beck? Is there something about him compared to the other fusion on there that rubs you the wrong way?
>>129506241i didnt really get it at first but then i gained more context by listening to hundreds of jazz records and now its one of my favorites. i had a fairly negative opinion on it the first time i heard it.
>>129506453Jazz is my favorite genre and I still think that album is boring as shit. Especially when its on the same label as Coltrane and Mingus. No excuse.
>>129506477do you like this impulse record? https://youtu.be/kcZ9piTHp48i didnt get this one at first either
