SwingDJs

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/05 ... ntPage=all

Thoughts?

A pretty good list. I would add some Lunceford and some Lionel in there somewhere, but perhaps they are less highly regarded critically.

Good: the list is in chronological order so you can safely ignore the second half

Bad: they include several Proper box sets

Ugly: what's an "album" anyway?

anton wrote: Bad: they include several Proper box sets

Why is that bad? I love all of the Proper Box Sets I've bought.

anton wrote:Good: the list is in chronological order so you can safely ignore the second half

Bad: they include several Proper box sets

Ugly: what's an "album" anyway?

Even thought the second half contains many artists that I have no affinity for, I hesitate to dismiss them out of hand.

An "Album" is the reason why we have CDs today.

CDs = the lazy man's album" !

These Top 100 lists are hopeless anyway.

Borrowed from http://www.austinlindyhop.com/top_20_essential_cds.htm

Up front, I must disclaim that boiling down the entire genre of [Jazz] music to [100] CDs or records is a ridiculous enterprise, in and of itself. My own collection is several thousand CDs strong, now, and I still find what could end up on an "essential" CD list to add to my collection every week. My own tastes also change constantly. * * * * Nonetheless, this list provides a list of some of the core CDs I consider essential to any burgeoning [Jazz music] collection.

All such lists are subject to debate and interpretation, and generally incorporate the musical tastes of the author, not so much an objective, end-all list. My "Essential" list on the Austin Lindy website is RATHER outdated, and needs some revision. But it provides a good starting point, just like this New Yorker list does. As the author acknowledges, "I thought it might be useful to compile a list of a hundred essential jazz albums, more as a guide for the uninitiated than as a source of quarrelling for the collector."

It is a decent list, even though I would make some different choices here and there for some artists. He does hit the chronological high points: Armstrong, Bix, Fletcher Henderson, Basie, Ellington, Goodman, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Dexter Gordon, Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, and Keith Jarrett. So that is good.

But three Charlie Mingus records and only one Billie Holiday and one Ella Fitzgerald? Two "Eric Dolphy" albums (WTF?!?!), and only one Benny Goodman? "Albert Ayler" is on the list, and Artie Shaw and Harry James don't make it, at all? Where is Paul Whiteman? I would add more Goodman, Ella, and Billie Holiday albums; they were a LOT more influential than just one album each. Same with adding Artie Shaw, Harry James, and Paul Whiteman (hugely influential, even if I don't "like" it).

For Basie, I would choose "April In Paris" over "Atomic Basie" as the New Testament representative (although I do understand and respect the "Atomic Basie" selection).

For Ellington, I would choose "Blues In Orbit" over "Money Jungle." ("Money Jungle" is a small group recording that is more for "developed" jazz fans, not for new initiates.)

For Ella, the "Cole Porter Songbook" is nowhere near her seminal work. I would add the two 2-CD sets, the first featuring her with Chick Webb's band, and the second featuring her with the post-Chick band. There also is another set with Chick Webb stuff here that is great, too. Then from her later years, I would add at least two from the following: Priceless Jazz Sampler, Ella and Basie, Ella and Louis, Get Happy, Ella Swings Lightly, or (most definitely) The Last Decca Years.

No Oscar Peterson? Night Train, anyone?

GemZombie wrote:

anton wrote: Bad: they include several Proper box sets

Why is that bad? I love all of the Proper Box Sets I've bought.

Granted, they are good value for your money (just like Pirate Bay), and they do give you a quick and good overview of an artist's work. But, the tracks are ripped from inferior sources and are then subjected to additional low-pass filtering.

Eyeball wrote: Even thought the second half contains many artists that I have no affinity for, I hesitate to dismiss them out of hand.

Yeah, I actually like some of that music too. But it always irritates me when they lump swing music together with certain modern jazz that has nothing to do with dancing.

Eyeball wrote: An "Album" is the reason why we have CDs today.

True, but the list seems to only view an album as a "currently purchasable item that gives you the best bang for your buck".

That's why these 'top lists' are a catch as catch can grab bag hodge podge of recordings.

I don't know anyone with a passion...a true passion...for Jazz that has tastes that are as diverse as the choices on the list.

anton wrote:

GemZombie wrote:

anton wrote: Bad: they include several Proper box sets

Why is that bad? I love all of the Proper Box Sets I've bought.

Granted, they are good value for your money (just like Pirate Bay), and they do give you a quick and good overview of an artist's work. But, the tracks are ripped from inferior sources and are then subjected to additional low-pass filtering.

In my opinion most of the tracks I have from Proper are good quality, far superior to many other CDs that I have that include some of the same tracks. There may be better, I agree but sounds quality will likely continue to improve from release to release.

I disagree with your general assessment of Proper. The liner notes themselves are worth the money.

GemZombie wrote: I disagree with your general assessment of Proper. The liner notes themselves are worth the money.

I doubt that there's any original research behind those liner notes. Most likely, they have just ripped the discographies off the same sources as the tracks themselves. In some instances, they have the "right" recording details but the wrong track, e.g. a live recording instead of the studio version.

It's not all junk though. I have found dozens of great tracks (with good quality) on the thirty or so Proper boxes I have listened to.

You prejudices against Proper are obvious, and I believe somewhat unfounded. The liner notes of the sets I own (around 30) do not seem to be "just ripped". They are almost all well written by Joop Visser... I find them informative, and go beyond almost all liner notes in any other albums I've purchased.

I have, in the past, compared quality of the songs against other album when I have a duplicate. I'd say it's a wash most of the time on which is better... and I find them *much* better than the JSP stuff I've downloaded from eMusic.

Back to the point, I wholeheartedly support their inclusion in a top 100 list, as they definitely would be in mine.

He certainly seems a prolific author.

Reminds me of...