What do you think of Scaruffi's top jazz list?

What do you think of Scaruffi's top jazz list?

bland

someone post the Black Saint copypasta

It should be all the evidence one needs to see that he doesn't come close to understanding or appreciating jazz. Though if one needed more evidence, his "writings" on jazz have plenty of evidence as well.

i like it

>on top Mingus
what a dingus

>0 Herbie Hancock albums

And people call him a credible critic....

I'm not a jazz expert, is it really that bad/bland?
I've listened to most of them and they are all great, as far as I can tell.

Who are some better jazz critics to read?

>Black Saint instead of Let My Children Hear Music
>admits he prefers carefully controlled studio settings to live albums in the sidebar
>Kind of Blue above Bitches Brew
>no Brotzmann

stay away from this smol angri pasta nigger

>he prefers carefully controlled studio settings to live albums
really? that completely goes against the spirit of jazz

...

this a million times

everything in this image is retarded

What would Scaruffi say if I asked him to prove to me that his top jazz albums "deliver more emotion" than my top jazz albums?

live albums are not the spirit of jazz

live music is the spirit of jazz

obviously studio albums are better...

>the date of a recording is generally the date of the recording
Woah...

>Dizzy Gillespie
>Louis Armstrong
>Lester Young
>"lived before the age of albums"
>all have released classic albums that aren't compilations

>implying that "pop" songs can't be well composed like a good amount of jazz standards are

>more concerned with "emotion" yet Anthony Braxton breaks the top 10

>interested in the "emotion of the technique" but finds live albums to be inferior

>interested in the "emotion of the technique" but discounts standards because they aren't original compositions

>talks about misinterpretation of Afro-American music by white intellectuals like he isn't a white intellectual

oh scruffles

>"the improvised format rarely yields good music"
>a good number of his top jazz albums are free jazz

good post

Go to a jazz gig and you'll prove yourself wrong.

Not so shocking as the other statements, because free jazz can often be composed and it differs from free improvisation, which isn't necessarily tied to jazz or any particular genre of music really.

>free jazz can often be composed and it differs from free improvisation
that's true for live jazz recordings as well

>what are multiple takes

he was talking about the live recording of a studio song, not improvisation.

Does he seriously think that multiple takes aren't used for most live albums? Or does he not understand that jazz tracks from stuido albums are almost always recorded "live" in the studio anyway?

Why are rockists so based?

>implying i dont regularly go to ronnie scotts

Herbie Hancock or Cannonball Adderley. Pierro has no taste in jazz.

>meme hancock
>deserving a top25 place

>>only 4 pre-1960s jazz albums

This alone is enough to destroy any semblance of credibility he might've had

They happen to be my favourite Jazz musicians what's your point?

If that's the spirit of jazz, the spirit of jazz is shit.

>thinks jazz was only created by blacks

Debussy, Chet baker, and Fletcher Henderson would like to have a word with you

It needs some more MCCoy Tyner, Herbie Hancock and Art Blakey, maybe even some more Mingus as well.

Ascension should be higher, a love supreme should be lower. My favorite things shouldn't be on there.

Aside from that it's pretty good, I agree with his #1 to be honest

What he's saying isn't that it should be touched up in the studio, but that studio albums are usually the best takes from a session. Whereas you can't do that live.

Mixing race into the picture is so fucking stupid that guy is such an idiot. And he just doesnt understand how music works and has just taken the description of "this music sounds like adjective" so far mainly in quantity it just kind of defies the whole meaning of his professional identity.

read this

read this

Most books on the history of jazz music, even the ones published very recently (see the bibliography), tend to devote 80-90% of the pages to jazz before the Sixties, and then to quickly summarize (with countless omissions) the last 40 years. Either the authors are very old and stopped listening to new musicians in the 1950s, or jazz historians are affected by some kind of psychological trauma when they enter the 1960s. The paradox, of course, is that a lot more has happened "since" the 1960s than "until" the 1960s, if nothing else because a lot more recordings have been made in the age of the LP and in the age of the CD than in the ages of the 78 RPM and in the age of the 45 RPM. Personally, i also feel that the masterpieces of jazz music have been produced between the 1960s and today, with few exceptions. Thus i felt the need for a history of jazz music from the opposite perspective.
Since i have written a history of rock music of the last 50 years, i can't help wondering what kept jazz historians from doing the same: write a history of jazz from the 1960s to today. I also happen to believe that, by far, the greatest contributions of jazz to the history of humankind came in the second half of the century, for example with composers (repeat: composers) such as Charlie Mingus, Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane. Most of what was done before the 1960s pales in comparison with the giants of the 1960s, who are giants regardless of musical affiliation.