What do you think?
Rate this book
The New York Times Essential Library- Jazz: A Critic's Guide to the 100 Most Important Recordings
A connoisseur's tour through the great American art form
A Love Supreme. Miles Ahead. Brubeck Time. Yardbird Suite. The Sidewinder. For newcomers just beginning their library of recordings, and for longtime fans looking to deepen their understanding, New York Times jazz critic Ben Ratliff offers an assertive, deeply knowledgeable collector's guide, full of opinions and insights on the one hundred greatest recorded works of jazz.
From the rare early recordings of Louis Armstrong, through Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman's seminal Carnegie Hall concert, and the lions of the bebop era, to the transformative Miles Davis and several less-canonized artists, such as Chano Pozo, Jimmy Giuffre, and Greg Osby, who have made equally significant contributions, Ratliff places each recording in the greater context and explains its importance in the development of the form. Taken together, these original essays add up to a brief history of jazz, highlighting milestone events, legendary players, critical trends, and artistic breakthroughs.
A Love Supreme. Miles Ahead. Brubeck Time. Yardbird Suite. The Sidewinder. For newcomers just beginning their library of recordings, and for longtime fans looking to deepen their understanding, New York Times jazz critic Ben Ratliff offers an assertive, deeply knowledgeable collector's guide, full of opinions and insights on the one hundred greatest recorded works of jazz.
From the rare early recordings of Louis Armstrong, through Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman's seminal Carnegie Hall concert, and the lions of the bebop era, to the transformative Miles Davis and several less-canonized artists, such as Chano Pozo, Jimmy Giuffre, and Greg Osby, who have made equally significant contributions, Ratliff places each recording in the greater context and explains its importance in the development of the form. Taken together, these original essays add up to a brief history of jazz, highlighting milestone events, legendary players, critical trends, and artistic breakthroughs.
272 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2002
7 people are currently reading
167 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
May 31, 2019
Ben Ratliff is a talented writer- I thought his Coltrane: The Story of a Sound was excellent; besides that, nobody writes for the New York Times for well over a decade unless they are pretty damned skillful at writing. Mr. Ratliff is also a far more advanced scholar of jazz than I'll probably ever be, which is not particularly surprising given the fact that he makes his living that way. Although I also worked as a music journalist for a few years in my early twenties, the newspapers I worked for were not even remotely in the same class as the New York Times. I was rarely paid (and then very, very little) and in addition I did not have the luxury of covering jazz, as my bosses felt (probably correctly) that there was little or no audience for coverage of any type of music other than the various forms of pop & rock (and a token amount of country at one particular paper, primarily due to the fact that the publisher liked country music and insisted on featuring it occasionally). Having said all that, I have some serious issues with this book, especially with the choices the author made regarding which recordings to include, and the reasoning behind those choices.
[I need to think through these issues a bit more, preferably without my dogs crying in my ear to go outside for the umpteenth time tonight, which tends to make it difficult to concentrate, so I will try to continue this at a later date...]
[I need to think through these issues a bit more, preferably without my dogs crying in my ear to go outside for the umpteenth time tonight, which tends to make it difficult to concentrate, so I will try to continue this at a later date...]
Read
July 17, 2009What exactly is jazz? No one can identify, or define it, in a philosophical sense. Or at least Ratliff doesn't. And perhaps he doesn't have to. He's looking at actual CDs, that really exist. This book is a good history, because it's not trying to be a history. It's a series of evaluations, sometimes rather defensive. For some reason, I find myself fascinated by the fact that he didn't want to include Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Ratliff is a smart white guy with avant-garde tendencies; I feel sorry for him. It's a difficult path, defending the music that you love, but can never quite belong to. On the other hand, what kind of music SHOULD one belong to? Can white people write about jazz? Obviously, they can. I guess I feel a little self-hateful just for reading the book, rather than reading Leroi Jones. Does self-hatred have anything to do with music? Of course it does.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 1, 2009
I would have liked a little more music analysis and a little less jazz history. Still the albums highlighted were well worth tracking down.
One curious element is that Ratliff doesn't actually like some of the albums that he lists including (incredibly) Bill Evans at the Village Vanguard.
The other element that caught my eye was his announcement that "Girl from Ipanema" was "an object possessed by so many of our parents,the music that millions of kids growing up in the sixties and seventies understood as a latent dream about the eroticism of Brazil. . ."
Mr. Ratliff's parents may have grown up in the 60s, but mine didn't. Getting old is tough enough without being treated as an intruder by the guy whose book you bought. Fortunately it was second hand.
One curious element is that Ratliff doesn't actually like some of the albums that he lists including (incredibly) Bill Evans at the Village Vanguard.
The other element that caught my eye was his announcement that "Girl from Ipanema" was "an object possessed by so many of our parents,the music that millions of kids growing up in the sixties and seventies understood as a latent dream about the eroticism of Brazil. . ."
Mr. Ratliff's parents may have grown up in the 60s, but mine didn't. Getting old is tough enough without being treated as an intruder by the guy whose book you bought. Fortunately it was second hand.
March 23, 2008
I admit I'm a complete sucker for this kind of book. "List" books (maybe lists in general) are a bit of a fad and probably a bit of a cheat compared with reading a novel or biography. But there's really good writing in here (I especially liked his take on Billie Holiday; she has 2 albums in his top 100). Ratliff gives each of his choices a 1 to 2 page review. He also lists another 100 albums that he considers "essential" at the end of the book.
Recommended to jazzbo's who are into this kind of thing (you know who you are). I'm looking forward to reading the author's book on John Coltrane.
Recommended to jazzbo's who are into this kind of thing (you know who you are). I'm looking forward to reading the author's book on John Coltrane.
May 31, 2008
I knew nothing about jazz. Scouring wikipedia while reading this book, and downloading songs I thought I'd like off iTunes, I really learned a lot AND gained a whole new type of music to run to. (You can only hear Umbrella so many times.) It's a good book to start with, to learn about jazz. Also, it's interesting to consider what an industry jazz had been for the nation in the first and middle section of the 20th century - if you read the musicians involved with the recordings, you see the same names over and over - some coming into fame, others journeymen.
Totally recommend!
Totally recommend!
March 30, 2013
If you want to understand jazz and why it matters, this is your introduction (and of course seasoned scholars will do well to peruse as well). Ratliff's style is easy and immediate, like talking up a professor as he nurses a beer between sets. The timeline, from Armstrong through Ornette, is logical and cohesive, and the selections are broad enough to appease casual fan and militant historian alike. Dive in and enjoy. And take notes.
July 6, 2008
I was reminded of this book I read in high school after picking up Ratliff's new bio on Coltrane. Interesting range of albums.
June 18, 2009
A great historical look at the Jazz world. I knew a little about jazz music already, so I found it pretty enjoyable. I'm not sure if someone with no knowledge about jazz would take as much away.
July 28, 2010
This book helped to build my jazz collection a few years ago, and sent me in some interesting directions on the way. A must have for jazz starters.
January 15, 2013
Could way to introduce yourself to jazz.
April 26, 2016
What I read was informative. The author communicated his passion for Jazz
January 21, 2021
It's 3.5 stars.
The problem with elucidating the 100 "Most Important Recordings" is that these are only "most important" to whomever is writing the book. Your idea of "most important" is probably not what the author's is.
The other problem is how a "most important" can only be read within the caveat of "at this point in time". If you pick this up, as I did, some 18 years after publication date, a lot of music has come out which should be on a "most important" list but won't be. As long as you understand this is a "most important" up to the year the book was produced, you can see that problem for what it is.
The main reason I can't give this more stars is the limited view of jazz provided. John Coltrane was, unarguably, a giant of the saxophone. He did not, however, merit three mentions on the list. Miles Davis, whose album "Kind of Blue" most jazz aficionados list at the best, only merited two mentions. The author's bias against swing and Dixieland was evident in no albums cited from those genres. Dixieland and the blues are where jazz started and this oversight renders the list suspect.
The author should have put constraints on his list. He should have picked one album from any artist he chose. This would have given readers, 100 different artists to find.
The lack of women on the list is also abhorrent considering there are a plethora of women singers who survived the downturn in jazz in the late 1950's and made names for themselves. Carmen Macrae is in the supplemental list. No mention of Anita or Peggy and Peggy was writing music.
And the author makes a point to say, "I chose some records I have or have heard but you can't get anywhere." What the...? That disqualifies your opinion on that record. If I can't find it to listen to it, telling me it's great is meaningless. Nothing unavailable at the time of publishing should have been on the main list.
Therefore, take this book with a large grain of salt. For me, what was interesting is seeing who the main players were as sidemen. Names showed up again and again to assist the person who headlined the record. Now I'm interested in reading about them and hearing their music. Use this as a springboard to jazz music but take the pronouncements lightly. There are other places to find lists of suggested albums you should have. Heck, with my collection, I could do a 50 best based on my personal tastes and have it be way more representational of all jazz than this book.
The problem with elucidating the 100 "Most Important Recordings" is that these are only "most important" to whomever is writing the book. Your idea of "most important" is probably not what the author's is.
The other problem is how a "most important" can only be read within the caveat of "at this point in time". If you pick this up, as I did, some 18 years after publication date, a lot of music has come out which should be on a "most important" list but won't be. As long as you understand this is a "most important" up to the year the book was produced, you can see that problem for what it is.
The main reason I can't give this more stars is the limited view of jazz provided. John Coltrane was, unarguably, a giant of the saxophone. He did not, however, merit three mentions on the list. Miles Davis, whose album "Kind of Blue" most jazz aficionados list at the best, only merited two mentions. The author's bias against swing and Dixieland was evident in no albums cited from those genres. Dixieland and the blues are where jazz started and this oversight renders the list suspect.
The author should have put constraints on his list. He should have picked one album from any artist he chose. This would have given readers, 100 different artists to find.
The lack of women on the list is also abhorrent considering there are a plethora of women singers who survived the downturn in jazz in the late 1950's and made names for themselves. Carmen Macrae is in the supplemental list. No mention of Anita or Peggy and Peggy was writing music.
And the author makes a point to say, "I chose some records I have or have heard but you can't get anywhere." What the...? That disqualifies your opinion on that record. If I can't find it to listen to it, telling me it's great is meaningless. Nothing unavailable at the time of publishing should have been on the main list.
Therefore, take this book with a large grain of salt. For me, what was interesting is seeing who the main players were as sidemen. Names showed up again and again to assist the person who headlined the record. Now I'm interested in reading about them and hearing their music. Use this as a springboard to jazz music but take the pronouncements lightly. There are other places to find lists of suggested albums you should have. Heck, with my collection, I could do a 50 best based on my personal tastes and have it be way more representational of all jazz than this book.
October 20, 2022
He leaves out some of the most important records of all time and instead heavily emphasizes jazz’s early days and it’s later day almost completely ignoring the 60’s and 70’s when some of the most important music came out. The reliance on compilations feels like cheating, when there are tons of singular records available. Skip this one.
August 18, 2022
Choosing the 100 most important, most essential, best recordings of jazz such a terrible task, it's nearly impossible to do it well. Why do people keep trying? Is it because no one has really found a way to do it right?
I'm not sure why the NYT jazz critic decided to write this book either. He states in the preface that people don't have time to listen to jazz records uninterrupted because of young children and how much time New Yorkers must work to make ends meet. Yet he keeps fighting the fight with a portable cd player and headphones. What a hero!
Unfortunately the hero has very little to contribute for the first 30 chapters or so. The records selected are most often "the complete recordings of..." and span several years and discs. The list of credited musicians feel longer than the five paragraphs tossed out about the record. The lack of enthusiasm for the recordings made before the 1950's feels like the author is tacitly saying you can feel free to skip them, that they're not actually essential despite their inclusion in the book of essential records.
The essays improve when including stories about the musicians, recordings, and the topic describes why you might actually want to listen to the album. Many of the later essays are great, like the one about Ornette Coleman's "Shape of Jazz to Come" but then miss when straying from the subject. For example he strangely suggests that a skeptical person can't really love Sun Ra and never found his "self-conscious radical tendencies" fascinating. In a book of essential recordings, either write about what is fascinating and important about the music or don't include it.
[ Plus one star for specifically defending Cecil Taylor's music from Ken Burn's unfair description as "total self-indulgent bullshit" and for including Julius Hemphill's Dogon A.D. - the inclusion on the list may have been responsible for its reissue! ]
I'm not sure why the NYT jazz critic decided to write this book either. He states in the preface that people don't have time to listen to jazz records uninterrupted because of young children and how much time New Yorkers must work to make ends meet. Yet he keeps fighting the fight with a portable cd player and headphones. What a hero!
Unfortunately the hero has very little to contribute for the first 30 chapters or so. The records selected are most often "the complete recordings of..." and span several years and discs. The list of credited musicians feel longer than the five paragraphs tossed out about the record. The lack of enthusiasm for the recordings made before the 1950's feels like the author is tacitly saying you can feel free to skip them, that they're not actually essential despite their inclusion in the book of essential records.
The essays improve when including stories about the musicians, recordings, and the topic describes why you might actually want to listen to the album. Many of the later essays are great, like the one about Ornette Coleman's "Shape of Jazz to Come" but then miss when straying from the subject. For example he strangely suggests that a skeptical person can't really love Sun Ra and never found his "self-conscious radical tendencies" fascinating. In a book of essential recordings, either write about what is fascinating and important about the music or don't include it.
[ Plus one star for specifically defending Cecil Taylor's music from Ken Burn's unfair description as "total self-indulgent bullshit" and for including Julius Hemphill's Dogon A.D. - the inclusion on the list may have been responsible for its reissue! ]
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews