New bands that should, may yet, be on J-Z's radar

[francisco]

What about up and coming Azamiah? In Phases works well - India Blue may even be ''the new Sade'' https://www.marlbank.net/posts/azami...ca-s-records-1

[eighthobstruction]

....definitely should be [on j2z radar]....smooth rousing stuff -compliments to the chefs....I can see this going down well at Euro festivals I'm sure....sunshine...

[Serial_Apologist]

Also - without in any way wanting to sound nationalistic about this - so much of what is now presented in jazz programmes (other than JRR for obvious reasons) is bands and musicians from abroad, unlike back in the day, when we always had good coverage of our domestic scene, which was to be proud of - which is, incidentally, much much larger now than it was back in the 1960s - 1990s. For goodness sakes, broadcasters, charridee begins at home, rant, rant, etc etc. Yours sincerely, Anon. Tunbridge Wells.

[Old Grumpy]

Also - without in any way wanting to sound nationalistic about this - so much of what is now presented in jazz programmes (other than JRR for obvious reasons) is bands and musicians from abroad, unlike back in the day, when we always had good coverage of our domestic scene, which was to be proud of - which is, incidentally, much much larger now than it was back in the 1960s - 1990s. For goodness sakes, broadcasters, charridee begins at home, rant, rant, etc etc. Yours sincerely, Anon. Tunbridge Wells.

You need green ink for that, S_A!

[Serial_Apologist]

You need green ink for that, S_A!

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that!

[Ian Thumwood]

I am really surprised by this thread, to be honest. In my opinion contemporary British Jazz gets really good coverage on J-Z and you could argue is over-represented. The problem with the coverage o British jazz is that it does seem to centre upon British musicians under the age of 40 and you get a concentration of bands from people who have come out of music college. This does seem to lend the groups a sense of bland sameness. I totally concur that British jazz is far more technically advanced than witnessed between the 60s and 90s (as quotated above - even though jazz already had a 50 year history in the UK by the earlier of these decades) but much of the British jazz from 21st Century has been unerwhelming or at least requires more effort to fully appreciate than the groups featured on J-Z. There are bands from the UK that I really like but they are not necessarily the ones that get featured on J-Z. I think that most of the requests for contemporary British jazz on JRR seems to have been prompted by people atending gigs and you could argue that these fans are really the ones "in the know."

Given how little airplay jazz has as a whole on Radio 3, I would be more pleased if J-Z featured less British jazz which i don't feel is particularly any better than what is going on elsewhere in Europe as the standards have risen so high this century. I have seen quite a lot of European jazz since 2001 and have to say there is a lot of stuff on the continent and from odd places like Slovenia where you can hear stuff which is far superior to what we are experiencing in the UK. Just thinking of guitarist Samo Salomon, for example. ) A cursory trawl through the catelogue of a label like Clean Feed is demonstrative of just how good jazz is in Europe and often very unlike the archeypal ECM sound.

J-Z seems to have a magazine like quality about it and the music it can play has to be spread really thinly to cater for a 90 minute programme. As I said, British jazz is certainly not under-represented on this programme and it has been featured to the detriment to the kind of edgy jazz produced in Chicago in the 21st century, composers like Guillermo Klein, Steve Coleman, Henry Threadgill and Alan Ferber nor prolific artists like William Parker, Matthew Shipp or Satoko Fujii. The omission of these kinds of artists is borderline criminal and more of an absence than the later shiny young thing from the UK. I think it is nonsense to say that the BBC is neglecting British jazz and whilst the absence of proper jazz programmes like "Impressions" is a significant loss to jazz, I would argue that J-Z does a really good job in promoting British jazz , not all of it particularly remarkable. BBC jazz coverage has a kind of FM-friendly approach with programmes like J-Z and you sense it reflects programmes being compiled my people who are not necessarily 100% jazz fans and the nature of the jazz scene they have to deal with.

I have my own tastes in jazz which probably do not reflect those of the people producing J-Z and would suggest I am about 20 years older than their target audience. I would rather hear a broader range of contemporary jazz including groups which have the power to intimidate audiences as well as stuff more broadly in the mainstream. There is probably far more jazz being made available than in the 1990s and I would also suggest that alot of the contemporary stuff is ecellently played but ultimately pretty forgetable. J-Z does a good job at covering the wider UK jazz scene but debacles like the Laura Jurd acoustic Dinosaur set from a few years ago (easily the worst ever set by any jazz group I have ever heard on Radio 3 in 40 years of listening) is evident that much of this stuff needs to be swept under the carpet.

[Serial_Apologist]

I am really surprised by this thread, to be honest. In my opinion contemporary British Jazz gets really good coverage on J-Z and you could argue is over-represented. The problem with the coverage o British jazz is that it does seem to centre upon British musicians under the age of 40 and you get a concentration of bands from people who have come out of music college. This does seem to lend the groups a sense of bland sameness. I totally concur that British jazz is far more technically advanced than witnessed between the 60s and 90s (as quotated above - even though jazz already had a 50 year history in the UK by the earlier of these decades) but much of the British jazz from 21st Century has been unerwhelming or at least requires more effort to fully appreciate than the groups featured on J-Z. There are bands from the UK that I really like but they are not necessarily the ones that get featured on J-Z. I think that most of the requests for contemporary British jazz on JRR seems to have been prompted by people atending gigs and you could argue that these fans are really the ones "in the know."

Given how little airplay jazz has as a whole on Radio 3, I would be more pleased if J-Z featured less British jazz which i don't feel is particularly any better than what is going on elsewhere in Europe as the standards have risen so high this century. I have seen quite a lot of European jazz since 2001 and have to say there is a lot of stuff on the continent and from odd places like Slovenia where you can hear stuff which is far superior to what we are experiencing in the UK. Just thinking of guitarist Samo Salomon, for example. ) A cursory trawl through the catelogue of a label like Clean Feed is demonstrative of just how good jazz is in Europe and often very unlike the archeypal ECM sound.

J-Z seems to have a magazine like quality about it and the music it can play has to be spread really thinly to cater for a 90 minute programme. As I said, British jazz is certainly not under-represented on this programme and it has been featured to the detriment to the kind of edgy jazz produced in Chicago in the 21st century, composers like Guillermo Klein, Steve Coleman, Henry Threadgill and Alan Ferber nor prolific artists like William Parker, Matthew Shipp or Satoko Fujii. The omission of these kinds of artists is borderline criminal and more of an absence than the later shiny young thing from the UK. I think it is nonsense to say that the BBC is neglecting British jazz and whilst the absence of proper jazz programmes like "Impressions" is a significant loss to jazz, I would argue that J-Z does a really good job in promoting British jazz , not all of it particularly remarkable. BBC jazz coverage has a kind of FM-friendly approach with programmes like J-Z and you sense it reflects programmes being compiled my people who are not necessarily 100% jazz fans and the nature of the jazz scene they have to deal with.

I have my own tastes in jazz which probably do not reflect those of the people producing J-Z and would suggest I am about 20 years older than their target audience. I would rather hear a broader range of contemporary jazz including groups which have the power to intimidate audiences as well as stuff more broadly in the mainstream. There is probably far more jazz being made available than in the 1990s and I would also suggest that alot of the contemporary stuff is ecellently played but ultimately pretty forgetable. J-Z does a good job at covering the wider UK jazz scene but debacles like the Laura Jurd acoustic Dinosaur set from a few years ago (easily the worst ever set by any jazz group I have ever heard on Radio 3 in 40 years of listening) is evident that much of this stuff needs to be swept under the carpet.

The problem in the case of J to Z is that a lot of the better more innovative British stuff from the 1990s to let's say say 2010 seems to have become forgotten in favour of younger bands that go in for more dance-based styles, with the presenters interspersing bits of live concerts with classic archive recordings from way back which might well be choices for JRR but ill-fit with the "contemporary" accent of the programme. There seems to be this disconnect in which new musicians might well claim independence from American models (in the way that British Soul and Hip Hop artists frequently emphasise in interviews) yet without mention of the bands and personalities from the 1970s or 1980s which set the pace in establishing our home-grown branch of the international scene you rightly say jazz has become since the 1960s. I also wish Freeness attempted to create some kind of context for its presentations, rather than, since the programme's beginnings, seemly dropping in randomly on given names, so as to outline some kind of pattern which also helps us to understand and appreciate the context in which free improv is now happening - something which is far less clear to me than it was back in its early days, when it was much clearer what musicians were doing, how and why.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

One thing I've discovered since the 1960s (my insularity?) and the then radio coverage of the British scene, was how good and innovative jazz was elsewhere in Europe at the same time. Say Polish jazz, Italian and Scandinavian. The Polish 60/70s hay day easily matching anything in Britain, from hard bop through to film scores and the freer transition. That issue of Polish retrospective releases is eye opening.