Comparing the four pillars of 1959 to the sheer landslide of 1965 is a great reality check. When you realize A Love Supreme, Rubber Soul, and Otis Blue were all fighting for the same shelf space, the argument for '65 being the bigger cultural lurch forward feels undeniable.
Your point about the variety of music found on AM radio during that time is significant. Sinatra likely would not have recorded “It Was a Very Good Year” had he not heard the Kingston Trio on his car radio. The closest I came to that was when I lived in San Francisco in 1985. There was still an AM station (can’t recall the call letters) that had that format. I can remember hearing Kenny Ball’s “Midnight in Moscow”, Coltrane’s “My Favorite Things”, and The Association’s “Windy” in the same quarter hour. I thought it was fabulous! I also remember the last commercial jazz station, KJZZ, was still on the air. They were in the last throes, and soliciting donations. They soon thereafter went silent. Television at that time also reflected variety, and it soon disappeared. Carol Burnett alone soldiered on into the ‘70s. I have always felt that variety was the spice of life, and culture suffers when things become homogeneous.
Thanks for name checking the Lovin' Spoonful and The Sonics in the same sentence. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but both so important. My jazz leanings are toward Horace Silver "Song for My Father" and Grant Green "Idle Moments." So good and so influential!
When you look at the Beatles and Motown, you are probably correct, but when it comes to jazz my vote is for the 1958 - 1962 period as the golden age. In addition to the albums mentioned, you have Coltrane’s Giant Steps, Miles/ Gil Evans’ Sketches of Spain, Atomic Basie, Bill Evans’ Waltz for Debby, Cannonball’s Something Else and Work Song, Sonny Rollins’ The Bridge, Horace Silver’s Blowin’ the Blues Away, to name but a few. In my opinion the second most significant period in jazz after the Parker/Gillespie/Monk bebop revolution.
The devolution of folk music can be found in the lyrics to The Mamas & Papas 1967 Creeque Alley - van Ronk was still out there, but the clubs in NYC & LA were all going rock. I was a folk singer in the early '60s, and it was a shock to discover that I was going to be out of a career when I got out of Antioch in '67. It all went from folk to rock in alternate sets of Dylan's world tour with the Band in '65-66.
That is true. Folk was no longer economically feasible or of value to kids who wanted more excitement and less from elders preaching the 1950s gospel. But as the anti-war movement grew in the '60s, so did acoustic folk as it made a comeback. One just need look at the lineup and playlist at Woodstock. Many were acoustic players with a folk bend, from CSNY to John Sebastian. At the heart of the shift were changing causes. The ones picked up by the folk revivalists no longer had currency with the younger generation. New causes were needed and adopted.
Yes, the music changed in 1965 especially in pop. But in jazz, Kind of Blue, Ah Hum, Time Out convey innovation remain the distillation of everything until that point and unsurpassed in their importance. Change does not automatically convey progress and novelty should not be confused with innovation.
Distillation, indeed. But I would argue that four albums don’t change jazz, though they make a nice hook for an hourlong documentary. Mingus still struggled after his album’s release, all of jazz wasn’t playing in 5/4 time after Time Out, and free jazz ran it’s course quickly before being gobbled up by the avant-garde. External forces change art, not internal ones or major record labels. 1965 saw enormous external pressure for jazz to advance, and advance it did. I also would argue that not one jazz album mentioned in today’s post exuded novelty or were faddish. All were spectacular works of art that actually influenced jazz’s direction rolling forward. As for rock and soul, they are in the post to simply show that external pressures were having a sizable impact on them as well.
'65 was a terrific year for rock & folk rock, true enough - not so much for folk music, after Dylan went Electric at Newport, and not so much for jazz, as Birdland closed. Back in '64, we thought we were in a golden age for jazz & folk - but it was fool's gold.
Folk continued in other forms and even in its acoustic form well into the late 60s and 70s. Joan Baez, Peter Paul and many others had hits. Johnny Cash was really folk, not rockabilly or country, the Seekers had a huge hit as did The Beach Boys with Sloop John B. To your point, however, folk was no longer the intellectual rage it had been but it was out there. Tough to compete with the Brit Invasion, which thoroughly captivated the youth market.
Comparing the four pillars of 1959 to the sheer landslide of 1965 is a great reality check. When you realize A Love Supreme, Rubber Soul, and Otis Blue were all fighting for the same shelf space, the argument for '65 being the bigger cultural lurch forward feels undeniable.
Your point about the variety of music found on AM radio during that time is significant. Sinatra likely would not have recorded “It Was a Very Good Year” had he not heard the Kingston Trio on his car radio. The closest I came to that was when I lived in San Francisco in 1985. There was still an AM station (can’t recall the call letters) that had that format. I can remember hearing Kenny Ball’s “Midnight in Moscow”, Coltrane’s “My Favorite Things”, and The Association’s “Windy” in the same quarter hour. I thought it was fabulous! I also remember the last commercial jazz station, KJZZ, was still on the air. They were in the last throes, and soliciting donations. They soon thereafter went silent. Television at that time also reflected variety, and it soon disappeared. Carol Burnett alone soldiered on into the ‘70s. I have always felt that variety was the spice of life, and culture suffers when things become homogeneous.
Great topic today. And the comments are just as valuable. I learn something new every day. 👍
And yet another reason to be happy that I'm part of the JazzWax family.
1965 is the cutoff date between the Boomer and GenX generations as well
Thanks for name checking the Lovin' Spoonful and The Sonics in the same sentence. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but both so important. My jazz leanings are toward Horace Silver "Song for My Father" and Grant Green "Idle Moments." So good and so influential!
Marc,
When you look at the Beatles and Motown, you are probably correct, but when it comes to jazz my vote is for the 1958 - 1962 period as the golden age. In addition to the albums mentioned, you have Coltrane’s Giant Steps, Miles/ Gil Evans’ Sketches of Spain, Atomic Basie, Bill Evans’ Waltz for Debby, Cannonball’s Something Else and Work Song, Sonny Rollins’ The Bridge, Horace Silver’s Blowin’ the Blues Away, to name but a few. In my opinion the second most significant period in jazz after the Parker/Gillespie/Monk bebop revolution.
Nice piece. Btw, might want to edit the opening paragraph…the Miles album was Kind of Blue not So What. :)
Thanks David! The perils of late writing. Fixed.
The devolution of folk music can be found in the lyrics to The Mamas & Papas 1967 Creeque Alley - van Ronk was still out there, but the clubs in NYC & LA were all going rock. I was a folk singer in the early '60s, and it was a shock to discover that I was going to be out of a career when I got out of Antioch in '67. It all went from folk to rock in alternate sets of Dylan's world tour with the Band in '65-66.
That is true. Folk was no longer economically feasible or of value to kids who wanted more excitement and less from elders preaching the 1950s gospel. But as the anti-war movement grew in the '60s, so did acoustic folk as it made a comeback. One just need look at the lineup and playlist at Woodstock. Many were acoustic players with a folk bend, from CSNY to John Sebastian. At the heart of the shift were changing causes. The ones picked up by the folk revivalists no longer had currency with the younger generation. New causes were needed and adopted.
Yes, the music changed in 1965 especially in pop. But in jazz, Kind of Blue, Ah Hum, Time Out convey innovation remain the distillation of everything until that point and unsurpassed in their importance. Change does not automatically convey progress and novelty should not be confused with innovation.
Distillation, indeed. But I would argue that four albums don’t change jazz, though they make a nice hook for an hourlong documentary. Mingus still struggled after his album’s release, all of jazz wasn’t playing in 5/4 time after Time Out, and free jazz ran it’s course quickly before being gobbled up by the avant-garde. External forces change art, not internal ones or major record labels. 1965 saw enormous external pressure for jazz to advance, and advance it did. I also would argue that not one jazz album mentioned in today’s post exuded novelty or were faddish. All were spectacular works of art that actually influenced jazz’s direction rolling forward. As for rock and soul, they are in the post to simply show that external pressures were having a sizable impact on them as well.
Can't argue with your point that change does not automatically convey progress.
'65 was a terrific year for rock & folk rock, true enough - not so much for folk music, after Dylan went Electric at Newport, and not so much for jazz, as Birdland closed. Back in '64, we thought we were in a golden age for jazz & folk - but it was fool's gold.
Folk continued in other forms and even in its acoustic form well into the late 60s and 70s. Joan Baez, Peter Paul and many others had hits. Johnny Cash was really folk, not rockabilly or country, the Seekers had a huge hit as did The Beach Boys with Sloop John B. To your point, however, folk was no longer the intellectual rage it had been but it was out there. Tough to compete with the Brit Invasion, which thoroughly captivated the youth market.