Glaring Omissions

By all accounts, I'm a certified jazz lover and fanatic.

However, there are several jazz greats that one should have in his collection, if one calls himself an aficionado. So, at the risk of being kicked out of this forum, I will list the greats that one might think essential to a jazz collection....that are missing from my collection. I have over 4,000 albums, the vast majority of which is jazz.

I was introduced to jazz while in college in 1971. I was dependent on my friends and the local jazz station for my exposure to new music. If the station didn't play it, I had no access. So, a lot of the guys on my list didn't get any airplay, consequently I wasn't exposed to them.

Nat King Cole.......(I do have several Freddy Cole albums)

Billie Holiday......(Her voice makes my skin crawl & too much melancholy in her music.)

*Stan Getz...........I just never got around to it.

Duke Ellington......I've just never heard any of his recordings that I cared to buy.

Louis Armstrong......Just not my cuppa tea.

*Chet Baker...........Just never got around to it.

Charlie Parker.......I couldn't get past the poor audio quality of the recordings that I've heard.

Charles Mingus... I've never heard a Mingus recording in my life.

*Lester Young.....They never played him on the radio.

*Coleman Hawkins...They never played him on the radio.

*Gerry Mulligan....Just never got around to it.

I do plan to make an effort to familiarize myself with those that have an asterisk (*) before their name above.

I already own more music than I have time to listen to. That, and an addiction to Pandora, doesn't leave much room for new stuff.

Do you have any glaring omissions?
Oh Man....The Complete Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington is one of my all time favorite recordings!
I can't stand Chet Baker!
I don't have any Pepper Adams either.
I have a problem with Chet Baker also. I too cannot stand him. (his voice sounds like Mr Sleaze/creeps me out guy.)

I only got into Jazz in the most recent dozen years or so. I have a lot of gaps in my collection mostly due to out of print and difficulty finding used Jazz LPs/CDs.
I own 1,100 Jazz CDs, and about 1,400 LPs.. but still have big gaps.
I try to listen to, and have all types ofJazz from the 20' to current. The one 'type' I rather dislike is post 40's Dixieland.(which to me is derivative and cornball to an extreme)
Mitch! So you just sit around listening to Kind Of Blue all day? There are many fine recordings of Bird available get off your lazy butt and find some.Listen to Peggy's Blue Skylight by Mingus from his Tonight At Noon LP.I don't know this Pandora that you are talking about,but it sounds like maybe she has put you in a box.A Fanatic doesn't wait to hear something on college radio.A fanatic haunts the places it may show like a fiend.
We all have at least one glaring omission. Mine is 'Fats Nararro'. I am in the process of correcting that omission.

Your comment on the technical aspect of Parker's recordings has some merit, but, unless you are in the Kind of Blue and Krall crowd, that is not a valid reason. If you are into 'audiophile' recordings of Jazz, you will always have glaring omissions.

Lastly, you seem to have a problem with a lot of the seminal figures in Jazz. Are you sure you are a Jazz lover?


Its a glaring omission to focus on on the more revolutionary Monk/Miles/Coltrane era Jazz and newer solely and omit all the great more traditional jazz and big band recordings that pre-ceeded those , especially when digitally remastered as needed.

Just a personal finding/opinion.
1. Diana Krall and Norah Jones. Jazz is about uniqueness and innovations. Please dig on meaning of jazz. Their janre is Cocktail music and it's not certainly my bown of soup. It's the same thing as calling Frankie Carle or Carmen Cavallaro jazz pianists.
2. David Sanborn especially his later stuff is siimply annoying
3. If I'd listen to KOB live, I'd probably get asleep soon.
4. Almost any dixieland jazz is bunch of musicians that play trivial scales with primitive improvisation often out of sync with rest of band. Sorry can't call it a music at all!

My jazz collection is somewhat similar size of Mitch mostly containing avantgard, electronic jazz(or acid), jazz rock, fusion. Mainstream jazz or "legendary jazz" or "jazz icons" I can count on fingers: Maybe few Wes Montgomery(forgot which shelf they are:-()), Stan Getz(collected only UK issues), Cannobal Auderley/Nat Auderley(they're transition to fusion period and still still very interesting to me), The original performance of Brubeck "Take 5" 45rpm single had seen needle landed quite a few times and starting getting already grey:-)
"Jazz is about uniqueness and innovations."

Not always. Nothing wrong with music that is just plain fun or gets your toes a tappin. DSFDF.

I have a mentally challenging job. Sometimes, I just want to hear music that does not make me have to think very much.
Casey...ouch! Stop busting my chops ;-)

Rok2id...I was into jazz eons before I became an audiophile. So no, I'm not limited to audiophile a matter of fact every recording that I own, LP and cd is the off-the-shelf variety that any ordinary Joe bought from the record stores. I have no problem with the seminal figures go, I like what I like....and I just don't care for their music. Now this may really get me kicked off of this forum, but I like Diana Ross's interpretations of Billie Holiday's songs better than Billie's original version.

At 60 years of age, with a ton of existing recordings in my collection that I like...and the great stuff that I'm discovering on Pandora, I feel no obligation to own any records by the seminal figures in jazz if I don't like their music. I only have so much time to devote to listening to music, and when I do, you'd better kick ass and its got to be enjoyable. I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to Armstrong or Ellington when I prefer Freddie Hubbard or Kenny Barron. Historical significance be damned, I listen to what I like.

I'm still open to discovering music by jazz icons of the past. For a lot of them, I simply just have not gotten around to them. When I find a musician that I like, I tend to collect everything they ever did...and play it. Do that a few times over, and you simply run out of time to include every one. Someone's going to get left out.
Wow, if you can't get past the sound quality of Charlie Parker recordings, I guess you're not coming over to my house to listen to 78s and Diamond Discs.
Nothing wrong with music that is just plain fun or gets your toes a tappin. DSFDF
I agree, but my is about jazz. Some of the artists such as Norah, Diana or Kenny G considered as jazz musicians, but they're not. Cocktail music is type of pop music not jazz.
I've tried to get into Billie Holiday but just hasn't worked for me. I want to like Diana Krall's music too.

Everyone has their likes and dislikes. No one is saying you have to like anyone. All this goes without saying.

IMHO, your post is like saying: I like Classical music except for that stuff that came out of Europe. Or, I plan to study Physics, except for that Newton / Einstein crap.

In other words, the stuff you don't seem to care for, IS JAZZ!

It's your right and business, it just seems incredible.

Rok2id, ...Dexter Gordon, Miles, Monk, Betty Carter, Lee Morgan, Cannonball, Freddie Hubbard are jazz musicians too. They play great music. I love jazz. I just happen to like different ones that you do...and my love of jazz is as legitimate as yours. All of it is jazz. I prefer different musicians than you do. It's all ice cream, you like strawberry and I like rocky road.

In painters, I like Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Rubens, Peter Max, Norman Rockwell, Ernie Barnes and Roy Lichtenstein among many others. For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would pay $140 million for a Jackson Pollock painting, or $48 million for a Basquiat painting. I'm no art expert, but I know I love art...I just don't care for the work of those two guys. But, I do not begrudge the folk that do like those two guys' work.
You're not obligated to have listened to, like or have purchased any specific music. It's not a contest or about bragging rights. All the labels about what type of music is it are for convenience and are ultimately meaningless.
You are right, "we all like what we like" and that's how it should be. I love many(virtually all) of the musicians on both your preferred and glaring omission list. Taste is individual and unique. There are fantastic musicians on your omission list. Regarding Chet Baker I'm not much into his voice but absolutely love his trumpet/flugelhorn playing.
I find it near fascinating that you like Dexter Gordon but not Lester Young. Dexter was heavily influenced by both Lester and the icon himself, Charlie Parker.
Hey Charles...I don't dislike Lester Young, I just haven't heard any of his music....he's a glaring omission. I just might like him if I'd heard any of his music. I think the only time I ever heard any of his music was the little snippet that I heard on the Ken Burns Jazz documentary.

While listening to Pandora, I've just discovered Johnny Griffin. I'd never even heard of him until a month ago, the cat is monster! I've been soaking up a lot of his music over the last month. I've listened to jazz radio for could I have never heard of Johnny Griffin??
I've listened to/absorbed Michael Brecker's discography much more than I ever did John Coltrane's! I own 4-5 Coltrane records and have most of his work with Miles certainly doesn't mean I'm any less of a Jazz fan. Music appreciation is deeply personal, there is no right or wrong, it simply is.

***** I just happen to like different ones that you do...and my love of jazz is as legitimate as yours. All of it is jazz. I prefer different musicians*****

This is not about me.

This is about a self proclaimed 'Jazz Fanatic' making a list of the icons of the genre and then, saying he does not like their music. And has never heard, arguably, the greastest of them all, Mingus!!

Against the law? Nope. Will get you thown off the forum? Hardly. Illegitimate? Absolutely.

In any event, it's not worth fighting about. And lets all remember, we post, in order to get comments. We all know our 'rights'.

Rok2id... Relax, it ain't that serious.
First of all, I am glad that you will be making an effort to familiarize yourself
with the names next to an asterisk; you have been missing out on some
great music and I commend you for exploring new musical horizons. But,
let's get real and this is not meant to offend, "certified jazz lover and
fanatic"? What, then, does one call someone who has not excluded
so many of the greats from his playlist, or has been involved enough to not
have so many glaring omissions? I am really trying to understand your
mindset about this.

****Rok2id... Relax, it ain't that serious.****

One of the greatest art forms known to man not that serious? I beg to
Once again :-) I find myself in agreement with Rok2id's comments. No one
is suggesting that we shouldn't have favorites nor that everyone has to take
jazz as seriously as anyone else, but I would suggest and encourage you
to approach your exposure to jazz by taking into account the history and
evolution of it. By doing so a lot more of it will start to make sense and
Billy's "too much melancholy" will become a window into what
some of these greats were experiencing while living at that point in time;
and Bird's power will be heard above all the clicks and pops. Don't mean to
get preachy about it, but I think that if you are able to do this at least to a
degree, your Dexter, Miles and Freddie will be even more enjoyable. Just a
friendly suggestion.

****how could I have never heard of Johnny Griffin??****

I think the answer is obvious.

Maybe this will change your mind. Enjoy.

******I would suggest and encourage you to approach your exposure to jazz by taking into account the history and evolution of it*******

Absolutely!! Maybe Mitch4t should read for a while, instead of listening. Knowing the history of Jazz music and the players, is awe inspiring.

Hi Mitch,
Johnny Griffin is definitely worth seeking out, they're so many talented jazz musicians to discover and appreciate. For example a few other tenor saxophonist (Griffin's instrument). Don Byas, Sonny Stitt,Jimmy Heath, Teddy Edwards, Zoot Sims,Ike Quebec,Oliver Nelson, Wayne Shorter, Booker Ervin, Joe Henderson, James Carter. You have 4, 000 LPs so it's likely that you have some of these players already. You can easily do a short list such as this for many different instruments used in jazz music. Mitch I imagine that you have quite a few gems in your collection.
Charles....I used to see Teddy Edwards here in LA at least a couple of times a month back in the late 70's very early 80's. $5 admitted two people on Tuesday night's at the Parisian Room. Teddy was a regular. Red Holloway was a regular also. A lot of the clubs I saw Teddy play at couldn't have been paying him very much money. He was once playing in a restaurant where I was having dinner.

I don't own any of his records, but I saw him live a lot.
You're a fortunate guy to have seen and listened to Teddy Edwards that often and cheaply. I would have loved to hear him live and up close. Well at least I have his recordings to enjoy. He recorded on the Contemporary label in case you're interested.
I enjoy lists like this - helps expand my horizons.

Becides jazz portion, my collection is rich on rock, but almost none of the glaring performers I have on my shelves.
No Beatles, RS, Kiss, Aerosmith, GnR, Bon Jovi
Czarivey, I am now 60 years old and grew up with the Beatles. I didn't care much for their music when I was a teenager and when they were hot. However, after I turned 30, and nearly 15 years after they broke up, everything became clear and I bought everything that they ever recorded.

I discovered the Beatles' genius through jazz. Since I was a jazz lover, a lot of jazz musicians included Beatle songs in their repertoire. I enjoyed the jazz interpretations, so I thought I'd go back to the original source....and became a huge Beatle fan. I completely missed out on the whole Bealtlemania thing.
mmm... Beatles maybe because there's certainly some music there. For me it's simply too obsolete and trivial to come back to although been enjoying it decades back.

I'm fan of David Sylvian and Japan probably more than you to Beatles: all records and CDs ever released including interviews, books, 12" singles, 45's, posters, more posters, back-stage pass, T-s, photos(one is with me) videos and signatures of artists. Have 6'long dedicated shelf only with David Sylvian and Japan members!
Czarivey, never heard any of Sylvians' music. I just looked him up on Wikipedia. Can you recommend a couple of jazz-tinged albums by him. I'd like to check him out.
His albums are almost all jazz-tingled.
The highlights are Dead Bees on the Cake, Brilliant Trees, Japan self-titled album released on vinyl. On CD I like Manafon and Rain Tree Crow.
I have recently discovered that I have been terribly limited by my exposure to music as well. With the single greatest influence, to me, being the radio (I was born in 1960), if I didn't hear it on the radio - I didn't hear it. And, now, many years later, I understand that for the music that I was exposed to, I was limited to it being selected and filtered by the DJ, who just may r may not have selected what I would have preferred.

So, I am going back and buying all those records (and CD's) that I have not been are to listen to or enjoy (because I was not exposed). So, are you ready? Not jazz but 2 new biggies for me that I have never heard: Allman Brothers Eat A Peach and Live at the Fillmore East. Hey, better late than never. (Last month I discovered Creedance...).
Try Bach or Brahms and see how TERRIBLY limited you really have been.
how TERRIBLY limited indeed!
I could give two shits about Bach or Brahms and I think I have impeccable taste in music.
Cerrot, get Pandora, it's free and it's a treasure trove of great music of all types. I have discovered sooo much music. You are so correct in that a lot of us were limited to what we heard on the radio...and what the DJ liked. Congrats on your discovery of Credence....amazing how their music has held up over time....they rock.
I could give two shits about Bach or Brahms and I think I have impeccable taste in music.

Yes - and everyone who eats at Taco Bell believes they have impeccable taste in cuisine. That's OK - the world is rapidly declining to the lowest common denominator. You win. Absolutely.
There are no winners and losers here. We like what we like and that's the end of it. No one here is in a position to judge another's preference in music.
Mitch, that's fine, but you also said that you could not get past the poor recorded quality of Charlie Parker. That seems not to be a prefence in music, but one of recorded quality. Are you saying that this prevents you from enjoying any of our musical heritage from before, oh say 1955?
I don't look at music's historical significance or the year it was recorded in. I look at music for what it is when I put it on my stereo and how it sounds to me. If it is poorly recorded, I have no interest in listening to it. I have too many recordings by a great many great musicians that were well recorded,that is what I listen to. There is only so much time I can devote to listening to music. When I listen, it had better be a good quality recording...period.

I know some folk say that I'm missing out. Maybe. But I have more than enough great music to listen to and not enough time to listen to all of it. So, I listen to what and whom I like. So, if they didn't make good recordings before 1955, so be it, I'll pass. There's been enough great music recorded since then to listen to for 20 lifetimes.