This file is a work in progress, that should have been completed before the ballots went out on November 20, but only got started on that date. Whereas the ballot form attempted to keep things simple, the intent here is to be as precise and complete as possible. This is important because the real world doesn't always follow the neat rules the poll imagines. And we wish to deal with such discrepancies as fairly as possible.
Ballots
A preliminary ballot was mailed out to the Jazzpoll email list on November 15. An invitation to vote and an updated ballot was mailed to 228 critics on November 20. (The subject head was erroneously "Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll invitation to vote." The corrected subject head is "2024 Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll invitation to vote.") You may find a current copy of the invitation and ballot here.
Voters should complete their ballots and send them as Reply, or otherwise as email directly to Tom Hull. You may insert your picks into the form provided, or simply note the categories and picks. Anything that's clear will be accepted (subject to rules explained below), and anything that isn't clear will be questioned. It is better if you provide your ballot in the body of an email message, instead of attaching it. While we can handle most attachments, doing so takes unnecessary steps, causing unnecessary work.
You don't need to do anything special to format your ballot. You only need to specify the artist name and album title, but we would also like for you to provide the label name. We refer to a tracking file of 2024 jazz releases, which is initiated with the new year and updated as we notice new albums, to check picks, and maintain a single table which contains all of the albums that receive votes (with a unique number for each album). When you send your ballot in, we check each pick against our tables to look up the album number. If there are any discrepancies between the ballot entry and our tables, we investigate them, and sometimes have to fix our tables. Thus, your precise entry helps us find and fix our own errors, while your errors are corrected when we present your final ballot. In some cases, yours are not actually errors, but we have certain conventions and standards for parsing artist, album, and labels, and apply them consistently to all ballots.
Those "conventions and standards" should be written down at some point, but that would take a lot of work. Some were set down by Francis Davis, like using '&' for albums by two artists, and using '-' for albums by three or more artists. Others were developed by Tom Hull, based on many years of parsing album covers and turning them into lists. In two notable cases, we add date information to the parenthesized label field: for Rara Avis albums, we include the recording year dates (if known, and if not already expressed in the title); at the end of the field (after the label name), we also add a notation for albums that were not released in the current year (e.g., '23 for albums released in 2023). While these date notes are interesting in themselves, they also help us check for boundary conditions (the 10-year rule for Rara Avis; the possibility that previous year albums may have old votes that we need to consider).
The Year 2024
This poll is about records that were initially released in the year 2024. Since ballots are sent out in mid-November (Nov. 20 this year), and a voting deadline of mid-December (Dec. 20 this year), earlier iterations of the poll tried to divide the year's releases around Thanksgiving or Dec. 1. But there's little value in trying to slice the calendar year that way. There aren't many December releases, and the ones that are most likely to get votes were provided to many as advances much earlier. On the other hand, lots of albums come out in November or earlier that voters won't see until well after the deadline.
To accommodate late-breaking releases, we allow voters to vote for the previous year's albums (in this year's case, 2023). It's easier to figure out the year than the exact release date, so it would be extra trouble if we tried to slice the previous year into just a "late" segment, so we accept any previous year release. On the other hand, we reject votes for advances on the next year's releases (in this case, 2025). I see a few of those every year, and they usually just remind me that many people don't pay much attention to release dates. But I also recall cases where the advance album wasn't released as expected -- in one case it still hasn't come out.
If a sufficient number of voters vote for a previous year's album, we consider adding the previous year's vote/point total to this year's. We do this only if the album gets more votes this year than last. (I've considered comparing points as well, which would generate more cases of albums which get one vote in each year, but that seems like more trouble than it's worth. The only really significant case where this has been applied was on an Eric Dolphy archival set, which appeared one year as digital, then next year as CD. This rule is based on one used by the Village Voice Pazz & Jop Poll, which allowed Michael Jackson's Thriller to win the year after it was first released. Other than these two cases, the rule has had very little effect.)
The Albums
Some albums have different release dates for different formats (digital, CD, LP, etc.). We generally prefer the first release date, but we usually accept the others, so an album could be a "new release" in more than one year. There are also cases where an album may be reissued on a second label in short order (or released by two or more labels, according to area or format), or self-released as a digital, then picked up by a label that treats it as new). We most often allow voters to decide whether such a record should be counted as new or reissue.
Also, we like to treat all formats and editions of an album as all of the same title -- at least as long as the variations are substantially equivalent. Few voters insist on such distinctions, but if one does, the easiest course is to simply footnote it. As for albums released on multiple labels, the easy course is to name both labels, separated by slash. We try to standardize how albums are listed under individual ballots, so unless we footnote it, that information is lost. We ask voters to specify labels with their album votes, but close to half don't bother, and errors (or confusion) are not uncommon. I keep fairly extensive logs of album releases, so I usually have label and release date info handy to check, but sometimes my data is the one with the error, which the discrepancies help me find.
One problem that sometimes comes up is whether something is one album or two. We've never established clear criteria (which in any case would have zero effect on labels' decisions), with Davis more inclined to combine closely related albums -- e.g., Thumbscrew's Ours and Theirs (2018) -- and Hull more inclined to split them -- e.g., Mary Halvorson's Amaryllis and Belladonna (2022; while some people wanted to vote for both, they were significantly different albums, with most early votes just specifying one album: in the end, Amaryllis won on its own, while Belladonna finished 21).
One common case is where multiple formats are divided differently: e.g., a 2-CD set is split into two separate digital albums. We look at each of these cases individually, and try to figure out what makes the most sense. In some cases, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude, so may decide later on just how to present and count the albums. (The software prefers to keep things cleanly separated, but I could change it, fudge it, and/or simply add footnotes to explain any anomalies. I'd rather do as little of this as possible, but the goal is to make sense of a world that all too often defies categorization.) Specific albums noted so far this year (I will add more as they crop up; also note that I may revisit this as we see more voter input):
Michael Attias: Quartet Music Vol. I + II: LumiSong + Kardamon Fall (Out of Your Head): These were released separately on digital but together on 2-CD. I've been treating them both ways, and will wait to see how the voting breaks.
Allen Lowe & the Constant Sorrow Orchestra: Louis Armstrong's America (ESP-Disk): This was designed as a single 4-CD work, but initially released simultaneously in two 2-CD packages, designated Volume 1 and Volume 2, but with same liner notes. Seems like it should be treated as one album, without the volume differentiation. If voters do specify a volume, that can be noted in footnote. If voters specify both volumes, we should allow them to consolidate.
Jason Robinson: Ancestral Numbers/Ancestral Numbers II (Playscape): Initially same download, but released as two separate CDs, dates spaced out. While I was originally tempted to allow the two albums to be treated as one, voters treated them as separate (most favoring II), a precedent I will respect. Not sure how to list this, as the original volume isn't designated [I]. The practice of splitting sessions into two volumes released on separate dates isn't rare. If the releases appear in different years (2023 and 2024), they should definitely be treated as separate; e.g.:
Adonis Rose Trio + One: For All We Know (Storyville): It looks like this album was released twice, once with the "+ One" and singer Gabrielle Cavassa's name on the cover, another without, but both credits seem to refer to the same music. This first appeared ina Vocal vote, which stressed the "+ One," so that's how it is currently listed. If we get votes without the "+ One," we could put it in brackets.
New Albums vs. Rara Avis
Or new music vs. old music. For previously unreleased music, we draw a line in the sand 10 years before present (for this year, that dividing line is between 2014 and 2015), with anything recorded since that line eligible for New Releases, and anything recorded before that line relegated to Rara Avis. Reissues, even of more recent music, are considered Rara Avis. In the past, we've tried forcing this rule, mostly to make sure that each record gets a fair count in its own slot. However, some cases are ambiguous, and some voters can be difficult on this point, so my rule here is to allow voters to decide which category any given record belongs in. (I may point out discrepancies, but will count the vote either way.) To help with fair totals, we may add points in the correct category for albums voted for in the wrong category.
The earliest polls had a Reissues category, but previously unreleased music of any vintage had to be evaluated under New Albums (sometimes called New Releases). This caused confusion, especially as most other polls combined reissues with previously unreleased older music in a "historical" category. When Davis changed the rule by introducing the current 10-year fence, he started referring to the historical category as Rara Avis. We've stuck with the term, although its applicability is somewhat less than obvious.
Ranked vs. Unranked Lists
For New Albums and Rara Avis, voters are asked to submit ranked lists, in descending order. Each rank is converted to points, using a sliding scale.
For up to 10 New Albums, the scale is: 1: 3.0; 2: 2.4; 3: 2.0; 4: 1.8; 5: 1.6; 6: 1.4; 7: 1.3; 8: 1.2; 9: 1.1; 10: 1.0.
For up to 5 Rara Avis, the scale is: 1: 2.0; 2: 1.6; 3: 1.4; 4: 1.2; 5: 1.0.
This point scale was introduced for the 2024 Mid-Year Poll, and is being used for the 2024 Poll. Previously, the point scale was linear: from 10 to 1 for up to 10 New Albums, and from 3 to 1 for up to 3 Rara Avis. While the linear scale was easier to calculate, Hull felt that the range between top and bottom points was more likely to distort the results. Experience with assigned points polls, like the Village Voice's Pazz & Jop, suggest that, even when given complete license to assign weights to ranks, voters will either assign equal rank or stay within a fairly narrow band. (In P&J, voters can divide 100 points among 10 albums, with a maximum of 30 and a minimum of 5. That's 6-to-1, but maximum votes there are rare, so a 3-to-1 range is more typical of voters who seriously rank.) Davis considered and rejected the Pazz & Jop formula, figuring it was excessively burdensome both for voters and for himself. Part of Hull's reasoning was that in the Mid-Year Poll, there would be fewer voters, so the point-scale distortions of the linear system would be exaggerated. I doubt there is any objective way to optimize a points system, but intuitively the more compressed scale seems to be better at reflecting both the popular breadth and the depth of enthusiasm voters hold for their picks.
Davis also allowed the option of unranked lists, probably because some voters insisted on them. (In later years, he disparaged them, sometimes not even mentioning the option in his invite letters -- but we did always count them.) Davis simply divided the total points that would be given for a ranked list (55 for 10 New Albums picks, 6 for 3 Rara Avis picks) and divided them by the number of picks, so they were scored at 5.5 and 2.0 points. Hull found that when he mentioned the option of unranked lists, the number of critics opting for them roughly doubled. So he proposed scoring unranked lists at 1 point each. This gives voters an incentive to rank, but it's not so large as to greatly distort the results. In the 2024 Mid-Year Poll, the share of unranked ballots was about the same as it had been in recent years, so it didn't seem to be much disincentive at all. But voters who rank their lists are doing extra work, and providing us with extra information, which would seem to justify the extra points.
Categories: Vocal, Latin, Debut
Early on, Davis decided to add three special categories: two to highlight styles or genres that are indelibly significant parts of the jazz legacy but which tend to be overlooked or marginalized in top-ten lists; and one to help identify new musicians who are likely to become future stars. He asked voters to pick one record in each of these categories, and stressed that if they had picked any special category in their top-ten, they should name it (their highest pick, if multiple) as their category choice.
While simple enough, Hull noticed that many voters (25-50%) skipped categories, while others had multiple candidates and squaring them with the rule tended to be contentious. For the 2024 Mid-Year Poll, with fewer voters and fewer albums to choose from, Hull dropped the special categories. Davis asked him to reconsider so for the 2024 year-end poll, Hull decided to ask voters to choose up to 3 albums in each category, in addition to any albums already chosen in the top-ten list and designated as category-eligible. Thus, a specialist could wind up selecting as many as 13 albums in a category (although it's unlikely that many, or possibly any, will).
Voting in these categories is completely optional. Voters who have no strong choices should skip them, rather than try to fill out all the slots. Short lists are always acceptable (even in New Albums, although it is rare to find a creditable critic who doesn't like at least ten albums -- I know of many, like myself, whose end-of-year lists extend much longer).
There is no point system in these special categories: the lists may or may not be ordered: the top-ten are reproduced in the order given, followed by any extra choices, but each album is given equal weight (in effect, 1 point).
For the special categories, most selections will come from New Albums, but it is possible to pick Rara Avis albums. A Rara Avis Debut would be rather anomalous.
Vocal Jazz is for albums that feature one or more vocalists. It is not necessary for vocalist(s) to be named in the artist credit. It is left to the voter to decide which albums qualify. For example, some voters may pick rappers/spoken word artists, or may focus on repertoire singers, or styles like vocalese, or singer-songwriters, or even look beyond customary jazz bounds. Some may regard a particular performance as central to an album, while others may not. In past years, we've been known to quarrel about such interpretations. We've done less and less of that over the years, and none recently.
What counts as Latin Jazz is also left up to the voter. Davis founded the category because he felt that the Village Voice, as a New York weekly paper, was often negligent in covering what he viewed as an essential part of the New York jazz scene. Since then, the music and the poll have gone nationwide and (to some extent) international. One result is that there are many views of what should or should not be included as Latin Jazz.
One consensus rule seems to be that Latin Jazz is defined by its rhythmic signatures, and not by the ethnicity of the artists. One striking example occurred in 2021, when Miguel Zenón released two albums: his Law Years: The Music of Ornette Coleman got more points in New Albums, but his The Art of the Bolero won Latin Jazz (23-to-1; it got 37.5 points in New Releases, vs. 63.5 for Law Years). In another case, I've had a voter argue that his 3rd or 4th top-ten pick was the his Latin Jazz choice -- although his top two picks were widely supported in Latin Jazz, he didn't consider them enough to qualify.
Given this range of critical opinion, and my own tone-deafness on the subject, it is important for voters to designate which of their top-ten albums they consider to be Latin Jazz. I may query some voters if they don't, but I will accept their designations.
The idea behind the Debut category is to identify new artists the first year they release work. The strict definition of this is that any artist who has previously released an album as the leader or principal named credit is henceforth ineligible. Before 2024, this definition was even stricter: an album was ineligible if any named credit had previously released.
Albums with group credits have always been disparaged. A group is ineligible if any member of the group has released previous work, as an individual, collaborator, or group member. Forming a new group does not allow for a second chance Debut. (Needless to say, or one should think, a new "supergroup" like Artemis is never eligible for Debut.)
An aliases is treated as a name for an individual. If the individual is eligible, the first use of the alias is eligible. A name change, like a new alias, does not allow for a second chance Debut.
As of 2024, we are allowing that the strict rule may be a bit too strict, and that voters should be allowed some leeway in deciding whether to overlook previous work, most often because it was obscure -- some possible reasons may be: self-released with no outside promotion, digital only, very limited physical releases, work in unrelated groups or as non-primary credits, little or no critical notice. This leeway is much more limited than we allow for Vocal or Latin Jazz. But a vote for anyone who clearly isn't eligible will be rejected.
I want to cut down on the amount of research I have to do to qualify or disqualify albums. One rule of thumb is that anyone who has previously receive votes in the poll is ineligible. Of those who haven't, the first test will be whether I've heard of the person. If I have, I may already know enough to reject the vote. If I haven't, I'll do some research. Either way, I'll allow the vote if I don't see any clear reason to disqualify it. The resulting list should approximately satisfy the intent of identifying new artists in the first year of their work.
Here is a list of albums accepted as Debut which would have been rejected under the strict definition:
On the other hand, some (not all) of the rejected Debut vote albums:
Voters
Some questions from a previous year's draft.
Lots of things I need to write about here:
Also see the FAQ, which repeats some of this but in a form more oriented to the general public.