I’m a pretty big jazz fan.I truly enjoy Bop and jazz from this era. Question, and perhaps this is not truly accurate/appropriate, is ----how much of this stuff is simply a ’blowin’ session from the artists who are playing the brass instruments, particularly the sax??
IOW, if you have heard one great blowing session, maybe you have heard them all?
Listening to ’Trane, Miles, Parlan, Vick,et al, what are your thoughts?
Great post and true... Welcome here ... i underlined my favorite part and the most important for me ...
I think of a "blowing session" as a recording session, perhaps driven by the label, with a nominal leader and a team of sideman who are typically also on the label. It features standards and blues tunes, so everyone knows the changes and can roll with it. As stated above, some are great, many run of the mill, but as I find with just about any jazz album, there is often one brilliant tune (or sometimes just a solo) on an album that you are so glad you stumbled across. In some cases, one of the sideman has just discovered his voice and elevates the entire recording, making that the reason to listen to it. This is a such a fascinating genre..
I think of a "blowing session" as a recording session, perhaps driven by the label, with a nominal leader and a team of sideman who are typically also on the label. It features standards and blues tunes, so everyone knows the changes and can roll with it. As stated above, some are great, many run of the mill, but as I find with just about any jazz album, there is often one brilliant tune (or sometimes just a solo) on an album that you are so glad you stumbled across. In some cases, one of the sideman has just discovered his voice and elevates the entire recording, making that the reason to listen to it. This is a such a fascinating genre...
@immatthewj Yes, technically the sax is in the woodwind family. Although this classification is simply because it uses a wood reed, but when was the last time anyone saw a wooden sax?? Almost all of the ones I know of are made of brass.Which is exactly why I referred to it as a brass instrument, not referencing the family it belongs to.
@stuartk- and I'm not even a jazz fan! I like those records because they don't sound like what I think of as 'jazz'; they're more like Grateful Dead space jams. The only other 'jazz' album I have is the newly released Rhino hi-fi version of Herbie Hancock's 'Crossings', which I like for the same reason as those Miles ones....
I’m a big fan of Miles’ work in the late 60’s and early 70’s; just ordered the Vinyl Me Please box set of Electric Miles Davis, which has his albums from ’In a Silent Way’ to ’Get Up With It’....
That’s one of the great things about Miles -- there’s something to please just about any Jazz fan!
I never developed the ear for the saxophonist’s individuality as you describe it, but I do have that ear for the electric guitar masters
It’s purely a matter of exposure/repeated listening. If you can tell the difference between P. Green and D. Kirwan, between EC and Duane on "Layla", between Andy Powell and Ted Turner on "Argus", you can learn to tell the difference between Sonny Rollins and Dexter Gordon. Of course, you have to like the music enough to begin with, otherwise you won't have any reason to put in the time for this process to occur.
I never developed the ear for the saxophonist’s individuality as you describe it, but I do have that ear for the electric guitar masters
Yes, it depends on what you spend a lot of time listening to. I could not do that with rock guitarists as you can. Jazz guitarists? I could pretty easily. Jim Hall, Wes, Kenny Burrell, Kessel, Pass etc. No doubt that our ear-brain pathway can be trained to recognize musician’s uniqueness.
I never developed the ear for the saxophonist’s individuality as you describe it, but I do have that ear for the electric guitar masters…Clapton, Beck, Page, Green, Bloomfield or Hendrix…a few notes is all it takes. Same for Harmonica players. Cotton, Wells, Little or Big, etc….
I'm a big fan of Miles' work in the late 60's and early 70's; just ordered the Vinyl Me Please box set of Electric Miles Davis, which has his albums from 'In a Silent Way' to 'Get Up With It'....
I respect all of Miles’ work but have to say that his earlier era of late 1940s to the early 1960s (Bebop-Modal) are what I enjoy most. Certainly to each their own.
Me too. I was enamored of his Fusion stuff when I first got into Jazz but it’s been decades since I owned any of those recordings. I’m drawn to strong melodies and actual chord changes. I derive very little satisfaction from listening to blowing over repetitious, open ended vamps. If forced to choose, the group with Herbie, Tony, and Ron,whether with G. Coleman or Wayne on sax, is my very favorite Miles era. Having tried to get back into Bitches Brew and Big Fun numerous times and failed, I’ve given up at this point! I’d rather listen to Mahavishnu O. or Hendrix when in that sort of mood. As you say, each to his own...
I respect all of Miles’ work but have to say that his earlier era of late 1940s to the early 1960s (Bebop-Modal) are what I enjoy most. Certainly to each their own.
Me too i prefer him in this period ...
Thanks for the great post about Davis stuartk ...
There is many ways to be creative...Going toward the estuary of the big river exploring all the ramified possibilities on the delta of the river for example ; and Miles Davis was in the creative hunger to go frenetically from one metamorphosis to an another ; or we can obsessively possessed by one direction only going back from the river direct flowing to his source and deepening the melodic way in a relaxed minimal way of steady row against the flows as Chet Baker did creating his myth in a different way than Davis ...
Or going more from one course or phase to the other , reversing our speed to innovate , one or two times in a life as most creative musicians do , or staying anchored on the river memorizing repeating formulas and fishing with or without virtuosity and imagination ...
We cannot say one way is better than the other ... It is a question of character and moods of the soul ...
Nevermind what we do the river flows with his few big arms but beware! if we construct a few dams to sell the electricity ...😊😁
A metaphor is only a story not an explanation for sure ...😁
But at the end there is no more an explanation perhaps , only a metaphor or a story ...
As to why he embraced Fusion, I’ve also read he was financially motivated but at the same time, genuinely enjoyed the music of of Hendrix and Sly. Plus, he was creatively restless; it was only natural that he would not stay in one place for long. And it’s worth recognizing that he worked his way into it; it wasn’t a single, sudden leap from "If I Were A Bell" to "Miles Runs the Voodoo Down".
Yes, you and @wharfy are correct as to the motivation guiding Miles' transition into different jazz genres. I read his autobiography when written in the late 1980s. Creative urges, wanting to remain current and increasing his income status were major factors that he openly acknowledged. He was a big admirer of Prince in that era.
I respect all of Miles' work but have to say that his earlier era of late 1940s to the early 1960s (Bebop-Modal) are what I enjoy most. Certainly to each their own.
My OP was wondering more along the lines if the particular genre at the time...mostly Bop, was pretty much a ’blowing session’ for a lot of these musicians. Which would lead me to my next question, perhaps this is why Miles Davis ’progressed’ into the discovery ( if you can call it that?) of fusion.
It's unclear to me what you mean by "Bop". I associate the term Bop with Bebop, as opposed to hard Bop or Post Bop. Bebop may sound like "just blowing" but a highly sophisticated grasp of harmony was required to "blow" in that genre. According to what I've read, the major figures in that movement (Bird, Dizzy, etc.) put in a lot of woodshedding, discussion and serious study to refine that language and their facility.
Bebop is where Miles started out but he subsequently went through a variety of phases before embracing Fusion, including loosely structured ("In A Silent Way"), highly structured ("Birth of the Cool") and points in between. So you could say he was, among other things,engaged in an ongoing exploration of the relationship/tension between written composition and "composition on the fly" (improvisation).
As to why he embraced Fusion, I've also read he was financially motivated but at the same time, genuinely enjoyed the music of of Hendrix and Sly. Plus, he was creatively restless; it was only natural that he would not stay in one place for long. And it's worth recognizing that he worked his way into it; it wasn't a single, sudden leap from "If I Were A Bell" to "Miles Runs the Voodoo Down".
"Which would lead me to my next question, perhaps this is why Miles Davis ’progressed’ into the discovery ( if you can call it that?) of fusion."
A reason (and not the only one,) is that Davis wanted to play music that would appeal to fans of rock music for bigger paydays. I have been searching (unsuccessfully, so far) for the attribution for the following event; In 1970, Miles Davis opened for the Grateful Dead at the Fillmore West. He agreed to do this when he learned how much MORE money he could make filling 2000+ seat venues.
In a bigger scheme, by the late 1960s jazz was no longer "popular music." Steady paydays were getting harder to find for straight-up jazz musicians. This is why you had musicians like Wes Montgomery playing jazz versions of popular hits, and others leaving touring altogether to play as studio musicians, or tv and movie music ensembles.
One could also argue that there are "blowing sessions" that are equal to some well rehearsed recording dates. Both the quality of the material and its execution/interpretation are important. Great players can take a simple progression and "off the cuff" make it transcendent. Middling players can rehearse more complex compositions and be less compelling.
@jafant Thanks for the suggestions. I have just about every OG Blue Note produced. So, i am familiar with these folks works.
My OP was wondering more along the lines if the particular genre at the time...mostly Bop, was pretty much a ’blowing session’ for a lot of these musicians. Which would lead me to my next question, perhaps this is why Miles Davis ’progressed’ into the discovery ( if you can call it that?) of fusion. Maybe ( and I don’t know this as a fact) he felt that these ’blowing sessions’ were somewhat limited in their scope and wanted to move the genre of jazz forward. This would be my guess, maybe someone knows more definitively about this theory??
Bop, Hard Bop and Modal Jazz will give the listener many blowing sessions. Freddie Hubbard, Coltrane and Miles are tops in my book. Check out Clifford Brown, Dexter Gordon and Houston Person as well. These discs are going to sound very sweet with your DV-60 player.
IOW, if you have heard one great blowing session, maybe you have heard them all?
Sure, I guess, if you’re not much of a fan of the genre.
It’s not as though we can easily place all Jazz recordings into one of two categories.
There are plenty of albums that feature strong original compositions by leaders but also include a simpler bluesy/funky vehicle for improvising/"blowing". Many Blue Notes come to mind!
One could also argue that there are "blowing sessions" that are equal to some well rehearsed recording dates. Both the quality of the material and its execution/interpretation are important. Great players can take a simple progression and "off the cuff" make it transcendent. Middling players can rehearse more complex compositions and be less compelling.
There used to be many jazz album review books, that were good at identifying a blowing session from a well rehearsed album...after a while you could almost tell by looking at the group of sidemen...
It is why i prefer over any jazz playing , the more melodically inspired ... It is way more difficult to play minimally and meaningfully melodically than blowing hard and long at all winds at great speed so impressive it can be and it is in an improvised session or in a planified one nevermind ... It is also why really good free jazz exist, but is very rare ...
The greatest say much with less in an improvised way or not ...
@charles1dad I totally agree that each musician has their own interpretation and style. No question. Not really what I was getting at in my OP though. More along the lines of the overall impression that one gets with listening to the genre. So, is this stye of jazz primarily alined with the type of 'blowing session' that we witness with so many of these albums? Not saying it is a bad thing, on the contrary, it can be very interesting to listen to, and as you point out, each artist has their take on the music. Just that it is a continual theme that perhaps someone who does not listen to too much bop should be aware of, particularly with all of the new re-issues that are now coming to ( and have been on) the market.
IOW, if you have heard one great blowing session, maybe you have heard them all?
This is not my perspective at all . Each musician has their very unique sound, style and approach which is easily distinguishable when listening to them. For example if Dexter Gordon, Sonny Stitt , Oliver Nelson and John Coltrane were playing the same song I’d have no problem identifying each. They sound very different playing the tenor saxophone.
Ask them to play “Lush Life “ or “Round Midnight “ and you recognize the individuality of approach clearly (At least to me). Switch to trumpeters Miles, Chet Baker, Lee Morgan, Clifford Brown, Freddie Hubbard etc. Same thing. In my opinion these great jazz musicians definitely have their own voice instrumentally and expressive/emotionally. As unique as fingerprints.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
