I would add a couple of things and emphasize a couple of things that have already been pointed out:
The jazz music scene is a small world. Musicians during any era know who the best players are from reputation and seek them out and give them exposure when they tour and this enables those musicians to make contacts, meet producers etc. It is at that point that many of the factors that Rok points out kick in. However, it should also be pointed out that the better a player is (the more he/she has to say), the more that he can overcome his limitations in the social graces department. IOW, if you're good enough, almost short of going around causing bodily harm, you can get away with a lot of bullshit.
****Some few Possibles:
They could not play as well as the greats****(ALMOST always the case)
didn't work well with others****(Bird would fall sleep on the bandstand and they still wanted him)
They were drug addicts****(Coltrane, Pepper and countless others?)
They were not very attractive people****( Ella Fitzgerald?)
did not kiss the right ass****(If you're good enough you don't have to kiss ass)
pissed the wrong people off****(see above)
did not want to pay the personal price it takes to be great***(Agree)
were one hit wonders, But really didn't have anything to say(brubeck)****(not sure of the relevance)
spent long periods of time in jail****(Art Pepper for one)
had mental problems. Quite a few musicians were nuts.****(Tom Harrell is a schizophrenic)
were satisfied to just make a living. no drive or ambition.****(Agree, but then, what does that say about what they have to say musically?)
played for themselves and not their audience****(Miles always turned his back to the audience)
where ripped off my the sharks in the business, quit in disgust.****(Agree)
lived in the wrong place/time****(Sort of agree)
I think there is a danger in being too lose with the term GREAT. If we can all agree that dynamos like Mingus, Trane etc. were great, and if all these others are also great; then what, exactly, is it that distinguishes a Mingus or Ellington? What should we call them instead? If it ia true that, as Rok says, the unwashed decide, well it's pretty obvious who the greats are. As far as who COULD HAVE BEEN great goes, once
you take the romance and personal tendencies to make excuses out of the equation, there aren't too many who didn't get what they deserved.... IF THEY HAD WHAT IT TAKES TO BE GREAT TO BEGIN WITH. |
Alex, I wrote my previous post before reading your most recent. Speaking for myself, I don't mind a debate about this or any other topic having to do with a great topic such as this. Having said that, let me remind you that it was you who asked for thoughts and commentary about your premise of the forgotten player and posted examples. While I have acknowledged that most of these players are good players, I don't agree with your premise that they were as good as the best. I simply don't agree. I do agree that some are worth getting to know better. I also agree that, in some ways and for the purpose of this discussion, it serves no purpose to always compare them to the best. But, it was you who wrote that they may have been as good as th best; like Rambrandt. Anyway, your point is taken. Yes, there are many players who were good players that should be explored by listeners; I agree. But, I consider them second and third tier players and in most cases I don't see any great crime committed because they are more "famous"; whatever that means in the context of the jazz world and it's aficionados. That seems to be the main sticking point here. Again, your "top tier" is broader than mine; that's ok.
BTW, you misrepresented what I said re the "music buiness". I don't believe that "the business" OFTEN has the last word a the expense of art. Sometimes, yes; often, not so sure. To suggest that is to suggest that the artists that shaped this great music were undeserving and that others were slighted; others who were more deserving of the fame (and influence). WHO? I want to know who could have had the impact of. Bird or Ellington or Trane or Miles and who was also overlooked. Please tell me.
The idea of the unrecognized genius is a quaint and attractive one. Usually overstated. The cream usually rises to the top. What i think we strongly agree with is the idea that it is a shame that the music has declined in poplarity to the extent that there isn't a broader appreciation for it in the general public. The end result of this is that the business will not support those who aren't at the very top.
As Rok says, cheers, and thanks for the thought provoking posts. |
Alex, I have no interest in arguing. I appreciate your perspective and I can only offer the perspective of someone who has been in the music "business" his entire working life (37 years) and done nothing but play music that entire time in order to earn a living; well, maybe a stock purchase or two :-). I don't disagree with all that you have written, but I think that we have strayed from the original issues and I think that in the future you may want to be more precise with what you pose. You first said that some of these players in question were as good as the best and asked if any of them were "the one". Now, a different standard is being used. Seems to me that anyone who is "the one" belongs in that top and narrow tier which you now say is not what you are talking about; and which Rok now calls "extreme talent". I am confused. I will finish with a couple of thoughts which every lover of the music should find reassuring and is certainly a positive:
The music is a far more powerful force than the business of music. Jazz would have done what it did no matter what the "business" does; it has to, just as creative musicians have to create. The ones that have a lot to say will say it; its the nature of the beast. And btw, the business has made a fair bit of change from all that talking :-)
Let's make this discussion interesting; if you are game. I am still waiting to hear the name of someone who was "the one" and then was forgotten. And, in addition, let's not just throw ideas out there and claim that there is "proof". Tell me in specific terms, not just "I like" or "I don't like", what it is about some of the players you have mentioned that merits their place as one of the best. I would be glad to back my comments with specifics. If you don't care to go there, and that's ok, I can only add that there is much recorded work by great trumpet players that I consider to be on a higher level than than, for instance, Dave Burns that I (nor my record collection) don't feel deprived in the least. Please don't misunderstand, I am glad that I have heard Dave Burns' work and I'm glad that his playing resonates with you. It doesn't with me.
Peace.
Btw, what is it about George Benson's playing that you don't like? Honest question and I don't refer to his Pop stuff. I assume you are familiar with his jazz playing. Thanks. |
|
|
Rok, it's the first note of his solo. Nice way to start a solo; economical use of just one note. Think of a solo in terms of speech; hence why it is referred to as telling a story. Listen to the shape of that opening musical comment that starts with just one note. Maybe Wynton is saying:
"HEY!.......Rok is NOW calling" 😎
Each player takes two choruses of twelve measures each (twelve bar blues). Wynton's first chorus starts at 4:25; it's his turn to play at that point and he plays his first note, as you point out, at 4:26. If you want to feel the shape or form of the tune (twelve bar blues), find the beat, tap your foot on that beat 1,2,3,4, 1,2,3,4 etc. (each measure or bar has four beats) and start counting at exactly 4:25. You wil find that Wynton plays for 24 (12x2) measures of four beats each (two choruses).
Btw, don't hate the band at all. Great feeling and they are having a blast. |
He may have. It's his solo and I'm not inside his head, but it's a predetermined amount of playing space (two choruses) and there is no musical distinction between what I imagined he was saying and what you imagined. It's a solo and that was the first note. You're thinking about it the right way 'though. |
Completely agree on all counts. |
Alex, thank you for the thoughtful post. Please understand, my primary motivation is not to "teach". Like all of us on this thread I share my thoughts and likes and dislikes. If, given my particular background and perspective, anyone finds value in what I have to say, that's great. However, like all of us, I have to be honest with what I think about a topic or player and try to explain why. I too can and do learn from your posts and others'. Rok has sometimes alluded to the issue of "too much knowledge". While I don't agree that there can ever be too much knowledge, I think that there is a lot of value in understanding why certain music or artists may appeal to a listener who has not had any formal training or experience in music or performance. This is not a condescending attitude, but an honest acknowledgment of the value in a perspective that is more emotional and less "encumbered" by "facts". I hesitate to say this because, in the end, facts (objectivism) matter a great deal. The subject of objectivism vs. subjectivism has been the topic of debate many times on this thread. As with most things in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I think the main sticking point in our recent disagreement has to do with the degree to which you and I feel we are being limited by where we draw the "greatness" line. I don't agree with your stance that where I am drawing the line (as you see it) limits the listener to just "a handful" of artists; quite the contrary. First of all, I completely agree with you that there are many jazz players that deserved more recognition. I am simply saying that, USUALLY BUT NOT ALWAYS, the less recognition a player received the farther from "top tier" status they usually were; based on ability. I must also say that, since your first post on the subject, your posted examples of players have gotten progressively better, imo; players like Phineas Newborn and Clark Terry are hardly "unknowns" and are fantastic players. So, just how much are we limiting ourselves by "ignoring" some of these least pkayers. Let's stick, for a moment, to trumpet players since Dave Burns relates to all this and was one of your first examples. Let me also say that, for me, the line is drawn, first and foremost, at a player's ability to project an individualistic sound or style; iow, does he have something to say that is unique or his own. For example, I can hear just a few measures of Louis Armstrong, Miles, Freddie, Lee Morgan (!!!), Dizzy, Clark Terry, Clifford, Woody Shaw, Dave Douglas, Kenny Dorham and be able to identify the player. To a lesser degree (takes longer listening and harder to identify): Nat Adderley, Tom Harrell, Randy Brecker, Red Rodney, Fats Navarro, Thad Jones, Donald Byrd. To an even lesser degree: Ira Sullivan, Tim Hagans, and the list goes on and on. When one considers how much many of these players have recorded, no, I don't feel it limits at all; I consider all of these players to be at the top of the heap and to have individualistic styles to one degree or another. In the case of Wynton (Rok, you can ignore this) I can always identify him by the sheer virtuosity and technical perfection in his playing. This all leads to Dave Burns since you asked:
I don't hear an individualistic sound. I don't hear from him anything that hasn't been said by many other bop/hard bop players. Moreover, technically I hear a sense that, technically, he is not totally secure. Listen to the end of phrases and he "flubs" or slurs the notes. He can get around the instrument well, but there is the sense that he might lose technical control of the instrument sometimes and miss a note. Miles also conveyed this sense sometimes, but this was an artistic choice. It was part of his musical "attitude"; a kind of "fuck you" attitude and arrogance that went along with his habit of turning his back to the audience. Still, a genius who could play with technical perfection (or close to it) when he felt like it.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue and interesting topic. I think that if we have more agreement than disagreement. |
Re George Russell:
****I never heard of him....****
Actually, George Russell has been mentioned at least twice on this thread. A while back I posted a clip of the TV show "The Subject Is Jazz" from the '50's and which featured a band led by Billy Taylor. The episode I posted included an interview with George Russell in which he discussed his Lydian chromatic concept. Imagine a TT show that discussed jazz theory! How the public has been dumbed down re the arts.
The other time the actual mention was not by me, but by Phil Woods. In the clip that I posted of a Phil Woods master class, he talks about the origin of the rumor that he had and played Charlie Parker's horn. Apparently, George Russell erroneously mentioned in a book that he wrote that Woods had Bird's alto. Woods used to tell a very funny story about being fed up of setting the record straight, and finally when his wife Chan (Bird's widow) sold the horn to a museum for $140,000, when asked he would respond: "I only have a couple left...would you like to buy one?" :) |
You lost me now. Or, maybe, you lost yourself with your unwillingness to be a little more openminded. Rok, at this point in the discussion we were talking about latin music or latin jazz; what you referred to as "so-called Latin stuff", and NOT traditional jazz. My references and examples of what influenced the shaping of this music are established facts. We may not like a particular music, but that doesn't mean we can try and change the facts. The irony here is that it was you that first brought up latin music with your reference to the Buena Vista SS, and referred to it as Afro Cuban Jazz; doubly ironic, because if you were to ask fans of the music for examples of Afro Cuban Jazz, BVSS would probably be at the bottom of the list. So, to paraphrase you: Which is it, is "so-called latin stuff" jazz or not?
Anyway, it seems to me that I have been here before in discussions with you, and I will take a cue from experience and bow out; this is too nice a thread for silly bickering. My comments speak for themselves.
Peace. |
****and it's so absurd. Everything with an African origin is changed to something else****
I find that comment fascinating on several counts. Yes, it's true that throughout musical history (and history in general) there are many unfortunate examples of African contribution to the art not given sufficient credit. But, don't you think that it is a kind of political correctness, to suggest that also giving credit (correctly so) to the contribution of other nationalities to an art form that is clearly a melting pot of many influences, somehow detracts from the importance of the African contribution? In fact, what has been happening in recent times is exactly the opposite, and demonstrates the danger of political correctness in the arts. The incredibly rich African contribution is now highlighted at all cost, at the expense of other contributors, and even exploited to make political statements, or for profit. The danger is not only that others are denied deserved credit, but that by it becoming politically incorrect to criticize art with African origins, we actually hurt the artistic heritage of a culture (think rap).
I am at a loss to understand how acknowledging the fact that Latin music is more than just a single, African influence somehow detracts from the importance of the African influence. Rok challenged one of my comments this way:
****"Ok, take away the Spanish, and Arab components and what is left? Drumming?"
You might want to reconsider this****
Really? Let's delve a little deeper and actually see what is left if one takes out the Spanish and Arab components. But, lets have more than just opinion; let's use concrete examples and analysis.
Your example of the movie "In Brazil" is an interesting one. Brazilian music is acknowledged to have a strong African influence. How do you propose that "credit" be given? Should every Holywood movie with a John Williams score give credit to the folk music of the native people of Hungary, since Bela Bartok had some influence on John Williams' composition style, and the music of Hungary was an influence on Bartok? Pretty convoluted, no?BTW, correct me if I am mistaken, but I think the movie that you refer to is "The Americano", set in Brazil. The reason that the music sounds so much like the music in "Cuban All Stars" is that the composer for the score in "The Americano" was Xavier Cugat, who I am sure you know was a Cuban composer. Actually, he was not Cuban, he was Spanish and spent many years in Cuba. See, as I have been saying, in this music there is more than one single important influence and they are all connected. |
****It is not spanish and the indians were wiped out eons ago. So what could it be?****
C'mon man, let's stay focused. Nobody said anything about Indians; only as concerns the influence on the Peruvian music that you brought up earlier; and there it is undeniable.
Now, Spanish you ask? You better believe it! Go a little deeper into the history of this music. Don't rely only on liner notes; they ususally only tell a small piece of the story. The traditions in this music run very deep.
For starters: where do you think the prominence of the guitar and, more specifically, the "laud" and "tres" came from? Spain; but more specifically, the Arabs by way of Spain. The Moors invaded Spain and brought with them these instruments, their tuning and way of playing them. Then there is those pesky issues of harmony and form. Show us one example of native African music that uses harmony and form in a way remotely resembling that in the type of Latin music that we are discussing; or in Jazz for that matter. Please understand, and I will say it again: the African contribution to this music is obvious and huge; but it is far from the only one. |
I appreciate the sentiment, but there are other members here who are extremely knowledgable in specific and/or general areas of music; either by way of being professional musicians (Learsfool), or having been very devoted to educating themselves on a deep level. There's usually much more to all this than meets the eye.
BTW, liner notes can be great; and many are very well written. My point is simply that they are usually a condensed version of the entire story. When I say don't rely on them, I mean don't rely on them for the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". The purpose of liner notes is to highlight the featured artist and put him/her in a certain context. They usually don't highlight the context itself. |
|
Orpheus10, as you point out West Coast Jazz is difficult to define. But, it does have some general defining characteristics. It can be differentiated from East Coast Jazz and other styles by the fact that West Coast players tended to play with a "cooler" approach; generally speaking, with a lighter and softer tone. There was an emphasis on the composition and arrangements as opposed to the improvisation; and sometimes classical music compositional techniques such as fugues were part of the mix. The fact that there was great demand for arrangers in Hollywood surely helped some of these stay employed.
I already mentioned one of my favorite recordings in this style (the Previn/ Shorty Rogers). I mentioned that one because it is lesser known, as well as being a favorite. I am sure you already now some of these, but a few other favorites are:
Miles Davis "Birth Of The Cool". The title says it all. What can be said about this recording that hasn't already be said. Other than to note that this session is really considered a Gil Evans session; which further highlights the clout that the arranger had.
Dave Brubeck "Time Out". Good example of the use of classical techniques.
Paul Demond/ Gerry Mulligan "Two Of A Mind"
Zoot Sims "Quartets"
"Shelly Manne And His Men Play Peter Gunn" Henry Mancini arranger
"Art Pepper + Eleven"
Vince Guaraldi "Charlie Brown Suite" No kidding, one of my favorites which always puts a smile in my face.
Enjoy. |
Acman3, Lee Konitz is one of the greatest of the West Coast players and an influence on Art Pepper and Paul Desmond. He is the alto player on the Birth Of The Cool sessions even though Sonny Stitt was the original choice and Evans decided that Stitt's sound was too steeped in be-bop (Charlie Parker) and they wanted a "cooler" sound. Glad you mentioned him, this record belongs on my favorites list, and is highly recommended http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LAufCG4rH6oBTW, related to the above, Orpheus10's comments re Bird's influence are well taken. His influence turned the jazz world upside down, and it was to the credit of players like Konitz that they chose a different path. |
The subject of stylistic influence in jazz is a fascinating one. As Orpheus10 points out, sometimes a player comes along that has such a profound influence that in spite of most jazz players' commitment to individuality and aversion to copy-catying, the influence is just too strong to avoid entirely. But, if we dig a little deeper we find there is more to the process than meets the eye. There are many parallels between jazz evolution and evolution in nature. What is it that causes a "Bird" to come along? Or a Coltrane? Players that cause an entire art form to shift and move in a different direction. Is it a slow process of adaption and change according to the subtle influences that a pool of many musicians, individually, have on the overall style that creates a departure from an established style (swing) and causes it to gradually evolve into a drastically different new style (bebop)? A kind of survival of the fittest. Or is it that a player suddenly comes along with something entirely new and different? A mutation of sorts. Pnmeyer mentions Sonny Stitt; one of my favorites, and a player that was so hell-bent (like Pepper) on not being type-cast as a Bird copy-cat that he started to play tenor and not just alto. His story (as told by Stitt himself), as it relates to the subject of stylistic influence, is a fascinating one. Around the time that Bird was gaining prominence, musicians that would pass through Stitt's home town would comment on how much his playing sounded like this new guy from Kansas City (Parker). Stitt had never even heard Parker play. The rest is history; but interesting food for thought, IMO. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2i4_K6E6-nQ |
Orpheus, my intention was not to shoot down "Somethin Else"; it's an excellent record. But, when something is referred to as "the best" it better standup to the very highest scrutiny.
I don't think I could pick a "best" jazz record; jazz can be too many different things in too many different styles. Besides, what criteria are we going to use to define "best record"? I am not sure how one would compare (for instance) Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" to Coltrane's "Blue Train" or to Herbie Hancock's "Headhunters". All three are great records that certainly belong in a "greatest" list. Having said all that, if someone put a gun to my head and said I HAD to pick one, I would probably say Mingus "Ah Um" for it's great playing and "time capsule" potential in that if someone with zero knowledge of jazz would be able to get more of a sense of the scope and history of jazz is than from any single record that I can think of. |
Rok, we all have different tastes; that is stating the obvious. Having said that, I couldn't disagree with you more concerning your comparison of the Peplowski and Marsalis cuts. Like I said, we all have different tastes and I am not about to try to change your mind, but will explain why I think the Peplowski cut, as a representation of that style of jazz, is infinitely superior.
You missed the whole point of my choice. First of all it was tied to featuring the clarinet along with the Buddy DeFranco cut.You are correct, there is something missing in the Peplowski cut: clutter. That is precisely the point. The way that guitar and clarinet only can generate that much drive and swing WITHOUT drums and bass and other horns is the point. Call it chamber jazz, if you will. Lastly and most importantly, in the Marsalis cut, while Vignola excels again, the other soloists are not on the same level as Peplowski. O'connor's solo is stiff, Marsalis is his usual impressive but "not quite right" brand of swing; and Blanding, while delivering the best solo (besides Vignola) is, like Marsalis, simply not idiomatic and not entirely convincing, with deviations into inappropriate and much more contemporary musical vocabulary. IMO.
Regards. |
Rok, in NYC (and I am sure, in every major city) there are different scenes within the larger jazz scene and community of musicians. You have the be-boppers, the fusion guys, the "out" guys and, believe it or not, a vibrant retro swing scene; with guys like Peplowski and Vignola who specialize in the traditional swing repertoire. Of course, some of the players "cross-over" with various levels of success. FYI, Vignola is considered THE swing guitarist on the scene right now. He has his niche (as does Peplowski) and is most certainly a jazz player who is hugely respected by his peers.
I think one of the tricky issues with these discussions is that we tend to judge a player's ability, at least in part, by the player's visibility to the general music-loving public. Of course, a genre (swing) that is not the most popular at any given time reduces greatly that visibility of these players. That unfortunate reality does not, in any way, diminish their clout as players. Many of these guys are extremely dedicated to a particular style of jazz, no matter how unpopular or superseded by other styles it may be; and their command and understanding of the style and it's musical vocabulary is far superior than it often is to higher-profile players who may be considered "hipper" by the general public. Of special note is the fact that it is these "hip (per?)" musicians themselves who most respect and sometimes revere the niche players. |
Goofyfoot, why do I feel we need to argue, when there is no argument at all? You are reading into my comments things that I am not suggesting at all. Where do I say anything suggesting that the "hipper" players are not deserving of their popularity? I don't disagree with anything you wrote (I LOVE Wayne Krantz, BTW) with the possible exception of your comments re funding for the arts. That's a discussion about the politics of all this, and I think it wise to stay away from that one; or, at least, save it for another thread.
Vignola and Krantz are completely different players, and I suspect they would be the first to say it. When I say "hipper", I mean "in a more contemporary style", and not in a style that is a kind of throw-back to a what can fairly be considered a bygone era (swing). In the case of my comment, "hip" is a nod to popular vernacular. The truth is that in musicians' vernacular hipness can be found in ALL styles, retro or not. It is a statement about a player's mastery of an idiom, and ability to be inventive within that idiom; wether that idiom was popular 70 years ago, or on the cutting edge of the present.
****The niche players will often maintain a higher level of artistic integrity but they're also more susceptible to burdening financial woes.****
Often, but not always. Yes, susceptible to financial woes. But, many outside the music industry would be surprised at the level of financial success that players like Vignola enjoy. It is all relative. Is it the kind of success that the Kenny G's of the world enjoy? Of course not; not even close. I prefer to consider the Kenny G's of the music scene to be anomalies. These kinds of anomalies have always existed in the arts, and are pretty irrelevant as far as what defines the true merits of any art form; they are to be simply ignored. |
We can't have it both ways.
I think that a thread such as this is a breath of fresh air on this forum (Agon). What could be better than an opportunity to discover and share new music? Personal opinion and commentary are an inevitable part of the process; after all, we are supposed to be sharing favorites and "must haves". But, I think the trick to keeping the discussion relevant is to keep an open mind re others' opinions while at the same time being careful about our own proclamations of the superiority of this artist or that. If we make a claim about artist X being the best, or performance Y being superior to Z, we should be able to back it up with some thoughtful and insightful analysis. If we want to keep the discussion to "this is my favorite" and leave it at that, that's fine; but, personally I find it very limiting. Likewise, comments about the music in general can come across as proclamations of truth without substance (analysis) to back them up.
As Jazzcourier points out historical and biographical perspective (combined with relevant, and ACCESSIBLE musical analysis) is hugely important. The mistake that the listener often makes is an ironic one. The listener develops a passion for a certain music and favorite artists, and music being the incredible force that it is causes the listener to be very protective of favorite artists or personal "new discoveries" without keeping this "view" in a more humble place. There is always a huge amount more to learn about this amazing art form. IMO, the best place to approach the process of learning from is from a place of "judicious self-assurance"; while remembering that there will always be someone who has a deeper understanding than ourselves. That is what the great artists themselves do: quick to dismiss the bull-shitters, but reluctant to put themselves on a pedestal because of the knowledge that if they are not open to getting their butts kicked, they will not reach their full potential.
****The curse and gift of Jazz is that it can be the greatest thing and it can be the most mundane thing,both survive, and can only be limited by the intelligence of the listener**** - Jazzcourier
IMO, one of the best comments that I have read on this forum. |
I am mixed about the subject of the "unsung hero". I agree that there have been, and are, many examples of musicians deserving of greater recognition than they got (get); but, personally, I would be careful about attributing too much of the reason for this to forces outside of the musician himself. Musicians can be (and often are) complicated and difficult individuals who sometimes make choices that are not conducive to "success"; some don't even want it. In general, the best players get the attention. This conversation between jazz greats Billy Taylor and Frank Wess addresses some of this: http://www.prx.org/pieces/20223-billy-taylor-unsung-jazz-players-1-of-2This subject, with the focus on Miles Davis, is particularly interesting because it (inadvertently?) touches upon, and causes one to question, one of the running themes in this thread: the idea held by some of us that the best jazz has already been played, or that a particular period in jazz has the most merit. The two records cited (Porgy and Bess and Sketches of Spain) could not be better subjects for this particular discussion. These two records, and especially the earlier "Birth Of The Cool" sessions (which were the first collaborations between Davis and Gil Evans) are records for which Miles Davis got top billing when it could easily be argued that Gil Evans was the primary force behind these projects. Yet, these are always considered Miles Davis sessions. When was the last time anyone of us heard any of those records referred to as "the Gil Evans record ....."? Davis was the higher profile individual (to the public) as the rising star of the jazz trumpet world. But, the real interesting point (and irony) in all this, and how it relates to our reverence for Miles and certain specific periods in jazz is seen when we look at what it was that made Miles the success that he was. The collaboration between Miles and Evans was a direct result of their dissatisfaction with, and a concerted effort to move away from, what they perceived to be the dominance, and limitations of be-bop. As we all know, miles was one of the creators of be-bop. That kind of constantly forward-looking attitude, with an openness to change, is what made Miles great. Is it not ironic that we revere an artist who achieved great success, in great part, by always moving away from his artistic past; yet, some of us resist a similar open-mindedness? |
Rok, I am impressed. I love Little Jimmy Scott! I will never forget the first time I heard him. A friend came over a few yeards ago and, as we often do, try to stump each other by doing blind-tests to identify players and singers. He played this cut: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SRYJbaxwJ20I wasn't sure, but I guessed Nancy Wilson. Well, it turns out that Jimmy Scott was, by her own admission, Nancy Wilson's biggest influence. He is a beautiful interpreter with wonderful phrasing. The influence on Nancy Wilson is remarkable. Not just in the phrasing, but also the tone and pitch of her voice. Some singers (and players) approach sustained notes either from above the pitch center or from below. Notice how they both approach it from below which gives certain sung notes an ever so slightly flat intonation until they are brought up to the pitch center; gives the singing a subtle tension-and-release quality that is very expressive. Here is Nancy Wilson, possibly my favorite female vocalist (next to Victoria De Los Angeles, but that's a different genre) from one of my very favorite records: http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=0EeWOA1EngkI had the good fortune of hearing Jimmy Scott live about fifteen years ago. Very interesting performer with a very warm demeanor and curiously androgynous appearance. Good call! |
|
Rok, thanks for the Andrew Davis link. No, I had not seen this, and he does a great job of dissecting (in a good sense) Berg's "Lulu". It is always interesting to hear how a composer may have first conceived the music on the piano before orchestrating it as it is more commonly known; while it may lack the complexity of the orchestral colors, there is a wonderful directness about it. Great call with Dorothy Donegan. What a pianist! Speaking of directness in music, lack of pretense, personality, whatever one wants to call it, she had it. There was something really infectious in her playing; a good dose of show(wo)manship, but also a sense of sincerity. Check out how she ends the tune at 2:16. Gotta love it! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-JlF3cC538&feature=plpp |
It is definitely NOT your imagination. Mariachi trumpet players have some very distinctive characteristics s in their playing; in fact, there is a "Mariachi school" of trumpet playing. This style is studied by those players just as the classical and jazz styles are; although, in fairness, there is arguably less complexity (if not subtlety) in that style.
The most distinctive aspect of this style is the use of very fast, but very wide, vibrato; much wider than than used by most jazz or classical players. There is also a very unique and "punchy" way of articulating notes. Articulation is the way that the note is started, usually by the use of the tongue. Mariachi trumpet usually "hits" the note with the tongue in a more aggressive way than in jazz; and certainly more than in classical, where a greater level of finesse in articulation is appropriate. Notice that I said "appropriate"; this lesser level of finesse is not necessarily a deficiency on the part of the players' technique, and is used to fit the style. Interestingly, studies have been done (and this has relevance to audio) that show that recorded players' tones (any instrument) are very difficult to distinguish from each other if you remove the initial attack of the note (articulation/"leading edge" in audio).
More subtle points are preference for a brighter/brassier tone than in other styles, and a tendency to play on the high side of the pitch. Just as with rhythm where some players play on the front or back side of the beat, some players play a little on the sharp side of perfect intonation as opposed to on the low side of the pitch (many jazz players). In jazz, playing on the low side of the pitch can highlight a "bluesy" sound. In Mariachi, playing on the high side of pitch gives the sound extra brilliance. These can be subtle deviations from perfect intonation and not necessarily identified as being out of tune.
Viva Zapata! |
Excellent comments re Harold Land; with which I completely agree. He was a great tenor player and while not as widely known by the public as some of the tenor stars, no question about how his peers felt about him. I heard him play live in 1982 in a small club in a small town in the mid-West (I was on tour and there were so many small towns that I don't remember which one it was). What I do remember (and this goes to Rok's question re how jazz musicians make money) is thinking and wondering what a great player like that was doing playing in such a small club, practically in the middle of nowhere. How much could that club be possibly paying him?
The comparison to Sonny is an interesting one, and one that is a study on just what it is, exactly, that makes a great player. As with most things, it's all about context. There is no question, IMO, that Sonny is the more important player in the overall scheme of the history of the music. He was (is) a true innovator with a distinctive sound and approach, and an incredibly powerful musical personality. When one listens to his recordings there is no doubt that he is the overwhelming driving force. It is almost as if the rhythm section plays around HIS time feel; not the other way around, as is usually the case. That was one of the reasons that his piano-less performances were so successful. Harold Land was a more subtle player with a certain elegance in his improvisations who did not demand that he be the "center of attention"; this made him a much better ensemble player and a better complement to Clifford's playing. |
As has been demonstrated many times over in this thread, the beauty of music (any music) is that it touches individuals in unique ways. Objectivity can only take one so far in determining (if one must) who is better, best, etc. as there is an inextricable link between what the artist is saying (or trying to say), how he is saying it, and the sensibilities of the particular listener. There are, in fact, certain universally accepted "cues" that the cognoscenti (aficionados) use to establish certain and usually broad benchmarks, but they are of usually limited use in discussions given the emotional nature of both the music and the discussions. Having said that, and re the "Layla" cut, I definitely "get it", I just think that it is average blues trumpet playing at best. I think that the cut, as a whole, is really good and with a good vibe. But, where as this should have been an opportunity for "the jazz cat" to cut Clapton's, while good, typically derivative blues playing to shreds, it is only on a par with. This I really get: http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=relmfu&v=HJLsvlYE9t8Talk about "telling a story". Or, really playing in the pocket. Listen to the subtle inflections that propel the groove even at (especially?) such a slow tempo. True artistry; IMO. I hope this is downloadable (it is not on my IPad). This is one of my very favorite Wynton solos on record from one of my very favorite records of all time. Wynton was really on that day: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ur-lNeq4pQM |
Orpheus10, good description of Shirley Horne's artistry. She is a beautiful singer; and plays great piano, too. That recording (Here's To Life) featuring the songs and orchestrations of Johnny Mandel is a true gem; beginning to end. Rok, I am well aware of the context of "Layla". Of course, it was not a blowing session. But, in any context, when a truly exceptional improviser plays, the depth of the playing can "shred to pieces" lesser players. It doesn't have to be flashy, nor with a lot of notes. Nor does the intent have to be to surpass anyone else; the playing simply excels. Your point about Wynton playing for the moment is well taken. But, I would not give him too much credit for that; that is basic musicianship and there are many layers of excellence that go beyond that basic musical demand that separate the greats from the not so great. ****He plays to give enjoyment and pleasure to the listener. I have him playing and singing (scatting) on a CD by Jon Hendricks. Doing the same on a CD with Willie Nelson! And of course the Clapton CD. Name another Jazz player that could that**** Are you kidding? That is what jazz players do (not all scat well, of course). They are able to fit into a variety of situations: Zoot Sims played on Phoebe Snow's debut album. Phil Woods played on Billy Joel's "I Love You Just The Way You Are". Wayne Shorter played on Steely Dan records, the list goes on and on. BTW, you want to hear great scatting from a trumpet player? Check out Clark Terry; amazing! I am not a Wynton basher in the least. My point (which perhaps I have tried to make a little too gingerly, in order to not offend some;-) ) is that Wynton is a fine player, but sometimes inconsistent; and, at the end of the day, not on the level of many of the greats as far as depth of playing. That is simply why, with so many great classic recordings still missing from my collection, Wynton's are just not near the top of my list. Additionally, I doubt that fifty years from today, jazz students will be transcribing Wynton's solos. As far as he deserving the adulation that he receives from some AS A PLAYER, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Amazing performances by Clark Terry: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3AvImcsbt1Uhttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ldnGJn3wz2s |
Learsfool, great comments. I couldn't agree more with your comments re live performances vs. studio "performances"; that is precisely the reason that at least half of the links that I have posted here are live perfs. A while ago I made a comment in a thread (don't remember which) about the fact that some musicians (mostly older guys) feel that the advent of recording technology was "the beginning of the end". I was berated by some for that comment, which while overly pessimistic has truth in it; as you point out. Now, the beautiful thing about many of the classic recordings that we are talking about (classic Blue Notes, Prestige, etc.) is that digital editing was not part of the process back then, and in spite of some manipulation (balance, multiple takes etc.) they give us a much better representation of what the players could do than most of the recordings today. As you point out, many would be shocked at how, in some cases today, a solo is "composed" in the mixing room by taking the first four bars of the first take, the middle twelve from the third take, the bridge from the fourth take, and then back to the first take for the last sixteen; not to mention "fixing" fracks and squeaks. Even a singer's faulty pitch can be fixed in the booth with today's technology. Of course, the artists with the most integrity refuse to do much of this sort of thing, if at all. |
Beautiful Ike Quebec cut; thanks for sharing. I love that approach to tenor sound; big, meaty, and breathy. It's always refreshing to hear that sound in contrast to the Coltrane-influenced approach that is so prevalent now. It is a physically different approach to producing tone on the instrument which starts with the use of "subtone" to begin the note; instead of the tongue giving a note it's start, a breath attack is used. Additionally, the physical muscular "mechanics" used keeps the sound's core closer to the front of the mouth instead of further back in the throat. That further back in the throat approach is what gives the more modern approach (Coltrane) that "screaming" quality; not always an attractive sound.
Ike Quebec is one of those players that could really tell a story with a solo. On this cut there is a beautiful sense of knowing exactly where he is going. Each phrase is a follow-up to the previous phrase in a way similar to the way that a great speaker is able to recite a well written novel. He strikes a nice balance between restraint and exuberance, whereas many of the similar sounding tenor players of the (loosely speaking) Texas tenor school can sound overwhelming at times in their exuberance.
Great stuff! |
Classic case of "different strokes for different folks". To me, there is no comparison between the Johnny Smith and the Houston Person versions of Moonlight In Vermont. The Smith is perfect in it's restraint and simplicity and in the soloists's ability to play the "changes" while NEVER letting the listener forget the melody of the tune, thus creating a mood which is perfect for the tune....moonlight in Vermont. Very tasty playing.
The Person version, for me, has TOO MUCH and gratuitous "dynamic range and tension" (good terms, Rok). Person doesn't even make all the changes (one loses the tune) and does a lot of meandering with way too many fast note flourishes that not only are not necessary, but are inappropriate for a tune like this IMO; especially when they are played with blues inflections and note choices. Huh?! Are we outside enjoying the moonlight, or are we in a Baptist church?
While Johnny Smith surprises with an occasional and rare flourish of notes, Person creates a feeling of "enough already". |
Roland Kirk is not an imposter, he is the real deal. He is one of those players who can play "free" or "outside" because he can also play inside and within the tradition. There have been many imposters whose playing consists of squeals, honks, and "energy" only, and who have managed to gain notoriety because of fickle critics and some gullible listeners, eventhough what they are doing is nothing more than bullshit.
I think that Kirk is brilliant on this cut. Notice how he never strays from the tradition for too long; no matter how far he goes in the direction of cathartic honks and multiphonics, he always returns to home base with a swinging blues-infused phrase. He always reminds the listener that he knows what he is doing.
A player's intonation can serve a certain purpose. While the great players don't necessarily make a conscious decision to play a little flat or sharp, they may hear what they want to say a certain way because of the mood it can create. Notice how Kirk plays consistently a little on the flat side of the pitch. This highlights the bluesy attitude of his solo, and adds to the rawness and looseness of his playing in general. In case anyone wondered, the percussive sounds at 4:50 are "slap tonguing"; a way of hitting the reed with the tongue while stopping the air stream in short burts.
His playing fits the mood of the piece perfectly; they are calling hogs, after all. |
****If nothing can be perfect, then it's just FLAWLESS!**** - Rok2id re "Blues And The Abstract Truth".
Well, I suppose that the fact that it was in the No.1 slot in my first response to this thread says all that I need to say about how I feel about this record. I have long felt that this record, not Kind Of Blue (in spite of all it's excellence), should be the audiophile-go-to jazz recording. Before I get skewered, let me say that KOB is clearly the "more important" recording with the presence of Coltrane and all that he precursed, as well as the "Modal Jazz, here I am" vibe that the record is so rightly admired for. BATAT features some incredible playing and arranging. I can't imagine a more perfect hard-bop solo than Freddie's solo on the title cut. For comments re Oliver Nelson's improvising style see my comments a few posts back (if anyone cares :-). Dolphy's presence on the record is like a splash of cold water on the face after a great workout; talk about unique. Evans? What can possibly be said that hasn't already be said about his beautiful lyricism. A great record; and, oh yeah, great sound too.
****Why isn't Freddie Hubbard mentioned more often, when people talk of the Jazz Trumpet ****
Well, we tried; didn't we? Trumpet players talk about Freddie all the time. Jazz fans? Well, I suppose his stint with CTI records caused him to lose some credibility among the elite at a time when jazz, clearly waning (in a way) was starting to move in a direction that punished (intellectually) anyone who sought commercial success. Success; can't have that! Also, a serious lip injury caused his playing to be sub-par during his last active years. |
Not intended to imply judgment of the value of one discipline over the other, but simply to underscore my comments above. Two absolutely true stories that I have first hand knowledge about:
During his tenure as conductor with the NY Phil, Zubin Mehta, while on a flight back to NYC, met the great Gerry Mulligan and invited him to take part in an upcoming performance of Ravel's "Bolero". The piece, as some may know, features instrumental solos for, among others, soprano (actually sopranino, but that's a different subject) and tenor saxophones. Soprano, being Mulligan's second instrument of choice, was to be played by Mulligan. I can't emphasize enough how often I have heard excellent jazz players downplay the difficulty of that seemingly easy solo. After all, it's not technical, easy key, etc.; but, it requires good intonation, control, and rhythmic accuracy (with it's displaced rhythmic emphasis) while all the time allowing for individuality of expression. To say that Mulligan's performance during rehearsal was a disaster would be an understatement. But, this was the great Gerry Mulligan, and surely he will come through in the end. At the performance, the first phrase of the solo was fine, then he got off by a beat and played the entire last two thirds of the solo off by a beat. At the end of the performance, during the obligatory bows, Mulligan turns to the soprano sax player and says: "We played the shit out of it, didn't we? Clueless!
During the 1980's, Sting was the star of a Broadway production of Kurt Weill's "Three Penny Opera". Branford Marsalis was saxophonist for Sting's touring band. Can you see it coming? :-)
Players on Broadway are allowed to "sub-out" a certain number of performances during the run. Well, Branford thought it would be cool to sub on the show, and being Sting's horn player, well..... Instead of doing what a player needs to do to be successful subbing on a show, he went in without sitting through the show (without playing) nor studying "the book"; he went in cold, thinking: how hard can this possibly be? By intermission, the conductor wanted him to go home. |
I think that it is importantly to stay on focus in these discussions. I said nothing about "formal" training being a prerequisite for anything. To understand what "form" is in a tune, and to be able to explain the rudiments of improvisation is something that, even if one doesn't "study" it, is one thing that becomes part of any competent musician's (any genre) sphere of knowledge simply through assimilation, and what the process of (for instance) memorizing a tune demands of a musician. I think that you are mistaken about this. I have met many non-musician music "geeks" without any "formal" music education who have a very deep understanding of all this and much more. All I am saying is that it is a very worthwhile pursuit, and that (going back to the issue of the romanticizing of the process) there is no need to fear the learning; it will do nothing but heighten the enjoyment of the music.
****but I am surprised you would use that, because a lot of the Jazz that you have presented on this forum,as being your favorites, has no blues element at all****
Are you kidding me? What was the very first recording I recommended in my first post to this thread? "Blues And The Abstract Truth"; and many others have their roots in the blues. Focus, man, focus :-)
****But in the end, it is the non-musical, the non-artistic, who are the final arbitrators. They decide who is great and not so great. They decide who is saying something and who is not. Lack of knowledge of the blues notwithstanding.****
Really? Two words; well actually one word and one letter:
Kenny G
OK, that was trite; sorry. Look at it this way: if it weren't for the scene itself (the players) promoting certain players who they like to play with, and who the established cats feel will be important voices, the corporate dudes would not know who they are. Obviously, at some point the politics of it all starts to take on more and more importance, but usually by then the foundation has been laid out by the scene itself; not the other way around. With some exceptions as to merit; of course. Again, two words...... |
One of the most unique sounds in jazz, Toot's Thielemans' playing is incredible on this recording. One of leader Bill Evans' least talked about records, but definitely one to have. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iOrFAxdiCnw |
****I.E. the song HAS TO BE about vermont only when you sing the words. Otherwise it's just a very nice tune in the category of Autumn Leaves etc..... that Jazz guys like to improvise over.**** Perhaps. But, many great improvisers will tell you that knowing the lyrics to a song, and having the lyrics on their mind when they improvise, is one of the keys to a great solo. Which is why so many players revere singers like Frank Sinatra who were masters at singing lyrics in a very straightforward and unaffected way; the idea being: a great song doesn't need much help. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_CiizL8Vfu8I think that we sometimes like to think that playing jazz, being a vehicle for free expression, is free of any constraints. While it is obviously true that improvisation offers the player a lot more creative freedom than, say, a classical performance (duh!), there are still fairly strict guidelines inasmuch as what is appropriate use of a particular musical vocabulary. "Appropriate" is obviously a tricky and subjective criterion, but to paraphrase someone: "I am not sure what tasty playing is, but I know it when I hear it (or don't)" |
"Somethin Else" has never been a favorite record. Being a Cannonball junkie, I have owned this record for many years and have always had mixed feelings about it; it should be great, but comes up short of me.
I agree with Rok's overall take. Clearly, this is excellent jazz playing. How could it not be? But still......
For me, there are some problems with this date that keep it out of the "great" category. The biggest one is the rhythm section. I agree with Rok on this point, but disagree that the main culprit is Hank Jones. I think the main problem is Sam Jones; I can't believe how monotonous his playing is on most of the cuts. His walking lines usually stay within a narrow range, and his intonation is questionable. A close second is Art Blakey, IMO. I confess that, eventhough I have been a fan of his bands, I have never been a huge fan of Art Blakey's playing. I find it is not rhythmically incisive enough at times, and a little sloppy. I think that the rhythm section limits the soloists and the recording, overall, lacks the fire that Cannonball is known for. Listen to "One For Daddy-O", the rhythm section actually starts to slow down a little bit about 3/4 of the way through the tune. Notice how when they return to the melody, it doesn't have as much pep as in the very beginning of the tune. In general, there is a sense that the rhythm section is not reacting to the soloists as they improvise and are not contributing to changing the landscape.
Rok brought up the issue of the producer. A couple of thoughts:
First of all the, influence of Miles should not be underestimated. It could be argued that this is a Miles date; he picked almost all the tunes on the record. BTW, the voice heard saying "is that what you want Alfred?" is that of Miles, not Cannonball. Two observations: it was Miles asking the question, not Cannonball, the supposed leader of the date. This supports my point about Miles' influence. Then, why is Miles asking that at all? Because the producer does, in fact, have a lot of power over the goings on. It would not be surprising if the issue was that the producer wanted the tune a little faster or slower, different groove etc., and they finally got it on that particular take.
Still, a lot of great moments |
I love "Bean". He was the first great jazz saxophone player. And what a sound! He could sound huge and robust, and sensual and velvety all at the same time. Eventhough his style could sound a little "dated" depending on the context, he was one of the few players of that era that could more than hold his own with the younger more "progressive" players that he recorded with over his fifty year career.
"Sandra's Blues" is classic blues-ballad playing and showcases his wonderful tone and swagger. "Close Your Eyes" is the winner of the two. The rhythm section really clicks on this cut with a beautifully light touch that still cooks like crazy. Notice Eddie Jones' lithe playing. He really moves the tune forward with lines that cover a wide range on the instrument, as opposed to the monotonous lines within a narrow range (with "thuddy" tone) that Sam Jones plays on "Somethin Else". Connie Kay sounds amazing and there is a much greater sense of interaction within the rhythm section. Great stuff!
The importance of Coleman Hawkins cannot be overstated. His solo on his classic recording of "Body And Soul" is one of those solos (Coltrane's solo on "Giant Steps" is another) that young jazz saxophone players study. It literally changed the landscape of the music. The traditionalists criticized that solo (and Bean's improvising, in general) as having a lot of "wrong notes". He was one of the first players that reached beyond the very "inside" colors of the harmonies. The truth is that most players at the time simply could not navigate the harmonic complexity of a tune like "Body And Soul" and would not make all the changes; instead, they "generalized" the harmonic changes as opposed to clearly outlining each and every harmony as Hawkins did. Houston Person on "Moonlight In Vermont" is an example of this "generalization" and not making all the changes. One thing is being able to play over a blues with a nice comfortable, predictable, and sparse harmonic progression; another is being able to navigate a tune with up to four harmonic changes per measure (one per beat) and still make musical sense. Hawkins was one of the first that could do that. |
|
Orpheus10, thanks for the Chico Freeman link; I enjoyed it. I am generally not a big fan of Chico Freeman's saxophone playing, but do enjoy and admire his overall conceptual mindset. He has been part of some really interesting projects, and this is certainly one of them. Reaching back to the roots! What a great sound the balaphone is with it's very unusual tuning. You might enjoy this, and very close to the source: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IW6OCamt-p4 |
****I felt the trumpet was 'commenting' on the lyrics of the song, or, talking to a seperate audience as DR John was telling his story.****
That's a great way of putting. "Call and response": We're saying the same thing.
From Wiki:
++++In music, a call and response is a succession of two distinct phrases usually played by different musicians, where the second phrase is heard as a direct commentary on or response to the first. It corresponds to the call-and-response pattern in human communication and is found as a basic element of musical form, such as verse-chorus form, in many traditions.++++
Wow is right! |
Orpheus10, that recording of "On Green Dolphin Street" is classic; jazz just doesn't get better than this. Agree about Evan's intro. He was one of those pianists that had such a distinctive tone on the piano; an instrument that one thinks has a "built in" tone. There was a sense of melancholy and introspection in most of what he played. Technically speaking, that lush, even subdued quality in his sound was due partly to his preference for not highlighting any one note in a chord; each note of a chord was perfectly balanced with the others. Many players stress or play louder either the top note or some other note of the chord voicing; this produces a different color/feeling. For me, the highlight of the recording is Trane. When he makes his entrance it is as if the sun suddenly comes up; it's a beautiful moment. It has been mentioned many times that one of the things that made Miles brilliant was his ability to assemble players that, while possessing clearly distinctive styles, created ensembles with a rare ability to compliment each other in spite of their differences of style. Great stuff. |
I disagree with the opinion that Miles was trying to "cash in" on the trend to go electric; or, that he was envious of their success of artists such as Sly or Hendrix. First of all, by the time that he released "Bitches Brew" he was a wealthy man and he also knew that his place in music history was well established. He admired and respected Sly and Hendrix and saw "going electric" as a new and different outlet for his creativity and not simply a commercial opportunity. I think that, in spite of his star status, the depth of Miles's genius is still underestimated. IMO, as music lovers, we would do well to always give an artist of the stature of Miles (there aren't that many) the benefit of the doubt; it can only serve to help us grow as music lovers and we should judge with a sense of humility. IOW, when the artist moves in a direction that may not be to our liking, we should ask ourselves "what am I not hearing?", instead of being quick to dismiss it as a move in the interest of financial success without real artistic merit. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dc7qiosq4m4 |
One of my favorite Quincy Jones recordings is in a genre that is controversial in the minds of jazz lovers. I refer to the pop-leaning, urban-hip, very "produced" studio "jazz"" recordings that many jazz artists like QJ, George Benson and others have released. Purists tend to put down those recordings as "smooth-jazz" drivel or as "cashing in". I think there is good reason for this attitude; more times than not I am left with the feeling: "OK, the playing is very slick, it's all very tight and the tune is catchy; but, so what?". What QJ does better than just about anyone is to bring a jazz player's sensibility to the multi-track studio where the "performance" is a layering of individual performances, something which would normally give the music an insipid but ultra-slick feeling; as opposed to the organic feeling of music performed by an ensemble playing together in the same room, at the same time. He can take the art of manipulation to new heights. He has such a knack for choosing the right players and soloists for a particular tune, choosing just the right tempo, and other production details that he can elevate the genre to level that is uncommon. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X8t93djjoOEI find this recording to be absolutely brilliant; within the confines of the genre. The playing is immaculate. If you want great studio flute playing, there is no one better than Hubert Laws. What more can be said about Herbie Hancock? He wrote the tune and plays on the track. The solo he played is brilliant, and is, after the very pretty melody, what the track is all about. The rhythm section playing is amazing. Check out the hi-hat work by Steve Gadd. It's just amazing, and turns the almost disco (horrors!) beat into something much more. QJ's stroke of production genius is in transcribing Herbie Hancock's solo and doubling it with an overdubbed violin section composed of multi-tracks by the same violinist. Also check out his use of hand claps as essentially the only thing that changes and adds variety in an, otherwise, monotonous rhythm track. Usually, that kind of intense manipulation is a recipe for musical disaster. In the hands of QJ, it becomes his canvas, and he "composes" his vision of the tune. No hamburger will ever be as good as a great T-bone; but, a burger can be pretty great when all the ingredients are just so. |
I honor of this thread's 1000 post mark, I am going to re-post this link to what I think is a performance that exemplifies all that jazz is. First of all, it is an example of big-band jazz; something that has gotten short shrift in this thread. More importantly, as the title suggests, its about groove; groove is everything in jazz. You have groove, and then you have GROOVE. The groove that this rhythm section sets up is unbelievable; for me, that is what sets a performance apart. Roland Hanna was a genius. The ensemble playing is absolutely superb. To play with that much swagger and still be incredibly tight is very very difficult to do. Listen to the brass hits on the upbeats at around 3:50; gives me chills. The reed section lineup is amazing: Joe Henderson, Jerry Dodgion, Jerome Richardson, Eddie Daniels, and Pepper Adams anchoring things with his big, beautiful husky sound; enough said. But, there is something about this performance that brings up a subject that hasn't been discussed here very much, and is a subtle and key element in great jazz. I am talking about the depth of the love for the music, and the mutual respect and appreciation that great jazz players have for each other. That backdrop is a key element in a truly great, and not simply good, performance. Check out the "bantering" between Thad Jones (the leader and arranger) and Richard Davis; the FUN they are having. Then there is Snooky Young's expression at 2:35 while he listens to Hanna play his a## off; priceless. No one bit with comments the first time around; so, here's another chance: http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=4ZLvqXFddu0 |
I am with Orpheus re "Bird With Strings". I love the record. It was possibly the first recording of a major jazz star with a string section. At one point, Bird considered it his favorite recording. Kinda hard to argue with that, when it comes to judging its worth. The recording shows Bird playing with a warmer, less aggressive tone in deference to the musical setting. As Rok points out Mitch Miller appears on the record, and I have an interesting (for me) story about that. Back in the mid 90's I played a classical/pops concert with Mitch Miller conducting the orchestra, and of course used the opportunity to ask him about the Bird WS recording. He had many stories to tell, and of special note was the fact that the addition of the oboe to the arrangements was a last minute decision made right in the recording studio and the oboe parts were entirely improvised by him; pretty impressive for a "legit" dude. Rok, re Horace Silver and the "Eastern tinge". No, you are not hearing things; you are exactly right. Here is an interesting article that speaks to the general subject: http://sessionville.com/articles/the-influence-of-indian-music-on-jazz |
