I love and appreciate the enthusiasm; but, "thoroughly reviewed"? From my vantage point, there have been but a small handful that have been even close to "thoroughly" reviewed or discussed. What about (to name just a few that have only gotten a couple of mentions)?:
Lester Young
Coleman Hawkins
Sonny Rollins
Bill Evans
Ornette Coleman
Benny Goodman
Gil Evans
JJ Johnson
Artie Shaw
Sarah Vaughn
Lee Konitz
Lenny Tristano
Chick Corea
.....and many others. |
I have no objection to establishing some guidelines; but I also have no objection to NOT focusing exclusively on an artist and reviewing he/she thoroughly. I guess my concern is simply the notion of thinking that any one artist has been or would be reviewed "thoroughly" when there are still many recordings by that artist that haven't been looked at. I think |
......(I think) that this undermines the credibility of the discussion when that happens. |
I don't know how old Schubert is; but, I know that he is (was?) one of the most musically astute posters on this site. I believe that what happened (based on his own posts that I happened to read) is that he had a very unfortunate experience with a sale and, it seemed to me, caused him to get discouraged and stop posting. I hope he is well.
A pause doesn't necessarily mean a "loss". Been traveling a lot and haven't had the time or inclination to post. As I said recently, from my point of view, not only are pauses in posting to be expected, but it might be good to take the sense of urgency out of the equation. Jus sayin.
Jamal is the rare player who seems to have found the stylistic sweet spot that appeals to just about every type of listener sensibility. There is an infectious "feel good" quality about his playing that is wonderful. His style is accessible, tuneful and very economical with great use of space (silence). He doesn't crowd a listener's senses with a lot of notes and there is a wonderful simple logic in his style. Love his playing. |
Nice Monk, Keegiam. I actually enjoyed the commentary. Always interesting to hear what colleagues have to say. |
****"Nothing Personal" Frogman****
Gentle suggestion, O-10; practice what you preach.
|
|
|
|
It is, indeed, a Rhodes. In fact, one of the tunes on the record is titled "New Rhodes". Liked the Pascua clip; a lot. O-10 is correct, 70’s Miles. Not quite the level of grit and excitement heard on "Bitches Brew", but the overall vibe is very similar with very harmonically extended soloing over rock influenced rhythms. Ambrose Akinmusire sounds fantastic; a very young exciting player with a very interesting harmonic sense in his improvising and an obvious extension of the style that Miles created. The tune starts with an interesting melody and sounds just a little "smooth jazz" for my taste. It is in the solo sections that things really take off and approach the feeling of 70’s Miles. The amazing thing about "Bitches Brew" is that the "tunes" were created on the spot or from very sparse outlines. There was musical magic in those sessions and one more indication of the genius of Miles. Listen to the Pascua clip again and then listen to this; especially the solo sections: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL94gOvpr5yt0fSZzCnnYWwUFF3evnG4x4¶ms=OAFIAVgD&v=ibanLl...Also liked the Alan Parks record; a lot. Interesting player and compositional concept. About the only thing I don't like about the record is how they recorded the drums. The balance between the drums and piano seems skewed toward the drums because the piano was recorded to sound a little distant and covered in comparison to the the very up close sound of the drums. Very "ECM" vibe overall; in the best sense. Nice clips; thanks for sharing. |
FYI, I am posting, as I always have, from my iPad. It seems to me that, in this day and age, there should be enough compatibility built into computers and other devices to not have issues with Apple/YouTube. Having said that, if anyone knows of something I can do at my end if, in fact, my iPad is generating some issue, let me know.
|
I wrote my previous comments re Aaron Parks (not "Alan"; sorry) after listening to just two cuts. Listened to the rest of the record last night. I find Parks' music interesting and, as Ghosthouse says, there is plenty of drama of a particular kind; subtle, quiet simmering and a little brooding. I do find a similarity to Metheny's music, but without the unabashed "up" and "sun is rising" vibe of Metheny. Don't know anything about Parks' background, but he clearly studied Classical piano and I would bet he is a fan of the Minimalist composers. The kind of jazz that, while an extension of, does not scream "I come out of the blues". One of the stars of the show is Eric Harland on drums. I like the role of the drums in this music; more than time keeper with a "duo" role with the piano. I stil feel that there is a balance issue due to how the drums were recorded; up close vs the piano's slightly distant sound. Thanks.
|
The Sonny Clark clip is, without a doubt, one of the best things ever posted here. Classic hard bop by some of the best that ever played the music. GREAT feel and a lot of attention paid to really nuanced ensemble playing; not always heard to that degree on "all-star" sessions. Trane sounds absolutely incredible. His tone is, for me, at that point when it was clear that he had made a clear departure from the more traditional tenor sound and was headed to a pretty far-out place; but, was still not totally committed to the screaming, take no prisoners tonal expression that would soon come. Great clip.
However, I don’t really understand a comparison to something like the Aaron Parks’ brand of jazz. For me, it’s apples and oranges. Re drama: like all couples, my dear wife and argue sometimes (😉). In the heat of the moment, she says I raise my voice. Me? Imagine that! She, gets quiet. (From my previous post:) "quiet simmering, brooding". Drives her crazy when I point out that is her way of "raising her voice". Drama in both. Thanks for the clip, O-10.
|
O-10, I find nothing wrong with your use of the word "drama" to describe what you hear in music. However, perhaps a better way to describe "drama" might be the comparison between two examples of similar music; but, one example is performed with "drama" and the other without (or less). If we can agree that the Parks and the Clark examples are "apples and oranges" this seems like a better approach. I understand and appreciate why you don’t like Coltrane’s last chapter in his creative development. Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable judging the direction that a giant like Coltrane felt it was where he needed to go. I prefer to think that I just don’t understand that direction.....yet. Going too far? I can’t judge that. I do know that when I listen to his music from that period, and I consider his development as an improviser in a chronological context, it sounds like exactly where he seems to be headed and needed to go. Can’t argue with that. Recorded about six years after "Sonny’s Crib" and definitely in a different place musically. Amazing music. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03juO5oS2ggBeautiful Hutcherson clips; thanks. As Joe Chambers points in his great remembrance which Alex posted, Hutcherson had a very individualistic tone. To me, his tone always sounded close to that of a marimba's woodiness as opposed to the more metallic and more sustained tone of other players. |
Good comments Ghosthouse.
****On the other hand, if JC’s development took his music to a technically valid place but left behind emotion, I think that IS an objective reason for parting company.****
I have a different take on JC's development, and this is not meant to invalidate your excellent comments. JC's development didn't leave behind emotion; it took him to a place where it was PURE EMOTION. Whether we as individual listeners can relate to or understand his message (emotion) is not what determines the ultimate validity of it. The key point, I think, is that we can all agree that he was a musical giant. So, it seems to me that until we as listeners can rightfully claim to be as artistically advanced as a John Coltrane, it is more honest and fair to the artist in question, and productive for the growth of our own musical awareness, to keep the door just slightly open to the possibility that it is we who don't understand the message; not that the message is no good.
We can debate whether "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"; but, we KNOW a falling tree makes a sound.
|
****Yes, he advanced from the time that came out till the clip you posted, but he could not have played that solo on "Speak Low" any better.****
You're probably right; I agree. But, I don't think that he was trying to play "better"; he was trying to play different.
|
|
Great comments all. Re Coltrane:
****Or did it lead him to develop a new language for expressing emotion.
Or did lead to expressing a new "kind" of emotion; almost like a painter "inventing" a new color (and sub-question: Is it then a "human emotion"?).****
He did develop a new language, and it could be argued that he did so well before the time period in question (mid-late 60's) with his very angular, pentatonic scale based improvisarion. Add to this the distinctive hard-edged tone and you have a "language" that would be very influential; especially among saxophone players.
****the age old question, "Can you dance to it?". If there's a burden of communicative responsibility on the artist, is the artist then to be limited by the "language skills" of his audience? I certainly don't think so. Art history says, "NO!"***
This has been debated here countless times. As always, no easy answer. As always, context is everything. For me an artist does not have a communicative responsibility beyond being honest with his message. There CAN be a conscious effort to be communicative and the result can be accessible and still very interesting and artistic with a very high level of craft; Herbie Hancock's electric projects come immediately to mind. Coltrane was a force of nature; a true artist whose creative spirit was so strong that he simply had no choice but to follow that spirit wherever it would take him, with apologies to no one.....including O-10 (kidding).
****Who calls crap?****
If we don't keep the door slightly open to art we don't fully understand yet, there's no way to determine what is crap and what is not. We don't have to like it; but, by at least respecting it, the stuff we do like is put in a better context. I believe it makes us a better judge of what is good and what is bs. Seems to me there is little downside and much upside to this attitude.
O-10, I think your Jackie McLean post is very timely to this discussion. Great player who came out of the "Charlie Parker school", was prominent in the "free jazz" movement and settled somewhere in the middle. His playing on that clip, while showing his bebop (Bird) roots demonstrates a clear Coltrane influence in his harmonic vocabulary: angular, pentatonic based; especially in the up-tempo tunes which lend themselves to pattern-based improvisation. As with Coltrane, he is very aggressive tonally with a very bright, hard-edged robust sound. The screaming quality in some of his playing owes a lot to late-Coltrane. Just one reason why I would never think that Coltrane "went too far". The influence that this approach would have on other players alone justifies it for me. I have always admired and respected McLean's playing; I can't say that I have always LIKED his playing. As a jazz player he is aggressive and fully committed. As an instrumentalist, I find his playing to be undisciplined. His sense of pitch (intonation) is very erratic (usually very flat) and I simply don't like his tone; I find it rather ugly. Players like Bird and Coltrane had all the expressive range (and more) and were also much more disciplined instrumentalists. There is a school of thought that feels that none of the former matters when judging creative art; and that, in fact, the undisciplined approach is an asset in jazz. It is true that some players actually cultivate that approach: the artistic equivalent of wearing torn jeans and a dirty t-shirt as opposed to a suit and tie when performing (Rok). We can debate the merits of one approach or the other, but the fact still remains that, almost without exception, the greatest jazz players were also very disciplined instrumentalists. Still, great jazz player. Btw, I don't quite understand the "stereotypical" designation to that type of playing. When one considers how many different styles there are (swing, bop, hard bop, etc.) I am not quite sure what "stereotypical" means. Good clip; thanks. From the NY Times obituary:
++++But Mr. McLean preferred not to talk about his music in terms of categories. "I've grown out of being just a bebop saxophone player, or being a free saxophone player," he told Jon Pareles of The Times in 1983. "I don't know where I am now. I guess I'm somewhere mixed up between all the saxophonists who ever played."++++
|
O-10, thank you for your comments. For me, there is ultimately far more value in disagreement leading to intelligent discussion than in agreement. I must take exception with a couple of your comments. The first is about the relevance of the "two minutes" in Coltrane's artistic development.
I feel that those two minutes are hugely important. They are the culmination of a remarkable artistic quest, cut off (sadly, as in many cases in the jazz world) by his early passing. It boggles the mind to think where he (and many other giants) would have gone had their lives not been cut short. As such, those two minutes bring an invaluable perspective to everything that came before it. The other concerns "our conversation". I feel strongly about this; however, you, as the OP, are entitled to a different approach....I think. I don't ever feel that any comments that I make here are intended "just" for any one individual. There have been at least four posters participating in this latest discussion, and, as such, while my comments are in direct response to your question, they are meant for all who participate here. A simple bit of honest, hopefully constructive commentary and nothing more. Thanks again for your comments.
Btw, re your dancing ability: I seem to recall a certain rain dance ☺️ |
Beautiful Mal Waldron, Acman3 and Alex; thanks. O-10's reaction was exactly like mine. Seconds into the clip, I thought "Mingus meets Dolphy" (which he did many times). Mingus was a master at creating a feeling of deep earthiness and abandon in his music. Melodically it was deeply rooted in the Blues and, in that sense, very comfortable for the listener. Acman's clip evoked the earthiness of Mingus but with unusual melodic movement. I am not quite sure I agree that the sidemen are not equal partners in the creation of that feeling. Woody Shaw sounds amazing. As do the others; especially Ed Blackwell. Great record that I have to find. Thanks! Turns out that he was a fan of Mngus: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eldLh1E1sIAThe Jazz-crier mentions Freddie Hubbard. Probably my favorite jazz trumpet player. Sometimes his fire could come across as too much bravura; but, for me, as far as being able to "tell a story" with an improvised solo, there was and is no one better. There was a always a beautiful logic to the way he developed the improvised composition which a jazz solo is supposed to be. Just as with the spoken language and written words, an improvised solo needs to have clarity and good grammar and punctuation. Been listening to this record over the last couple of days. Herbie Hancock' debut solo record is one of my very favorite records. By the time a young lion got to record for a Blue Note as a leader the buzz about him on the scene is pretty intense. There was magic in the room for this record, imo. Freddie Hubbard sounds unbelievable as does Dexter Gordon. A lot of very clear story telling all around and the feel is wonderful. State of the art jazz-jazz: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aTUaWQULUQghttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcYrx4d3Jghttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLMPM8CeA4 |
O-10, never heard "Left Alone" as done by Abbey Lincoln, but I have owned this version for many years. It is a beautiful tune; composed by Billie Holiday and Mal Waldron, but never recorded by her. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBUNepCYH08I posted some Kenny Wheeler clips a while ago. Interesting player whose playing did not hold up well into his late career; as demonstrated by this recording. His early records are very good. In his prime he was a very good trumpet player with a brilliant sound and an interesting and fiery approach to improvisation. Not a "bluesy" player, and certainly not the most swinging player in the usual sense. He was perfect for the ECM house sound of modern jazz with rather vague tonal centers which give tunes an unresolved character; like one could hit "pause" at any point in the melody and it wouldn’t matter where. I like it, but it is definitely an acquired taste. My previous posts are from this record (from the 70’s): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tyzC2Rr4WAkhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL-H262sSAtenUhptN9UJupk21-ShplIZe&v=DaFnzKth4Ec |
****Kenny Wheeler, forlorn and lost; like being in the middle of a dream that seems real, and you are in the middle of nowhere and don't know how you got there, or which way is home; then you wake up just before you lose your mind trying to figure things out.****
O-10, I find it fascinating that your description of the feeling that Kenny Wheeler's music invoked is a perfect parallel to what I described:
****modern jazz with rather vague tonal centers which give tunes an unresolved character; like one could hit "pause" at any point in the melody and it wouldn’t matter where.****
What you described is exactly what happens harmonically and melodically in the type of compositions that Wheeler writes. The usual and normal tendency for harmony and melody to want to move in certain directions (resolve) is mostly absent; the music seems "lost" and "in the middle of nowhere".
|
|
"Undisputed"? Says who? By what criteria? As you point out, they have totally different styles. It’s like comparing Charlie Parker to John Coltrane. Two undiputed giants from entirely different evolutionary periods in the music. Who is better, Bird or Trane? Has no answer and is kind of a pointless question. Just as Bird would have sounded a little absurd trying to play "Giant Steps", Milt Jackson, as wonderful as he was, would sound out of place in a musical setting like that which was home for Hutcherson. Much more extended harmonic vocabulary and a move away from the very "swingy" feeling in the music. However, playing a slow blues, Milt Jackson couldn’t be touched, imo. So..... There’s a problem with the comparison clips. The Jackson clip is beautiful musically and sonically. The Hutcherson clip, to me, sounds a bit like a mess. Harold Land should have stuck to the saxophone; imo, his flute sounds terrible. I like his tenor playing, but he sounds like he picked up the flute a couple of weeks previously. Considering how often the flute plays, it practically ruins the entire performance. And it’s not as simple or isolated as the flute player being horribly out of tune. In a recording situation all the players are reacting to the "performance problem". It becomes a major problem in being able to relax and focus on the music, instead of having to deal with the tension and distraction of compensating for the problem. The end result is usually an inferior performance. This, imo, is a better showcase of Hutcherson’s strengths (and he was an infinitely better compiser than Jackson): https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLE4B0BF2407AEE1F5¶ms=OAFIAVgD&v=vbWiIf-kk98&mode=N...The alto player is someone who deserves more attention here, James Spaulding. |
|
O-10, I don't understand asking to be challenged and then not being the least bit open to a different point of view backed by concrete examples; if only to lead to interesting dialogue. Curious about and for the sake of better communication: what type of comment or content would pose a "challenge" as you suggested?
****Bird would have been able to play anything Trane played with ease****
No way. Could be interesting discussion, if interested. |
I think a great place to start is by defining what "the undisputed king" means to you. King of what? As always, context is everything. The jazz language that Bird spoke was very different from what Trane spoke. Trane had a more exploratory harmonic language. Some would describe it as more advanced, more extended; certainly, more modern. The demands that what Trane was doing presented the player was much more rigorous and demanding, technically and conceptually, than what Bird did. Bird’s playing was very linear while Trane’s was very angular and harmonically more "outside" the tonal centers than Bird’s fairly "inside" language. This is not a put down of Bird in any way (how could it be?!), but all goes to the relevance of all that is the evolution of a music. Of course, relative to what came before Bird’s bebop, his language was a game changer; just as Trane’s would be a couple of decades later.
Great clip with Bird and Bags. From my vantage point, it makes my case perfectly. |
One of my favorite records. Imo, this record is a masterpiece. My favorite rhythm section ever. It had been Miles’ rhythm section for less than a year and the synergy between these three musicians is other-wordly. Tony Williams, a mere twenty years old, sounds unbelievable. Freddy Hubbard is brilliant as always. Herbie Hancock is a genius and up there with Bird and Coltrane as one of the most important figures in jazz; still going strong. This is one of those records that deserves to be listened to beginning to end as one musical statement. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FDt-IGgh4(Rudy Van Gelder eng.) |
O-10, thanks for your comments. I didn't realize I was answering a question at all. In fact, my comments were made to point out, as I did previously, that "there is no answer". Milt Jackson may be the King for you based on your tastes, likes and dislikes, but "undisputed"? That is also subjective. Unfortunately, it appears the relevant points of discussion won't be adressed. We will simply have to agree to disagree on some of these points.
Btw, I think you shortchange others on this forum. There are many participants here who, for (I assume) various reasons, choose not to participate in this thread. I base that on comments I read made on other threads. Imo, it's always best to not make too many assumptions about what and how much one knows; personally, I prefer to focus on what I may not know. As someone who has been absent lately likes to say:
Cheers.
|
O-10, I am not going down the same idiotic road that you seem to always want to take when there is a simple disagreement. Your assertions and accusations are simply childish. All I can say is that I hope you are able to be a little more mature about it all going forward. Please let me know how I can help. |
O-10, FYI, my comment about participants with other reasons had to do with the simple fact that I have read astute comments about jazz on other threads and from participants who don't post here. So.........there have to be "various other reasons"...no? You take these things WAY too personally; imo.
(Just one more reason why I tell my wife that I never want to retire) |
|
Alex, thanks for keeping things light and for bringing some humor to the proceedings here. Your clip asks an interesting question. I think the answer is best left for experts in a different field. Personally, I don't understand why measured and polite disagreement about one aspect of Jazz needs to go into the realm where a person feels that the disagreement is meant to be "destructive" of him. The psychology of all this is best left for others; but, for me, and to the extent that there can be an air of "friendship" on an Internet forum, it is a little sad. O-10, you are so far off base with your assesments of my motivations that it's probably hopeless as it has been in the past when things have come to a place like this. I continue to feel that this disagreement could be the stuff of really great discussion, but again, in spite of the fact that it was you who opened the door and welcomed in disagreement, you are not willing to consider any disagreement and drag things down into the mud. Please read over my comments again if you care; there are NO hidden meanings in any of them. Why you insist on making that assumption, well......best to keep the focus on the music. The disagreement has to do with the acknowledgment (or not) of the idea that jazz has been, is and always will be evolving. If we acknowledge that then there is, not only no reason to disagree, but no need to keep musical matters in the shallow range of simply who is best, who is "King", etc.. Can anyone possibly think that there will be agreement on that? Not only is there no chance of agreement, it keeps the discussion away from the juicy stuff (like the notion that "Bird could have played anything that Coltrane did"). Some interesting (for me) dot connection: Acman3, in the same spirit that Alex alluded to in his most recent contribution, posted some very funny clips of Gene Dancing Machine from the old "Gong Show" recently. As I'm sure others noticed also, the house band backing up Gene sounded great; especially the trumpet player who was playing some really good bebop solos. I set out to find out who that player was. It was Bob Findley, one of two legendary LA jazz/studio trumpet playing brothers (the other is the great Chuck Findley). Finding this out brought to mind a record that he plays on that I like very much. Alex, I have always loved Vince Guaraldi. Great clips and your description of his style is right on. I love the unabashed feel good, relaxed attitude in his playing; no hint of pretense or self importance. No surprise that his music for the "Peanuts" series is probably his best known work. The record that I refer to is unfortunately not available on YouTube; it is David Frishberg's aptly titled (for the moment) "Getting Some Fun Out Of Life". In a somewhat different style, Frishberg has a very similar attitude in his playing (and singing) which made me think of your Guaraldi clips. Fortunately, other things available on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbt3C1Y_mQhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7hxDaJhnYshttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aNBj8xP83_s |
O-10, I’m sorry, but you really don’t understand; worse, you don’t want to understand. I have no issue whatsoever with you needing to feel that you are correct; the shame is that you don’t understand why it’s not a question of which is better. Again, please go over what I have written and note that I have not, at any point, said that I would "place Trane over Bird". That is just the simplistic place where you always want to take the issue: "who was better". The question was and remains whether (according to you) Bird could have played everything that Trane played. The answer is a resounding NO. The fact that Bird came before and heavily influenced Trane (and every other modern player) does, in no way, preclude the fact that Trane took improvisation to a place that Bird never did. Again, the nature of the art form. That does not make Trane "better". To understand this idea is to understand jazz. Personally, I wouldn’t worry so much about the "aficionado" designation; so, feel free to take that title away from me if it makes you feel better.
(Funny, when I read that word in the context of music as earthy and soulful as jazz, it always evokes an image of Hugh Heffner with a pipe in his mouth and some scantily clad bunny lurking in the background 😘). |
Discussion about music is not about "winning"; facts speak for themselves. Moreover, music is not subjective; our reaction to it is (sometimes). For anyone interested in some facts:
The comment that Bird, as great as he was, was not "capable of playing anything that Trane could" was made primarily in reference to Trane’s more advanced improvisational concepts; not about ability to play "all the notes on a saxophone" or who could play faster. However, it is also not true that Bird could play all the notes on the saxophone; certainly not the way that Trane could. Trane expanded the range of the saxophone by making use of the "altissimo" register; the range of notes outside (higher) the normal range of the instrument. He also used "multi phonics"; playing more than one note at a time by making use of natural occurring harmonics. I have not heard nor read reference to a single recorded example of Bird playing in the altissimo register or of using multiphonics; just two examples. This did not make Trane a "better" jazz player. It did make him a more advanced (better) instrumentalist with a more advanced harmonic concept. Which of the two was a better jazz player? THAT is subjective.
|
O-10, you really try a person’s patience. Why don’t you just try to be a bit more civil and a little less childish and see where that takes you? In the interest of driving an important issue forward (would be much simpler to ignore you) and out of simple (undeserved?) courtesy I will hang in there. Kindly explain to me (quote please) just what it is I have written that is a "criticism of Bird". Thanks. |
Who’s jumping? 😉 When I made reference to Trane’s language in comparison to Bird’s I was not referring to where he had taken that language by the time of "A Love Supreme". By then, his music was fairly modal with fairly simple chord changes which created a less restrictive backdrop for his hugely emotional musical outpourings. To contrast the two languages, a better comparison to Bird’s language would be something like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VUPossibly the most difficult hard bop composition to improvise over with its VERY fast changing harmonic progression. While still within a very structured harmonic framework, these harmonic changes are not only very fast changing, their relationship to each other was very non-traditional (at the time) presenting the improviser with new and unusual challenges. For anyone interested in learning a bit more about this, or simply putting it all in a better context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changesNice Monty clip, btw. |
|
|
Now, this really is special. A friend sent me this. I have listened and loved this record for over thirty years (!) and had no idea that there was live video footage of that very live performance at the Montreux Festival in 1969. I know every note on that record and it adds a great deal to make the visual connection. Eddie Harris is as funky as ever and biggest surprise for me on this record has always been Benny Bailey on trumpet with some very exciting and very vocal solos. One of the funkiest records I have ever heard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv0fnSBf0DoIt gets even more special. For those more than thirty years I have thought that the applause we hear at 3:08 was mid-solo applause for Benny Bailey. Look at the video and you will see that the applause is FOR ELLA WHO HAS JUST ARRIVED AND IS TAKING HER SEAT! Gotta love it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y8YOLY4Tats |
|
****I decided that Frogman would be better than any of us to respond to whatever he was talking about, but no Frogman.****
Hmmm......let’s see. How about just a small sampling of recent possible reasons why no Frogman; shall we?:
****it’s been evident your only objective is to destroy this thread; I call it "jealously".****
****That’s the kind of snarky sh-t you have been posting for some time.****
****Your evaluation my dear sir, indicates you are in the "Junior League" of aficionados.****
****Every Time things are running smooth on this thread you rock the boat****
****then you must be lost in the woods.****
****Frogman, that is the most ludicrous statement you ever made.****
****While you are most certainly entitled to your own opinions, some of them sound like you been smoking da splif mon.****
****That sentence is total 100% BS; ****
O-10, hopefully, one of these days you will understand that your behavior is not only not condusive to good dialogue, it sucks.
Now, good natured chap that I am 😇 (or sucker....probably) I watched your clip. Please explain to me what it is you don’t understand about the commentary in that clip; you can tell me where (timing) on the tape the comment is made. I can’t for the life of me find anything remotely mysterious or remotely difficult to understand in it.
Love Red Garland, btw.
|
****Perhaps the right question wolud be why they did not make any more music in this line up?**** Very interesting question, Alex. Speaking of "mysterious", it's always interesting to try and solve mysteries like this. Very nice record "Red's Good Groove", and it does beg the question "why only one session"? The easy answer might be as easy as "scheduling conflicts". These were busy players and it would not be terribly unusual for the scheduling stars to not have aligned. Maybe. A more interesting reason might have been related to the thought I had the first time I heard this record: "Donald Byrd/Pepper Adams". The baritone saxophone/trumpet front line is an extremely distinctive sounding front line in hard bop. How many can you think of? By the 60's the Adams/Byrd Qt. had become very popular and in demand, it's possible that Garner's band's sound was thought by producers to be too reminiscent of the Byrd/Adams sound. It's important to remember that Garner's recording group was not a working band. As usual, the most likely reason had to do contractual issues. Garner's record was recorded in '62; a year after Byrd/Adams disbanded and this probably invalidates possible reason #2. That very year Adams signed an exclusive recording contract with Motown (!?) records; actually, their jazz subsidiary "Workshop" Records. As an interesting aside, because of the nature of most of Motown's music, it frequently uses the baritone saxophone. It would not be surprising to me if Pepper Adams played baritone in the horn sections in many Motown soul sessions. Adams recorded one solo record with that label "Pepper Adams Plays Charlie Mingus". The Byrd/Adams Quintet, besides being a fantastic group, was notable for introducing Herbie Hancock to the record listening public with the 1961 release "Royal Flush": https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9411D061AEE3FDD9 |
Thanks for the rec, Newbee; I will check it out. I am aware of the record but have not heard it. Have always been a fan of Paquito. |
Newbee, lovely record. As you said, interesting fusion of Classical and Latin-Jazz with some very elegant playing. You are correct about the similarity to some of the music in Shadow Dances; "Tango" in particular. There is a strong Tango influence in a couple of the pieces on the Havana Moon recording borrowing a lot from the music of Astor Piazzola. For me, the highlights of the recording are the pieces by Paquito. Paquito is the consummate musician and has no genre boundaries. He has rather quietly become a very admired composer in the modern, crossover Classical music scene. His playing is wonderful. I particularly like his clarinet playing and this leads me to the only very minor issue that I have with the Havana Moon recording. Clarinetist Mariam Adam sounds wonderful; particularly on the slower tempo and rhythmically loose pieces. On a couple of occasions, on the jazzier pieces I miss a little bit of the rhythmic incisiveness and swagger that Paquito would bring to the table. Still, lovely record which I am glad to have. Thanks very much. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0sLOMnnhQo8Speaking of Tango and the influence on some of the music on Havana Moon. I have been wanting to post this for a while. I love this record: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK-eutyZMAleP1purAmyN9sp5nDKYbl4e |
|
Some things are simply too perfect to not be left alone to speak for themselves. |
|
****Some things are simply too perfect to not be left alone to speak for themselves.****
For the sake of clarity, I should have added "and I don't refer to any of the music posted" 😉; although it could refer to some music. |
Interesting that you should bring up Ahmad Jamal again. Alex’s clips were, for me, a bit of a revelation. I knew Les McCann as the funky, soul-with-a-shuffle-beat pianist from his "Swiss Movement" era; I had no idea that he had such a wide range. Beautiful ballad playing that reminded me of Ahmad Jamal with his use of block chords and keyboard tremolos (14:45 at the end of "Pretty Lady" and on "Stella" are two examples). Beautiful playing. Of all of Alex’s clips my favorites were "Pretty Lady" and the ones with Joe Pass (!). That was a pairing that I never would have imagined (McCann/Pass) given my association of him with a funkier style. "Pretty Lady" is a record I have to look for. The clips with Turrentine and Mitchell were also good, but less successful, imo. They lean toward the funky, but are not as committed to that style as the "Swiss Movement" music. Of course, the presence of Eddie Harris in those takes things well into funkville.
Very nice live Jamal, Ghosthouse. If I can still pick my nose at 82 I’ll be happy. To be able to play like that is amazing. Very unexpected version of "Blue Moon". |
