I'm going to review records in my collection, and you'll be able to decide if they're worthy of your collection. These records are what I consider "must haves" for any jazz aficionado, and would be found in their collections. I wont review any record that's not on CD, nor will I review any record if the CD is markedly inferior. Fortunately, I only found 1 case where the CD was markedly inferior to the record.
Our first album is "Moanin" by Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers. We have Lee Morgan , trumpet; Benney Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; Jymie merrit, bass; Art Blakey, drums.
The title tune "Moanin" is by Bobby Timmons, it conveys the emotion of the title like no other tune I've ever heard, even better than any words could ever convey. This music pictures a person whose down to his last nickel, and all he can do is "moan".
"Along Came Betty" is a tune by Benny Golson, it reminds me of a Betty I once knew. She was gorgeous with a jazzy personality, and she moved smooth and easy, just like this tune. Somebody find me a time machine! Maybe you knew a Betty.
While the rest of the music is just fine, those are my favorite tunes. Why don't you share your, "must have" jazz albums with us.
Hello Gents. I thought Frogman had a good suggestion with respect to the "drama" issue....find examples of the same tune, with and without it. AND I’m not trying to be a provocateur on that point whatsoever. I think Orpheus brought up a meaningful issue such that whatever word you use for the performance characteristic he "hears" and is calling "drama" it might be a distinguisher for great vs mediocre performances. I’m very interested to hear more on the topic.
I watched the clip Frogman posted of that Coltrance Quartet doing Impressions. I tend to agree with O that there’s late work by JC that I do not care for (though the Impressions performance did not qualify as that for me). I also suspect Frogman might be right about that work being a logical progression in JC’s development. I’d say we can sometimes confuse personal preference and taste with Objective Truth and need to avoid this. 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. As O once wrote, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I’ve got 20/20 vision." THAT is a GREAT quote.
By the way, I readily admit I have so much to be exposed to and learn about jazz...certainly don’t consider myself an "aficionado" so, off topic, but I will comment McCoy Tyner is killer in that Impression performance. Thanks Frogman.
O - I still do fully intend to check out those clips you posted after the Sonny Clark/Speak Low and the Lee Morgan/Search.
****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.
"...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."
@frogman - I am in absolute agreement with this. Well said.
I'm also very willing to consider your premise that JC's development led him to a place of expressing pure emotion. I would counter, however, with a couple of questions as in... 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"?).
We can get all kinds of philosophical on these points but they certainly touch on what is the meaning and purpose of art. Is it primarily a form of self-expression, a means of (emotional) communication, a mix of both? what % of each?? Believe me when i say, I'm suspicious of how superficial my questions are...but they're the best I got at the moment.
OR (another 'or') is it just about the entertainment value and answering 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!" [BTW - one can make a case here for the good that critics can do acting as "translators" and "guides" for those of us willing to "keep that door open".]
I realize I muddled things up in my earlier post by talking objective with a capital O and then reusing 'objective' in reference to Orpheus (and me) not liking some of Coltrane's later stuff. Instead of "objective reason for parting company" I should have written, "valid reason for parting company" since I think it is absolutely okay to make a negative subjective assessment based on answering "Does it communicate anything worthwhile to me?" [Worthwhile?! - what the heck is THAT!) As you urge, however, I do recognize this judgement might only be temporary pending further "growth of our own musical awareness".
Thanks for your comments and ideas. I enjoy this discussion very much.
"To thine own ears be true", quote the great philosopher Orpheus. You don't have to be a philosopher or musician to know what you like and don't like. If JC decided to communicate with the angels when he was nearing his last breath, that was his decision, not my ears; but how could I be expected to understand music meant for the angels.
He made so much fantastic music throughout his productive life, that I am still enjoying frequently, I can overlook that. Miles also communicated with the angels through his music near the end.
Nevertheless, we shall trod on, enjoying the incredible music they made before they decided to communicate with the angels through their music.
Ghosthouse, I very much appreciate your Toots contributions. I'll continue to see what I can find by him and Bobby Hutcherson. Both men made such incredible contributions as sidemen that there is no need to overlook that.
That Jackie Mac is just too much, and that chick is tearing up some drums; I just can't quit looking and listening. It's almost impossible for me to tell how this music that sounds similar to so much music I've heard is different; that's the nature of great artists, it's hidden in the recipe.
I personally always felt it was up to the listener to work harder to understand what the musician was trying to say. Most the time I was rewarded by my persistence, but sometimes I still don't get it. Still feel it was my lack of knowledge or effort or both which didn't allow me to understand the music.
Unless, of course, it was Crap! :)
Most of the time we look for beauty or music that has a high level of skill. J. Coltrane's pure emotion is just to much to take, especially as we get older and lose our testosterone, But there is great beauty in the raw fierceness in which he plays, and as far as skill, I don't believe he had an equal.
I remember a critic saying Coltrane sounded like a big man in a small box, when he played with Miles. He finally got where he wanted to go, or at least start the journey, I guess.
"I remember a critic saying Coltrane sounded like a big man in a small box, when he played with Miles."
Acman, that's quite a quote, and it fits so well; Coltrane really expanded after he left Miles.
The discussion Frogman and me are having pertains to about 2 minutes of Trane's musical life, and it's just something "Aficionados" do to past the time.
Hello, O - Was Frogman provided the Toots links, not me.
Do appreciate your comments about JC and music for the angels. You are making my point with the caveat that some day some of us might well be able to understand "music meant for the angels".
acman - Good comments about working hard and the reward of persistence, but who calls "Crap!" ? I tend to "assume merit" but recognize time is often the best judge.
Ghosthouse, I've been listening to jazz for my entire life, and I'm an old man; you shouldn't expect something "new" that grabs you, will grab me.
I've heard the best jazz musicians from the 50's up until it changed and became more abstract in recent years. The musicians in my collection are so very incredible, and I even heard one of my favorite musicians close up and personal.
Grant Green, before he went to Blue Note and became professional, would come into his favorite club, turn off the jukebox, and start playing for himself; not for any audience.
Of course nobody said anything, we all just listened; he knew everybody and we all knew Grant, including the nightclub owner. That was an experience I'll never forget; to be only maybe six feet away from that guitar and hear those fantastic sounds resonate in your ear was incredible.
He would leave just like he came, quietly; he didn't talk too much.
Of course this would occur on a slow night. He played officially at this same club on weekends.
BTW Ghosthouse, Frogman, and Rok have also inquired why I thought something was just ok that they considered special; maybe I'm too honest. But when they asked that question, the jazz was very good, it just sounded "stereotypical" to me, that's because a new jazz musician will imitate someone special before he finds his own voice, and I've heard what they displayed by another musician.
The only musician who never imitated anyone was Miles, he came on with a totally new thing.
Frogman, I'm curious to know what you think of that clip with Jackie McClean. In a way it's "stereotypical" but at the same time it has something special that I can't identify, but since you're a sax man, I'm sure you can identify it.
O - you sure don’t owe me any justification for your music preferences. I’ve been reading this thread long enough to know YOU KNOW (and that goes for some of the other regulars here too). Yeah, maybe there’s a preference for the traditional here...but that stuff has stood the test of time. While it is always a joy to share something that others get off on too, I have no problem with a difference of opinion respectfully stated AND am always interested in the why or why not of a someone’s like or dislike. I hope I never get done learning. This thread you started has been like a Jazz 101 for me. BTW - you might not be all that much older than me!
Charlie Haden and Jim Hall are two of the highest rated jazz musicians I can think of. I just read where they got 5 stars on performance, and 5 stars on sonics; that's a rarity.
I've just cued this album in and I'm really enjoying it. Whether or not you give it a five star rating on both sonics and performance is your call.
Ghosthouse, there's no doubt about the sonics. This music is best listened to in a dark room with a blank mind from beginning to end. Although I'm listening to it, I haven't gotten into it yet.
Just like a tuner, your mind has to be on the right frequency in order to receive the music. That applause is disturbing, I don't know why they left it in. Every time I get in a good listening mode, that applause breaks it up.
Since I can't handle that applause, I have to let this one go. I could get the album and record it without the applause, that would work for me.
"Just like a tuner, your mind has to be on the right frequency in order to receive the music."
O- I get your point very well. It certainly applies to the music at the link here. Another Haden collaboration. Not sure it will be your "cuppa" but, at least, no applause to break the mood. Good sonics too. It strikes me as something that would also benefit from listening in a dark room. A beautiful Haden composition, "Silence", starts at 22:17. FWIW - I do have this on vinyl.
" It certainly applies to the music at the link here."
You certainly got that right; good sonics and perfect vinyl always helps the listening experience. You're getting warm, but this is even better, and it includes some of the same people.
Egberto Gismonti - Sol do Meio Dia; this album touches on African, European, plus indigenous Brazilian music. It even includes African rhythms that can no longer be found in Africa.
Glad you like Gismonti, O. He is a remarkable talent. Classically trained and a true "world music" composer. I do have Sol Do Meio Dia and a few others by him including Folk Songs which is the 2nd by this same Haden, Garbarek, Gismonti trio as did Magico.
****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."++++
Frogman, as I stated, our discussion about Trane relates to 2 minutes of his total musical life, and was just conversation to pass the time.
I use the word "Stereotypical" to mean that I've heard it a lot before; "Bird" and Coltrane for sure; that aspect of Jackie is what I was referring to.
Since I never could dance, I overlook that; as a matter of fact, I prefer music that you can not dance to.
Ghosthouse, I asked a professional jazz musician I knew, who his favorite artist was, and he told me "Baden Powell" was the one he was listening to at that time.
"Knew" meaning he is no longer with us; "No", I'm not going to name him. It has been alluded that I like to throw around the names of professional jazz musicians who I talked to in a friendly manner, and I suppose that's true, but this time I'm not going to mention the name.
At that time, I didn't even know who "Baden Powell" was, I had never even heard the name; it's for sure he wasn't a "Blue Note" musician.
Now, I have this 2 CD set titled "Three Originals, Baden Powell", and you get your money's worth, and then some; it comes with a 12 page booklet.
I mention this because his music is in the same vein that you posted.
Frogman, our conversation, meaning just between the two of us, is the kind of conversation "aficionado's" have that proves they are who they claim to be, but is not really important in relation to John Coltrane's merits as an artist.
When he went out into the "wild blue" before a live audience, ( he played "MY Favorite Things" for at least half an hour). After 20 minutes the whole audience was beginning to get a "?" mark look on their faces. Elvin Jones looked at McCoy Tyner, who signaled "just follow me". I don't mean he gave a hand signal, but a look of confidence, like he knew what he was going to do. Otherwise these professional musicians would have looked silly.
As it was, "Trane" was out in the "wild blue", and they were playing something different, but coherent. At our table, my date looked at me, and I looked at the professional musician, who was a drummer.
She asked, "Is Trane on something". "No, he's perfectly clean" was his reply. He gave a professional musician explanation for what was going on that nobody understood. Fortunately, Trane came out of the clouds and all was back normal like it never happened; he was jamming with McCoy Tyner and Elvin Jones just like you see on the TV clips.
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 ☺️
O - Thanks for the Baden Powell recommendation. Found Three Originals on Spotify (best $10 a month I ever spent) and have saved it. Sonics are, again, VERY good...lots of air & space (not to mention virtuoso musicianship). Thank you.
Returning the favor, I hope... Track 1 from Carles Benavent's "Quartet".
Have to say, I think Frogman is making a good point about the significance of those '2 minutes' from JC's career. Though I think you phrased it that way only to stress there's more that unites about him than divides.
On the other hand, too much mention already of my "Can you dance to it?". That was a tongue in cheek effort to dumb things down and put another light on the music. Is it "real"...is it "visceral"?
I not only heard and saw those two minutes, but saw other people's reaction to those 2 minutes, and it was "?". Those two minutes were never explained, and I'm glad they were only 2 minutes. I can never relegate the same importance to those 2 minutes as you. BTW those same 2 minutes were repeated many times; whenever the urge hit.
While everybody reads whatever I post, at times they are primarily meant for one aficionado; some are trying to learn, while others already know. This is like having a discussion with those who are very advanced, and those who are just learning at the same time.
The artist I would pick in regard to seeing his advancement is "Charles Mingus"; he started out advanced. I remember buying an album simply because I liked the art work on the cover, and it turned out to be one of the best albums I ever purchased; it was "Mingus Ah Um"
Not only was the art work unusual, but so was the title, and I wont even mention the artist. This was in 1960 and it was only released in 59; that means I was definitely up to date. Other aficionados didn't quite know what to make of Mingus at that time. (I laugh when I read how so many thought so much of Mingus at that time) Many said WTF at that time, believe it or not.
This thing called "you tube" is the most fantastic thing for me in my life time. I'm still learning about Mingus; what's so fantastic is that I'm learning what I thought I already knew. I just ran into something new for me, "Mingus at The Cafe Bohemia". By the time I quit learning what I thought I already knew, it'll be time for that final act, and the curtain will come down.
I remember discussing with Rok, how Mingus and his band were outside about half the time. I can imagine how he would be hard for some to figure out when the sound was new, but ultimately he was still so steeped in the blues, I guess most figured it out.
*****
On the other hand, too much mention already of my "Can you dance to it?". That was a tongue in cheek effort to dumb things down and put another light on the music. Is it "real"...is it "visceral"? *****
The "can you dance to it" statement was made by none other than Louis Armstrong. Armstrong talking about Jazz is like Einstein talking about physics You pay attention.
Rok - Sorry. I was unaware Louis Armstrong had said anything like that. Truth be known, I was thinking back to Dick Clark’s American Bandstand and what some of the TV audience used to say in evaluating a new song heard on the show..."I like it. You can dance to it." or words to that effect. Don’t think they were quoting LA either.
Just saw what Acman wrote...that seems exactly like where I was coming from.
I can't find any place online that says Armstrong said, "if you can't dance to it, it ain't Jazz." But I have read several times that he said it. He did say, Bebop was Chinese Jazz. hahahahahahhahah This was before we were plagued with Political correctness.
Ghosthouse, I take listening to music very seriously; especially when someone has presented some music, it's almost like a gift.
First, I have to get in the right mode; that means shifting out of "Blue Note" jazz to an almost Latin guitar mode. This is a very unusual guitar that refuses to be "pigeonholed", and 3:43 minutes isn't long enough to get a grip on where he's coming from. I liked the heavy bass intro, but after that he took off in a different direction; it was kind of choppy.
I'll have to hear more of Carles Benavent's quartet to make a judgment.
Hello Rok - I wasn't challenging your statement about LA linking jazz and dance...was simply clarifying where my own idea about that had come from.
O - Yup, the Carles Benavent "Quartet", though heavily flamenco-influenced, relates more to the Baden Powell music you shared than typical Blue Note jazz. There are other tracks from Quartet on You Tube as you find time to listen. It took me some time to work my way through the whole recording but I think it is worth the effort.
Ghosthouse, I listened to Carles extensively, and came to the conclusion that his music was too choppy, it rarely flowed.
Acman is always speaking of making an effort to listen to a new artists music; that's good, but not too much of an effort; especially when there's so much music that's available, made just for you.
If the answer to the bottom line question "Would you buy it" comes up "No", then that's it, game over.
Hello O - Pleased you spent some time with Benavent's Quartet. Disappointed it did not work for you, never the less, NO PROBLEM. Glad you gave it a try.
Funny, I have a little different take on the "would you buy it" question. There's plenty I don't feel compelled to buy but still enjoy listening to on Spotify (or YouTube). The buy decision is about the must haves - things I feel are excellent all the way through (not just an isolated track) and keep coming back to; though that's not to say I haven't bought some dogs that a few months later I'm wondering what the heck I thought I was hearing! :-). The Benavent was a buy for me.
You are absolutely right though, way too much great accessible music out there to spend time flagellating.
Ghosthouse, for music lovers like us, there's nothing better than "you tube".
I imagine you spent many years listening to equipment, and discerning the differences in wire; tube or solid state; getting our rigs together has been a long and arduous journey; now we can enjoy the music without thinking about the rig. How sweet it is!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
