ep1str0phy

I thought the store closing had been public for some time now. Always sad to see the smaller shops go. I got into record buying in LA some time after Amoeba had been established--back then, Aron's was already on the way out. Amoeba has since monopolized the used CD market; Aron's has been a virtual wasteland for some time now. Such is the tragedy of business.

If I'm not mistaken, (some, if not all of) that Haden/Izenzon recording made it on to the recent "Milano" bootleg, although the sound is probably atrocious. At least some portion of this recording has been released on "Languages," an awfully muddy-sounding bootleg that nonetheless boasts some of the best, most vigorous ensemble work I've heard out of a post-trio Ornette combo. A lot of people may disagree... but Ornette's alto work is in prime form. It's actually possible to hear the basses, and Izenzon is frequently out front. The problem isn't the balance; the recording quality has substantially diminished the detail--and, for that matter, much of the nuance--of the group improv. Blackwell, unfortunately, is all snare and cymbals; for the better part of the performance, he sounds quite the amorphous mass. A terrific shame, too, because everyone seems to be on fire... I just love late 60's/70's Ornette. I received the Wilson book as a birthday present when I was much younger--it's probably the only reason I knew to pick up "The Empty Foxhole." Not as thorough as the Litweiler book, but interesting still. I've found myself disagreeing with a lot of the reviews, but it offers (to my knowledge) the only remotely comprehensive critical discography (of Ornette) around. Ornette's interviews are a wellspring of profundities. Although, I'm bothered by just how disturbed and misanthropic a lot of his later statements sound. It's a miracle the man is still making music.

Kind of tangential, but... Amoeba is giving out $2 coupons again? Which location?

They were also the rhythm section on Rahsaan's (or Roland's, if we're being historically correct) "The Inflated Tear." As far as I'm concerned, the Novosel/Hopps team was one of the finest rhythm combos (w/Ron Burton) Rahsaan ever worked with, even if it often failed to reach the ecstatic heights of his other studio (the Davis/Byard/Jones combo) or live groups. Honestly, I appreciate them more for subtlety, taste, and nuance than sheer bombast, of which there was certainly enough in the 60's/70's--which is not to deride their more notable peers. I agree with the foregoing opinions--either a bad day or a bad mix... and the playing, tucked in a bit, is really not as obtrusive as it sounds on the record. I mean, I wouldn't want to base my opinion of Art Davis on "Life"--a phenomenal concert, but probably one of the most poorly recorded records in modern jazz. Art sounds like he's being run through a Leslie speaker.

That's the spirit!

Art Ensemble of Chicago: Full Force Misha Mengelberg Trio: Who's Bridge Fortune/Harper/Cowell/Workman/Hart: Great Friends Chris McGregor's Brotherhood of Breath: " " Charles Tyler: Eastern Man Alone -One of my best batches in a while. The "Brotherhood" album is unbelievable.

I have it, and to my best recollection, it doesn't. It's a "difficult but worthwhile" book, if you know what I mean. Hm. Does anyone know what CN was talking about?

But man, Larry Young wasn't exactly a clean player (later on, anyway). Practically all of his post-Blue Note work is drenched in electric fuzz--and I don't think it's just the recording quality. Even some of the BN sides are just caustic; Young was reaching for that brain-busting, Voice-Of-Godish thing well into the late 60's/70's (and--tangentially--some of his solos on "Emergency" sound remarkably Ayleresque to me). I dig that dirty B3... he's just so hard to hear some times (on "Emergency"). McLaughlin is up front, Tony Williams plays loud and gets recorded hot... but Young is so off-in-the-back it's a little difficult to get a hold of what he's doing. Even when he's playing fairly melodic, "Unity"-esque lines, he sounds discomfitingly distant. Contrast that to "Turn it Over," where Young peeks through the ensemble a little more clearly. As far as I'm concerned, that record does a better job of defining the McLaughlin/Young/Williams group dynamic. Although the numbers are shorter, the subtleties of the ensemble sound--everything from Tony's paradiddles to Khalid's horror-movie swells--are somewhat easier to hear. More importantly, the power is still there (dig the opening onslaught of Corea tunes--now that is punk jazz).

Seriously--and to return to more solid ground--does anyone have the Simosko Dolphy book? It may have dealt with some of the material in question (the early works, I mean). The closest I've ever come to owning a copy was last Fall--when I borrowed it from a local library.

I'm just not sure that it's impossible to apprehend the "spirit" of the man with only a select set of recordings. I agree that added documentation can add to certain types of understanding--again, historical and technical details, developmental minutiae (not to demean any of it)--but I'd also argue that there's an intangible aspect to Dolphy (and other great artists/musicians) that projects itself immediately--a gut, supra-intellectual understanding. Again, I'm lapsing into fairly nebulous territory. But I cannot subscribe to the idea that a (relative) neophyte's fairly basic cognizance of Dolphy--the sound, the spirit is in any way inferior to ours. A feel for that "spirit" is far more immediate than knowledge of synthetics, rhythmic idiosyncrasies, timbral liberties, etc. It's the pivotal aspect of the artist's "whole"--that sort of "it" that critics and analysts strain to describe. Moreover, it's seems possible that certain recordings better represent this "it" better than others. At the very least, many, many people seem to consider "Out to Lunch" more essential than, say, the Hamilton sides (or even something like "Iron Man," more example). I've exhausted a somewhat obscure point, but I'd like to see someone else account for this--especially because we're dealing with the sort of esoterica (the Brownie sides) in question. As far as the "uncertain" big band appearances are concerned: I actually asked Gerald Wilson about this once. He said he took Dolphy on a bunch of rock and roll sides--presumably a euphemism for some of the known material, perhaps something forever lost to the void. At the very least, those "anonymous" early sides include some Mingus cuts. Important enough, no?

Anyone want to chime in on those "circulating" live tapes? Repertoire? Personnel (Bruce or Bruceless)?

Absolutely fascinating--man, I agree with you. However, I'm not sure that the merits of the music make for "essential" listening. Part of the problem is that we're dealing with a fairly vague definition of "essential." Operationally, several individuals seem to suggest that by essential we should mean those works that are absolutely invaluable toward developing an understanding of an artist. Perhaps, instead of comprehensive, I should say "sufficient"--a sufficient "feel for" the "essence" of an artist (and I apologize for drawing the conversation into such nebulous dregs). Is it truly necessary to examine every last facet of a musician's work in order to "get" that artist? Moreover, will thorough documentation better render the psychology, spirit, and "essence" of a specific musician? Speaking hypothetically, is my understanding of Dolphy inferior for having not heard the Brownie sides? Of course, limited familiarity with an artist's discography impairs knowledge of history, technical development, etc. But--for the neophytes, the laypeople, issues of economy and choice--is it all really the same? Part of a whole, yes... but would Dolphy say that it's all equally worthwhile? I mean, the Brownie album, bootleg concerts, even the Blue Note outtakes (none directly approved by ED himself)... what's really essential in understanding Dolphy the artist, his craft, and ideal?

Again--to stress an already exhausted point--to whom does this apply? May we speak in degrees? I don't think that many would argue that this sort of pseudo-bootleg esoterica (the Dolphy/Brownie album in question) is as "essential" as "Out to Lunch." At the risk of dissolving into semantics, what is "essential" anyway? Essential to he "in-crowd," or essential to everyone? Does the lay-collector--especially of the sort just beginning to listen to Dolphy--really need this material? Moreover, does knowledge of the entire history of an artist--from cradle to grave--really constitute a comprehensive "understanding"? Or can you really, truly "get" Dolphy from a few seconds of "Hat and Beard"? I know of enough individuals with an intelligent, passionate "feel" for Dolphy, none of whom have gotten past the canonical "five-star" albums. As far as I'm concerned, that sense of musician/listener communion is of paramount importance--far more valuable than whatever may be divined from a few low-fidelity home recordings.

And they always will. That shit was not "recorded well" originally. My advice - go for the LP/LPs and hear it the way it was originally heard. Less frustration that way. A real shame, regardless. Larry Young sounds like he's being recorded in a bathroom. Compare "Emergency" with the sound on the Blue Note sessions, or even "Turn It Over"--geez!

Interestingly enough, I named my dog Ayler. He has a white patch just below his lower jaw.

Good lord. Worth a laugh, anyway.

This has happened a few times (confusing, no?)--though not always with the same author. This one comes to mind: Booker Little: Victory and Sorrow (5 Stars) [review by Scott Yanow] Booker Little and Friend (4 1/2 Stars) [review by Scott Yanow] --They're the same damn album, although "and Friend" has outtakes. Just for the hell of it, this is from an old hardcopy of the allmusic guide: Brown Rice/1975/A&M 0809 o Don Cherry/i. May 1977/Horizon 717 According to the guide, "Don Cherry" is supposed to be one of Don's "landmark recordings" (hence the circle). However, Carl Brauer gives an "ambivalent" review (trashing the "funkish" cuts). Nothing is said about "Brown Rice"--no circle, no nothing. It's the same album. It's confusing, especially in the Marable/Clay case. Generally, I go with the more "thought out" reviews--a lot of those three-star, "list personnel only" critiques (like the first of the two Nastos reviews) are almost definitely placeholders. Like 3 Stars is the default or something.

Really, all of this information could be surmised through a careful examination of the recordings (or transcriptions, for ease of purpose). It looks remarkably pretty--and useful, in a way, for examining particular components of the improvisers' solos (e.g., use of space)--but, strangely, far less comprehensive than what can be purchased at your local sheet music shop. Additionally, this sort of analysis runs the risk of vastly oversimplifying the players in question, granted that all of the relevant information is broken up (this fails to examine, for example, the integration of melody/space and harmony, (again) all of which can be found elsewhere, but--really--isn't that some of the most interesting stuff?). All of it can be instructive, but it's smoke-and-mirrors--nothing really mindblowing. Of course, I'm stating the obvious. Seriously. Do Cecil Taylor.

Squiggles, I think. But I could be wrong.

The Harper/Tolliver engagement at Yoshi's (with John Hicks, Dwayne Burno, and Roy McCurdy) was unbelievable. Tremendous playing, excellent repertoire, all that jazz... Other mentions: Gerald Wilson Orchestra (a local LA gig), Haden's Liberation Music Orchestra, and Myra Melford's new Bay Area quartet. Looking forward to McCoy Tyner's two-week residency at Yoshi's (in a few weeks). You're so lucky to live in an area that has so many options.. The closest area to me is Chicago, almost 4 hrs from where I live in good weather.. When I lived in Oakland there were always places to go almost any day of the week.. Seriously. I'm in Berkeley most of the year, and it's a surprisingly fertile environment for improvised music (not just jazz). I keep telling myself I'll get more active in the Bay Area, but I've been sidelined (as of late)--fortunately, there's enough music to see.

Which version of the MJQ?

All of "Band of Gypsys." And "Little Wing." And "Voodoo Chile" (not slight return). Jimi was both an architect and an anarchist--a real fun dichotomy. Just for kicks--favorite solo on a Hendrix tune not performed by Jimi? -Billy Harper, "Castles Made of Sand" (from the Gil Evans Hendrix album)--he got it.

He was just getting it together as a composer and as an arranger. Would Led Zeppelin have been so wounderful if Jimi didn't create guitar orchestras? I think he was a fine composer/arranger, regardless. Still, there seems to be something remarkably "skeletal" about the compositions themselves--as if there were something intrinsically "unfinished" about a Jimi composition w/o the direct presence of Jimi the artist/mind. Jimi's tunes require vision. The vast body of aimless Hendrix covers is a testament to this fact; as far as I'm concerned, the best interpretations of Jimi's songs have been performed by individuals willing to impose themselves upon the compositions (e.g., the Gil Evans stuff, D&D's "Little Wing," although some may argue). In short, I don't think that Jimi is one of those writers whose tunes are or ever were "fully-formed." In such a manner, Hendrix (himself) became the final, "perfecting" component in his work--just as invaluable as the words, the chords, the melody (etc.). I agree with you, however, in that Jimi was reaching new levels of complexity toward the end of his life (imagine what "First Rays" would have become!).

As far as I'm concerned, Jimi was an even better "craftsman" than composer--at his poetic best in the studio, toiling away obsessively. That being said, I think "Band of Gypsys" is among the greatest electric guitar albums ever recorded--"greater," perhaps, than any of his studio work. Hendrix was most impressive in the middle ground... tight but loose, so to speak. That's why my favorite Hendrix "songs" (or cuts, really) are those wildly ambitious blowouts that never fail to inspire (or impress): If 6 Was 9, 1983, Castles Made of Sand ("Axis" and "Ladyland" are unmatched in sheer intricacy, vision, and mastery) It's all worth it, though.

The Harper/Tolliver engagement at Yoshi's (with John Hicks, Dwayne Burno, and Roy McCurdy) was unbelievable. Tremendous playing, excellent repertoire, all that jazz... Other mentions: Gerald Wilson Orchestra (a local LA gig), Haden's Liberation Music Orchestra, and Myra Melford's new Bay Area quartet. Looking forward to McCoy Tyner's two-week residency at Yoshi's (in a few weeks).