Alexander Hawkins

I couldn't agree more, and I'll give my recommendation as someone who is pretty new to the AEC. It is an amazing work, and one I just can't get enough of. Really inspired playing. I can only imaghine what it must have been like to see these guys play together. Genuine masters.

Another witness... Agree with everything that's been said so far. I reckon Dolphy's an incredibly consistent performer on record, but perhaps would stay clear from the 'In Europe' material to start with. Absolutely NOTHING to do with his playing; just the rhythm sections are not too great..! Do you have 'Mingus at Antibes'? If you like Mingus and his sidemen, this is an opportunity to hear Dolphy in a context you're happy with. I always feel that Dolphy's dates as a leader have a sound all of their own, which is maybe what makes them harder to get into (and all the more astounding when you do!).

Thanks Sundog, I'll have to try that one out; it looks pretty interesting. It 's almost, but not quite, substituting its way around the normal bridge, except up a fifth...hmmm. Pretty cool... ...Unless you're on the receiving end when it's called - that's a bit unkind! Thanks again, much appreciated!

Thanks for the heads up on the BBC site...Incidentally, I checked it myself for the first time in days earlier, and found my answers (and then promptly ordered 'Out Front' and 'Victory and Sorrow' (or '+ friend', however the CD is billed!)) Thanks for the help, Red

I've had 'Solid' on a lot recently, and I really enjoy Spaulding's playing on it. I'm in the camp of those who haven't quite been completely sold on the guy, but with a bit of work, I can see that happening!

Thanks for all the responses! I am really getting into this Charles Tyler. It's really effective having the 'cello and the bass. I'm not sure I've really *got* Joel Friedman's playing yet, but it's something new, and I'm getting there! But Tyler has an almost alarming intensity in his playing. Got to be in the right mood to put the disc on, but wow..! p.s. would one of the Ayler albums with Tyler be a good place to go from here (as well as that other Tyler ESP)? Cheers Red

Jacknife, Thanks for the response! Believe me, I am so clueless when it comes to this that everything is very useful indeed Thanks Red

Sundog, You've got me interested now! I don't have my CD with me, and I can't 'hear' the bridge in my head! How does the channel of this one go? Cheers! Red

Grant Green's 'Solid' for me! p.s. what is it with Grant and Rollins tunes? Mind you, fair play to him: they're some of my favourite heads as well!

It's a pretty tough call at the moment...

Of course not; I'll answer whatever I can to help. Others will probably do better - there are some VERY knowledgeable people around here - but I'd be more than glad to have a go! Not in the slightest. I guess there's a point where you've got to break into technical chat to make headway in a discussion! I don't think you need think of yourself as hypocritical for not giving the stuff a fair chance. In all honesty, you can comfort yourself by realising that you're probably only being tested by this type of music because you have a well developed ear for classical harmony and form. I think this is why even some relatively 'outside' classical musicians can have some trouble coming to freer forms of jazz - classical music (in all but a few incarnations - the really far out stuff! - can bring itself to dispose of harmony, but - and this may be inherent in its nature as a largely a written music - finds it very difficult to shirk some sense of form or structure. p.s. I have a correction to make! When I said how perceptive Dolphy was in the article Mike mentioned, I think I was mistaken as to the article he cited: I think I was thinking of a separate piece, where Dolphy is interviewed by Leonard Feather. I think...I'm not sure now, in fact! I had a thought earlier. One piece of free jazz which has a very prominent melodic streak - and the melody is thoroughly diatonic - is the album length 'People in Sorrow' by the Art Ensemble of Chicago. Being very long, without some kind of structure, it has the potential really to ramble...Not a bit of it; it is truly one of the most wonderful (and simply beautiful) pieces of music I can think of. If you could find a copy of this to listen to, it might really help. A very long piece, where the structure (as far as I can tell) is little more than an emotional one - but where there are a couple of 'classical' devices that might help your ear through it (namely, the diatonic melody and a sustained inverted pedal note towards the end). Good luck! Red

I think that's a really good one - has the attraction of being seminal, but not as 'here we go again' as 'Kind of Blue'! For that same reason, maybe Coltrane's Ascension would be worth a spin?

Red Norvo

Jazz, Don't worry, I'm certainly not soured. In fact, I know exactly how it feels to wander into technical language - being 'classically trained' (if that doesn't sound too pretentious!) as well! (Incidentally, I sympathise in being caught out by one's nickname being unhelpful: one of my nicknames is 'Red', but only the other day did it occur to me that it might seem obtuse to put a colour as a moniker..!) I take your point about modalism having an applicability to harmony in classical music. I did overlook that, but take your point. You're absolutely right here; there is the odd modal cadence at the end of Bach chorales, for instance (not to mention earlier music). I think I would still argue that classical harmony is probably only unusually called modal though? I don't know; I think this is an issue of labelling. As to the issue of George Russell's system being for understanding rather than composition...I think the answer would be yes and no. It is true that it does 'explain' note choices for improvisations which pre-date it; but as such, of course, it can be used as a prescription for future improvisation. It is both presecriptive and descriptive, in that sense. I also take the point about non-tonal music having form; I wouldn't argue with that at all (one would be hard pressed to call Webern or Boulez tonal, for instance, but equally hard pressed to deny that their works are awesomely structured). When you hear the form in straight ahead jazz, however, I wonder why this is? Is it because you hear the improvisations against standard ii-V-I progressions, etc.? If this is the case, then I think my point still stands that you are listening with preconceptions; and that listening might be easier if you were able to set these to one side. However, I think one answer would be that the form is 'internal' as opposed to 'external'. At the risk of sounding pretentious (again), then it may be that the structuring of the freest jazz is the structure of the personal expressive story that the soloist is trying to tell. If this is the case, then the analytical determination of form blurs into the emotional interpretation of the music. In other words, if one 'gets' the music's emotional message, then one will be able to make some sense of it; whereas if one cannot engage with the music emotionally, then one will of course not see its structure, which would remain that of the 'internal' story. On that reasoning, however, there are as many structures as there are stories; and there will only be un-usefully broad generalisations to be made about the structure: analogous to saying of a story that 'something happens'. Perhaps a useful analogy with this analysis of structure would be that of 'stream of consciousness' writing, however. Maybe it's just that free music is harder to get than free writing, because the respective language in music is that much more oblique. Perhaps I can leave a better explanation of George Russell's concept for later - I've got to leave my computer for a while now..? Or alternatively, I think there are some good explanations of it on the web. One other point - whilst I understand Mike's desire for concrete examples, I don't think they're necessarily vital for the discussion of this issue. For instance, you and I might agree on what is a focal instance of 'modern art' or a 'fast car' or a 'madrigal' without being able to specify more precisely what is at stake...So I think that as a matter for argumentation, logically we don't absolutely need examples! Certainly though, I haven't taken anything you've said the wrong way; on the contrary, I enjoy having to think analytically about the music, which is, after all, so neglected in these terms compared with its more 'respected' (in establishment circles) classical counterpart! Anyway, Jazz, would be interested to hear what you thought! Red

Art Tatum

Just listening to 'Drives' earlier. I have to admit that after seeing him live on several occasions, and thinking that he was simply the best thing EVER AT ALL NO QUESTIONS ASKED, I've been slightly confused by a lot of his stuff on record. I'm not 'disappointed' by it, because listening to it, I can imagine seeing him playing it...If you've seen him, you'll know what I mean. But I can't help but feel, if I put on a CD like Drives without having seen him, I would find a lot of the stuff totally WEIRD! I do find there are exceptions. He absolutely burns on Marmaduke and Confirmation on the Lou Donaldson 'Relaxin' at Sea' (Chiaroscuro), for instance. I wondered what everyone thought about the 'Turbanator' (that nickname has to make you cringe...)

I know this at the front end of Pearson's career, but I just picked up 'Bag's Groove' on Black Lion. This is the only Pearson I have as a leader - some really nice Bud Powell-esque piano. Judging from other CDs I have where he appears as a sideman (Idle Moments etc.), his style seemed to move on a bit from 'Bag's Groove'. Is there a particularly good place to start with his BN output?

Oops, forgot about Here 'Tis, the selfish raison d'etre for this thread (i.e. I haven't heard it; everyone loves it). If we threw that in, we'd have a good length disc! (Although also the need to justify leaving out (or including) Grant's First Stand.)

Al Haig (p.s. I take it this is where this is where we would start moving the other way around the table if I had said Albert Ammons?!?)

Oops. Mike beat me to it there. I agree about the Coltrane/Dolphy article. I think it may actually be available online somewhere; perhaps in the archive at Downbear online? Dolphy says brilliantly what I took too long to say (and probably said badly).

Jazzaroni, I *think* I see what you're getting at; but (and apologies if I have misunderstood your question) I think you may have asked the wrong question. If you mean this question in apposition to 'tonal music', then I think it is flawed. Ask the correlative question: what are the goals of tonal music? It's not obvious then that the issues engage. The goals of tonal music are either a) emotional/aesthetic or B) technical - in the sense that tonal music generally involves harmonic centering and/or progression. If you mean that you understand the emotional/aesthetic goals of tonal music, then the only answers I can offer to you as to the goals of A-G/free jazz are emotive: 'I like it because it makes me happy/sad', etc. If, however, you do not understand the technical goals of free jazz, then I think this is because you listen to it from the tonal point of view. In other words, it is meaningless from the tonal point of view, because it lacks functional harmony as a conventional western tonal theorist would understand it. The 'idea' would then be to try to listen to the music without your 'tonal' analytical mind; in which case, the issue collapses back into an aesthetic one - i.e. the question would be 'now do you get free jazz?' About your comments on modalism. Sure, you may well consider straight ahead jazz to be modal. For those whose jazz is conservatory taught, the same is true - they think in terms of ionian, dorian, locrian modes, etc. The classic exposition of this would be George Russell's 'Lydian Chromatic Concept.' I think the explanation can go two ways from here; and substantively, whichever you subscrive to doesn't make much difference, I don't think. First is that modal jazz is what we all think of it in plain 'liner note' speak: extended passages of the same chords, used non-functionally (sorry; that bit is pretentious, but I think you know what I mean: harmony as in 'Footprints' or 'Impressions', etc.!) The 'Lydian Chromatic Theory' can then be thought of as an ex post rationalisation of 'straight ahead' harmony; i.e. a structure imposed on it from 'outside' to act as a way of facilitating our understanding of why we play the notes we play. This explains why one could analyse a Charlie Parker solo in these terms, for instance, even though Bird was dead by the time George Russell did his theorizing (I think; I forget when Russell published his work). Either this, or as you say, straight ahead harmony is really all modal, and when we use the adjective 'modal' for a style of jazz, we use it very loosely. This is possible, although I incline towards the former explanation; simply because in classical parlance, when we think of 'modes', we think of scales. When in classical music we think of harmony, however, we think in intervallic terms: of 'stacking' intervals, etc.; of the significance of 3rds and 7ths - and so on. I hope this helps. If I have understood you right, then, the issue is really 'I don't emotionally/aesthetically 'get' A-G/free jazz, in which case, all it leaves people here to do is to tell you whether or not they personally like it, and then why!

This is one of those 'please only use short words, I don't really understand' questions! So... At present, I have a fairly good, but nevertheless very entry-level hifi system; amp + cd player + speakers. I have, however, also been given another pair of smaller speakers, but of the same make; such that if I buy the sub-woofer, I'll have the package which KEF used to sell as their home-cinema speaker system. Given that I'm on a tight budget(!), what would be the minimum amount of equipment which I would need to be able to watch DVDs with surround sound? I realise that obviously it will need a DVD player and a TV; I'm just not sure about the amp situation, etc. Please no-one go to any trouble to answer this, but if the solution is simple, I would be very pleased to hear it! Thanks in advance!

Another one for those of us who missed the Mosaic to drool over!

Very difficult between 'Night Dreamer' and 'Speak no Evil'. Will have to go for 'Night...' because it seems to need the plaudits, and it was my first Wayne BN. Elvin is awesome on both, so I can't use that as a distinguishing criterion!