Scott Yanow

Here where we go again, Ha Ha. No point me even commenting on half of what is being said. Differences of opinions should be able to be expressed without insults. But since that seems difficult for some, I'm visiting this forum much less than I'd originally planned to. I do enjoy the music of the all of the organists cited. They have individual differences. Just like one can distinguish Sonny Clark, Barry Harris and 1950s Hampton Hawes from Bud Powell. But innovative? Oh sure. Big John Patton would have sounded just like he did without Jimmy Smith having preceded him. Believe what you wish.

One can agree to disagree. I stand by what I wrote. I don't believe that John Patton ever completely escaped from the influence of Jimmy Smith, particularly in his sound rather than his licks. Few organists of that period other than Larry Young (or Sun Ra which is a different story altogether) during the second half of his career were successful at that. And Live At The Scorpion did/does bore me. So it just means that your opinion differs from mine. And I do like funky soul jazz organ, always have. But do I think there are a lot of great individualists in that idiom? Nah. Does this mean that I'm right and you're wrong? Nope. Use your ears and enjoy whatever appeals to you.

It seems a little odd I guess to answer criticisms from 2003. I did write that Lou Donaldson played varitone on that session. Apparently someone at AMG changed it to baritone. But thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, ha ha. Listening to it now, I wish Lou Donaldson had played baritone instead. Does anyone still play varitone? I always thought it was unfortunate that Donaldson and Sonny Stitt spent time on it. In contrast, John Klemmer and Eddie Harris played the electric sax like it was a different instrument than a tenor, and they were innovative in what they came up with. But Donaldson and Stitt just played their usual licks and the varitone watered down their tones.

Yes sorry, I meant Nippon Soul and Dizzy's Business. Japanese Concerts was a double-Lp reissue of those records. That is some of my favorite Cannonball Adderley, great stuff.

Yes, the musicians are great and the set list looks very promising. But the results are dull and uninspired. Perhaps I should have given it two stars but it is definitely a weak effort. Put it on next to some of the 1963 concerts, say Japanese Concerts or Dizzy's Business, and tell me with a straight face that this is on the same level. Sorry but Cannonball sounds bored. Not every performance by every great musician is stellar.

The more that musicians write about music, the better. The most articulate ones give the rest of us a great deal of knowledge when they write and talk about it.

Also, Charlie Parker talked with Conte Candoli about forming a new quintet and using him in 1955. But Bird soon died. Candoli might have accepted that job.

Well let's see. Those five terms do overlap with each other and what they represent has been open to change through the years. 1 - Avant Garde - In some ways this phrase means "ahead of its time" so one could call Louis Armstrong's 1928 recordings with Earl Hines avant garde for the period. In a more general sense, it usually means that the music is beyond chordal improvisation, often dropping the use of chords altogether or using them just for contrast. Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra (some of the time), John Coltrane (particularly after 1964), Albert Ayler and others were called avant garde although now their 1960s music is over 40 years old. It often utilizes free expression without conventional rules although some rules imposed by the composer/improviser are often applied. 2 - Improvised/Improvisational - This isn't a style but an approach that helps make music jazz. To simplify it, if you improvise, that means you are making up what you are playing as you go along, even if you are closely following chordal patterns or improvising off of the melody. A good way to know if something is improvised is to hear it being played two straight times or a band performing two straight nights. If it is different, it is improvised. 3 - Creative - Also not a style but a description. All high-quality jazz is creative in that the improviser or composer comes up with fresh ideas, and is not merely repeating the same arrangement year after year. 4 - Progressive - It just means looking ahead. Progressive Jazz is a phrase that Stan Kenton used to describe some of his bands but in reality it's not a specific style. It's just being open minded and open to change, like being a liberal. 5 - Free - Free Jazz and Avant Garde jazz overlap. Much of the music of the 1960s and beyond can be called that. Free can just mean being free to improvise whatever one likes and feels. Ornette Coleman's early music was called Free Jazz but it wasn't completely free in that it usually used a steady pulse. The music can be avant garde and utilize a tight arrangment. In that case the harmonies and chords (or lack of) along with the solos are avant garde. Free jazz tends to use very little written-out music except a quick theme, focusing mostly on the improvising. But they do overlap and most of the best jazz is really beyond a simple categorization. Progressive and creative are just adjectives (like saying that the music is great) while improvisational is a term that fits just all worthwhile jazz. Hope that helps.

That's great that Buddy Schutz is still around. He was a fine drummer. But is he still playing?

Which is how it's supposed to be. We merely provide clues to readers whether they would like the recording or not.

Wow, Clementine. Want some more rope?

Thanks to those of you who welcome me here. I appreciate it. I'll stick around and occasionally make posts about topics that interest me. And always feel free to ask me anything you like, or question my reviews. I certainly don't expect people to agree with all of my writing. I just do my best as honestly and as accurately as I can. No jazz writer (except Whitney Balliett who is God) is infallible. Critics are not above being criticized. We just do what we can to help the music and give readers information. I've never been particularly interested in writing overly lengthy analysis of solos; only the late Martin Williams had the talent to make that interesting. If my writing strikes some as overly concise, usually that is what various editors or the All Music Guide want. If someone asks for 200 words and I hand in 1,000, they'll get rid of me quickly. I also learned long ago that there is no virtue in wasting words, turning performance reviews into novels or making each article into my memoirs. There is simply no excuse for pieces about jazz being boring, not when the music is so exciting. Clementine, your last post is a crack-up. It made me chuckle in a few spots. It's nice to know that I've had zero impact on you and yet you seem to read my stuff anyway. I guess that's an odd compliment of sorts. And I bet, despite your denials, that you learned something from Trumpet Kings, if only the name of some obscure trumpeters who you might not have heard of. As far as being a "music processor," sorry but that definition makes little real sense. Perhaps one could call a discographer that, they serve such a valuable purpose, but I am a jazz critic, for better or worse. It's really not my goal to have an "impact" on every single jazz fan. I just hope that my writing helps a few. What is important are the musicians and the singers, they are the creators, and the ones that really matter.

Johnny Frigo is not listed on any dates before 1940 in the Brian Rust discographies. I don't know about whether Jack Butler is alive and active. I do hope that you guys can come up with some people to add to this list, but so far it looks doubtful. So let's celebrate these jazz greats while they are still with us. With a few additions from 1940-44 (like Jay McShann) and a few who are inactive (Martha Tilton), this is what is left of the swing era.

Actually the Gene Greene recording I was referring to is the even earlier "King Of The Bungaloos" which definitely has a couple of choruses of scatting near its conclusion. It is scat-singing in 1911! I was made aware of Gene Greene when I acquired From Ragtime To Jazz Vol. 3, put out by the Timeless label. This version seems to be slightly different and a tiny bit earlier than the Timeless one though I need to play them back-to-back. It's a great record to reissue, so its historic importance (being 14 years before Louis Armstrong's "Heebie Jeebies" and 12 years before Cliff Edwards) should have been mentioned. That was my point anyway, but enough of my nitpicking.

John Zorn? That makes sense. It'll help keep Tzadik running. Regina Carter? She is a great violinist so I don't really mind, but it seems like the award should go to people who have ambitious projects that could use funding, or ones who run important record labels. I don't really know what the rules are. If only Horace Tapscott had gotten it ten years ago. That might have made a difference.