B. Marsalis "A Love Supreme"

[Leeway]

Haven't noticed any attention for this one. I've only heard a part of it-- part of the first "section" and it sounded pretty good. It's a combo DVD and CD package.

Has anyone heard it? What do you think of Branford, or anyone else for that matter, doing a version of "ALS"? Is this a piece that demands fidelity to the original, or can it stand different interpretive approaches? It seems to have nearly taken on the aura of church music, such that anyone who plays it is committing some sort of sacrilege.

Here's a review from the "Pacific Northwest Islander" (anyone ever heard of this paper?). Only review I found at the moment:

CD Review - Branford Marsalis

by Michael Bowen

Branford and Wynton Marsalis are all about honoring jazz tradition. But Branford, more of a risk-taker, stretches more boundaries.

In the initial release of his Marsalis Music imprint, Branford pays tribute to Ornette Coleman ("Giggin'"), Sonny Rollins ("The Freedom Suite") and John Lewis ("Concorde"). But it's in his evocation of John Coltrane's A Love Supreme that the saxophonist takes the greatest chances and measures his greatest achievement.

In his cover of the first section ("Acknowledgment") of Coltrane's four-part religious suite, Marsalis matches the fervency of the original by taking a more insistent solo on tenor, then relaxing and taking up Trane's four-note theme from a different, more introspective angle. In place of Coltrane's droning chant of the title phrase, Eric Revis picks a slow, unadorned bass line that brings the movement's recognition of God's power to a breathless close.

Unexpectedly, in the opening to Part II, "Resolution," Marsalis offers up an obviously unresolved sax fanfare that yields to Joey Calderazzo's piano-swing, brighter and breezier than McCoy Tyner's comparable solo in the '64 original. Marsalis' fiery riffs later on are matched by the equally fiery drum work of Jeff "Tain" Watts, whose use of sticks and cymbals throughout is eye-opening. Watts stretches out what appeared to have been resolved into a further quest, suggesting that resolution won't be attained anytime soon.

Marsalis opts to link the four Supreme sections seamlessly, and Watts's drum solo picks up speed for the "Pursuance" of Part III. While staying recognizably within Coltrane's groove, Marsalis improvises some of his most inspired wailing on this pursuit, and the pace quickens yet again, especially on Calderazzo's piano.

Revis bridges sections again with his bass, and Part IV, "Psalm," relaxes into unaffected praise. With the turmoil of unbelief over, Marsalis wraps up his prayer more concisely than his predecessor.

In the prayer he wrote for his liner notes, Coltrane asserts that "One thought can produce millions of vibrations and they all go back to God... everything does... ELATION – ELEGANCE – EXALTATION – All from God." In the homage he pays to his forebears' Footsteps, and especially in his respectful re-envisioning of A Love Supreme, Branford Marsalis makes us feel all three of those dimensions.

Edited December 7, 2004 by Leeway

[Big Al]

I listened to it once. It's good, reverent, and sometimes risky. A very worthy tribute, but I felt kinda silly listening to it: I mean, why listen to this when I can hear the originals in all their majestic glory?

[RDK]

I listened to it once. It's good, reverent, and sometimes risky. A very worthy tribute, but I felt kinda silly listening to it: I mean, why listen to this when I can hear the originals in all their majestic glory?

True, but can't one say this about any cover version? I mean, every time I hear someone cover a Monk tune I think that Monk did it "better."

[Big Al]

True that! But with a lot of Monk covers, there is the stamp of that artist's personality. I don't hear it on the Branford album.

Edited December 7, 2004 by Big Al

[Rooster_Ties]

What do you think of Branford, or anyone else for that matter, doing a version of "ALS"?  Is this a piece that demands fidelity to the original, or can it stand different interpretive approaches?

Many here will find this hard to believe, because I'm normally no fan of Wynton (neither his music, nor his musical politics).

But Spontoonious loaned me a recording of Elvin Jones, Wynton, Marcus Roberts, and Reginald Veal performing A Love Supreme (live) back in 1992. And while it's not totally compelling -- I did find much to like in what I heard.

In fact, just now I was digging around looking for the CD cover of this release, and I found a link to a RealAudio link of an entire performance of ALS by the same group at Lincoln Center (the version released was from a performance in Tokyo).

The page where the link was is now out-of-date, but the Google cashe of the page still has the link -- and it still works.

CLICKY LINKY

The actual performance of ALS starts around the 12:30 mark (of a total of 59 minutes of audio).

While I'm not totally blown away by Wynton's interpretation (nor Marcus Roberts' contribution), I do think the material rises above the players -- and Elvin certainly keeps things interesting (and Elvin helps make the others more interesting too). AND, if I 'squint' my ears hard enough, I can seriously imagine what Woody Shaw might have done with this material (oh, what I wouldn't give for that!! -- quick, get me a time machine!! )

Anyway, I don't think new full performances of ALS are necessarily a bad thing, but I do think the work requires some care in how one approaches it -- both from the performer, and also from the listener too.

I am deeply terrified, however, of Wynton's latest take on ALS, which he has recast for big band.

But the earlier version with Wynton (from the early 90's), is something I would gladly buy if I stumbled across a cheaply priced used copy. It ain't perfect, I know (and not by a long-shot), but it's better and a lot more interesting than I was ever expecting. (Call it at least half-a-thumbs-up.)

Here's the cover -- found it on a Japanese site...

Edited December 7, 2004 by Rooster_Ties

[Rooster_Ties]

Just finished listening to the entire RealAudio stream of the Elvin/Wynton version of ALS. Not half bad, not half bad - warts and all. Normally I bash Wynton until the cows come home, but even I have to admit that it took some balls to even half-way pull it off.

(Still wouldn't touch Wynton's new big-band version with a 100-foot pole, though. )

[Lazaro Vega]

The above review seems more about the version on "Footsteps" than it does the new DVD.

The DVD "extras" include an interview with Branford and Alice Coltrane that is very interesting.

If Branford draws flak for touching "A Love Supreme," then what of Rova plus guests doing "Ascension"? That's a killer, by the way. They take up that energy music with no qualms.

[Harold_Z]

Just accept it or reject it on it's own merits.

No pre-concieved notions.

[Joe M]

This is a totally different recording from the one on "Footsteps". Much better I think. And fans of jazz DVD's will love this. Excellent camera work and editing do a better job of capturing a jazz group than almost any I've seen before.

I've heard clips of the LCJO ALS album. It's interesting, though I know the Wynton haters won't like it.

[RDK]

Shockingly ( ) I don't really disagree with Clem here, but I also can't help but wonder why so many people seem to feel that ALS is an "untouchable" tune to cover. I mean, hell, every sax player has done a version of "Lush Life" or "Star Eyes" or whatever, and I've always assumed that one reason this was "okay" was that each musician (or at least the "good" ones) puts his own stamp on the material and improvises in some (at least slightly) different way. If not, then there'd hardly be a need for anyone to perform jazz standards.

But ALS seems different somehow, and I'm not sure if it's just because it's perhaps the one piece most closely associated with JC or because its length and complexity makes it a lousy tune to improvise off of. I agree with Clem that it would be more interesting to hear, say, a solo piano version or a version with different instrumentation, but what's so wrong - and what's prevented anyone in the past - with a musician covering it?

I gotta say, it seems rather ballsy that Branford would even want to tackle ALS given the shoes he'd be trying to fill.

Edited December 7, 2004 by RDK

[Joe M]

not to be toooooooo anti-intellectual here but... will someone tell me what the effin' POINT of this could possibly be? sounds like more reflected-glory BULLSHIT & in the whole wide world of music, why would any marsalis bother & why-- why dadgummit?!-- the fuck would ya'll bother to listen? for greater understanding of ALS as a composition? read a music theory book, yo, if you dunno that stuff already. take cornet lessons, drive around taking pictures of old chop suey signs-- there are lots of ways to spend yr days & yr wampum. anything but this.

maybe-- MAYBE-- if branford transcribed ALS for solo piano (he'll dedicate it to Cecil, right) or wyton arranged Bernd Alois Zimmermann's "Requiem" for a small jazz combo i'd be "curious." meantime, this is a waste of EVERYONE's energy, time, cerebration, etc.

fucking next, PLEASE.

toot toot!

clem

Not half as much of a "waste of time" as a brilliant post such as yours. It's just music, ok? If you don't like it, fine, that's WONDERFUL. You could critique it rather than hurl insults, but well, that would be too difficult. I'd rather hear Branford play ALS any day over reading a vulgar post such as yours. Talk about a waste of "cerebration".

[Leeway]

I've taken a lot of shots at Wynton (like he's worried, right ), but I think Branford is a different deal than his brother.

Branford has great chops. He tries new things. I'm sure he knew he would piss some folks off for touching ALS. I'd like to hear the whole thing before making a final judgment, but it seems like he has made a credible interpretation of ALS.

I posed the question whether ALS is a piece that can be "covered." I'd hate to see it turn into a musuem piece, untouched, under glass. I think it can stand up to different approaches; in fact, I think it benefits the music. Sure, do a piano version. But Branford is not a piano player, so his version is gonna be a sax version, right?

Anyway, that piano to orchestra thang has been done by Moussorskyand Ravel.

[Joe M]

Clem we all know you don't like the Marsalises and have some sort of deep, seething, loathing for them - but that tells us a lot more about you than it does about Wynton and Branford. We all have read the anti-Wynton threads - but how about talking about THIS music, made by Wynton's brother? Not the marketing, not the record deals, not the TIME articles, but about this recording of ALS? I know that can be difficult, and requires one to have actually heard the music.

And about ALS. It's a piece of music. That's it. It's a great piece of music, but it's still a composition, and in that sense no different than something by Bach or Mahler or Kenny Dorham. Let whoever wants to, do whatever they want, becasue it doesn't change the original. If what they do turns out badly, they're the ones who will have to live with it. It's not going to sully Coltrane's legacy. Like Kenny G and his "jazz" album - it made him look stupid, but does anyone think it really has tarnished the reputation of Louis Armstrong? Bad taste - yes. A crime - not one I care to prosecute, though I'm sure some in the jazz police will.

I think part of the problem in another jazz artist recording ALS is that the composition and original recording) are connected in a way that is more so than even something by Ellington, or Monk or Mingus. I'm not saying that ALS cannot stand up on it's own as a composition, but that recording of it is so much a part of the piece itself, THAT'S what makes it tough for anyone else to cover, more so than say Lush Life, or Giant Steps, or Crescent.

[CJ Shearn]

I got it a few weeks ago, its pretty hot.

[cannonball-addict]

Joe,

Read the goddamn liner notes which Trane wrote on ALS and then tell us it's just a composition - just a piece of music. Yeah certainly anyone can play it. But it's Trane's project. His statement to God! It wasn't a compositional thing - well yes it was a four part suite based on a four note theme - but it was so much more than the form and the notes. ALS is not ALS without Coltrane playing.

It's not like playing a cover of Kenny Dorham's "Blue Bossa." It carries a lot more weight.

I think the real problem is that the people who have chosen to "reinterpret" it and are getting the media's attention about it are dangerous people (namely Wynton) because we all know they are capable of swaying/directing public opinion of jazz and ultimately what Coltrane meant ALS to be. Did he mean for us to try to play it? Or was it his?

I could understand if these cats wanted to make their own statements to God. I might listen to that but I'm not gonna listen to one guy trying to adapt another man's suffering to his life because Coltrane was who he was and there will never be another who experience exactly what he experienced.

I haven't heard either and don't intend to for the time being - though I am definately much more a fan of Branford than Wynton for his daringness throughout his adult career compared with the neoclassicism of his brother Wynton.

[John L]

Just accept it or reject it on it's own merits.

No pre-concieved notions.

I'm reposting Z's message because I think that it needs to be re-emphasized.

[Joe M]

Read the goddamn liner notes which Trane wrote on ALS and then tell us it's just a composition - just a piece of music.

I've read the liners to ALS, I've listened to it's hundreds of times, read the book, all that stuff. I know about the spiritual connection, all of that stuff. BUT, it's still just music, just like Handel's music is still just music, just like Bach is still just music, no matter the connection to faith. People want to make Coltrane a god, or some sort of deity. But the truth is he was a man, an immensly talented musician, who later in his career explored his faith through his music. And that's what it is, MUSIC.

And clem - you write a lot but say little. (just like Wynton!) You're the one with the fascination with Marsalis here, bud. Paranoid people always need to construct a villan, and that's what all the Wynton haters have done. He's a way to explain away all the problems in jazz, why the music you like isn't heard, he's an outlet for your jealousy and envy. I understand it totally. It's not a very healthy outlook though!

And by the way I didn't spend a dime on the ALS DVD. It was sent to me for review. I would reccomend it to most jazz fans, even those who hate Wynton, because I think it's pretty good.

[Simon Weil]

And clem - you write a lot but say little. (just like Wynton!) You're the one with the fascination with Marsalis here, bud. Paranoid people always need to construct a villan, and that's what all the Wynton haters have done. He's a way to explain away all the problems in jazz, why the music you like isn't heard, he's an outlet for your jealousy and envy. I understand it totally. It's not a very healthy outlook though!

Well Wynton is the one who thinks he's at war:

Q: "Why are you so serious?"

WM: "Because as Mr Murray says, culture is life-style, and wars are fought over what style of life a society will lead."

Sweet Swing Blues On The Road (SSBOTR) p145

And here are a few shots he's fired in his little war:

"...You can't develop jazz by not playing it, not swinging or playing the blues. Today's jazz criticism celebrates as innovation forms of music that don't address the fundamentals of the

music."

SSBOTR p141

"I think it's all about power - the power to define what the music is...They (the critics "They [the critics] want the music played by people who don't know what they're doing but are on the cutting edge of something...they like the idea of jazz being outsiders music."

Shooting From the Hip/John Fordham (Quote:1994)

Q: "What about the free-jazz innovations of [Ornette Coleman's] that everyone talks about.

WM [Delayed answer]: "I've talked to Ornette about his notion of free jazz. I don't understand it. I think it's chaos. Maybe it's not, but that's what I think it is. Chaos is always there; it's something you can get from fifty kids in a band room. I'm in favour of using that conception when kids first start playing. It helps them explore their instruments and music without restraint."

American Heritage 1995

"When you come to New York there's a whole school of musicians who are called avant-garde, and you don't really need any craft requirements to join their ranks. All you have to do is be black and have an African name."

and:

"It's much easier to whip up this nasty fast, fast food version of innovation than to humble yourself to the musical logics that were thoroughly investigated by [the]masters.

Francis Davis Article 1988

[Music since the era of Coltrane and Coleman]

"I've listened to it. I was at the first concert the World Saxophone Quartet gave. I played on bills with the Art Ensemble of Chicago. It's not interesting to me to play like that. If I've rejected it, it's not out of ignorance of it. I don't even like Coltrane's later stuff to be honest. I don't listen to it like I do A Love Supreme. It was with that type of things that late-period Coltrane did that jazz destroyed its relationship with the public. That avant-garde conception of music that's loud and

self-absorbed - nobody's interested in hearing that on a regular basis."

Seems like Wynton does a pretty good job of constructing himself as a hate figure (and I could go on). Course if he was suddently abducted by aliens (perhaps Free Music loving ones), the problems he represent wouldn't go away. He is a symbolic figure to a large extent.

My personal feeling is that his time is up, in terms of being a central figure in Jazz - and we don't know what comes next.

Yet.

Simon Weil

[Jim Alfredson]

Fer chrissakes people, it's a piece of music.

[mikeweil]

Fer chrissakes people, it's a piece of music.

[RDK]

And here are a few shots he's fired in his little war:

Well, to be fair to Wynton (and I rarely am as his music just doesn't move me all that much), in most of those quotes he was asked his opinion about free and ag jazz and simply told the truth: that he just doesn't dig it all that much. He's quite free to like and dislike (and make) whatever styles of music he chooses. I don't think it has as much to do with a bias or a "closed mind" as simply a personal (and rather conservative imo) preference. I don't like a lot of ag either - but no one cares as I'm not in a posiion to make my position on it known to a wide audience.

When he states, re: ag jazz, that "nobody's interested in hearing that on a regular basis," he's sort of right to a point (though he's making a gross generalization). That's why ag jazz will never, almost by definition, be a "popular" genre to the mainstream. It's not intended to be. I've been on a big Braxton kick lately and have really come to appreciate his style, but his music obviously isn't as accessible as Brubeck or Miles. Now WM can sing the praises of Braxton (or Ornette) if he so desires, but why should he if he doesn't get/like them? That's Wynton's problem, not mine.

The fact is that WM is a popular and populist kind of jazz musician. He's a fine technician, but a bit too bland (imo) and conservative in his style. But that's the kind of thing that makes him so "pop"-ular with the masses. His problem is that he's become too successful given his artistic accomplishments and too outspoken regarding his conservative tastes - and that pisses off more open-minded jazz fans.

[mikeweil]

My personal feeling is that his time is up, in terms of being a central figure in Jazz - and we don't know what comes next.

hmmm .... so Wynton was at the center of the jazz world - or was that Lincoln center .... am I missing anything?

We personally make it up what is at the center of our little personal jazz world - anybody aspiring to be there gets himself into trouble - although I doubt Wynton cares that much about what is written here about him.

I thought the times were over when the jazz (or any other) world needed a "leader"!

And I'm glad I don't know what comes next - otherwise it would be damn boring!

Edited December 8, 2004 by mikeweil

[couw]

Fer chrissakes people, it's a piece of music.

From what I have understood from this discussion your statement is viewed as as much of a mantra as Coltrane's chant. Sounds cool, does not add much.

Just an observation from the sidelines.

[Joe M]

My personal feeling is that his time is up, in terms of being a central figure in Jazz - and we don't know what comes next.

hmmm .... so Wynton was at the center of the jazz world - or was that Lincoln center .... am I missing anything?

Exactly, Wynton's critics, in order to be able to tear him down and use him to explain away all of these other things and problems with the music, are actually building him up as a more important figure than he really is, which is what they accuse their opponents of doing. If Wynton didn't exist, his enemies would have to invent him.

[.:.impossible]

"... just music..."

as clem said, and i quote, "whoa."

In my world, A Love Supreme, (not ALS) came after the age of standards. it is not "just music," it is MUSIC. Fucking MUSIC. Are you all so jaded that you don't think of MUSIC as MAGIC anymore? The more I learn about music, the more I believe in its magic.

Just a piece of music? Just a piece of music. How do you put a price tag on that one...

I saw the Branford DVD in the store the other day and I picked it up. I like to watch music while I listen. What can I say, I'm of that generation. I put it down because all I could think of was Coltrane. I wish I could watch and LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN TO COLTRANE play the real A LOVE SUPREME. If Branford, or any other musician felt that devout, he/she would have written there own music.

This is not music to be showcased. It is not "just music." This is John Coltrane paying homage. This is not the Lord's Prayer to be repeated by the masses. This is John Coltrane, the flesh and blood, giving what he could as a man, to his God.