Andrew Hill Select "talk about THE MUSIC" thread

[Rooster_Ties]

OK, I got my set about two hours ago. I've spun through all the tracks, listening to one minute here, 2 minutes there, and three or four complete tracks that really grabbed me --- in other words, a little bit of everything.

My first, very early reactions are that there is quite a bit of really interesting music here -- and at least half of the tunes that I'd never heard before, really made me want to hear more!! But also there were probably as many that didn't grab me the first time as much as I might have liked.

I hope to listen to the whole thing tomorrow, while I'm working on some other stuff around the house. (And maybe a bit more late tonight.)

Disc #1 seemed like a pretty coherent album, almost like "Dance With Death", part two. I think the new material here stands up pretty darn well, at least from what I heard anyway. I've always liked the three tracks Tolliver tracks from the old "One For One" LP's, and the extra material is very welcome.

Disc #2 seemed the most "hit and miss" to me -- but then again, it also was the least bombastic, and thus the least likely to benefit from just spinning through them quickly.

Disc #3 really sounded very interesting (the two dates with Sam Rivers, one of which also has Woody Shaw). Cool use of organ on a couple of these tracks, in a very dramatic way (behind the other soloists, or ensemble passages). This material sounds as interesting as anything Hill did in 1965.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Chuck Nessa]

No Shit!!!!!

[Stefan Wood]

I got the set when I came home, popped them in my Mac, and put them in my ipod, and listened to it as I was driving south to Williamsburg to visit my folks. I only listened to the first disc, cause I forgot to bunch them in one folder -- long story. Some of the music on the first disc appeared in the two fer 70's reissue (One for One?). Let me tell you, Malcolm Addey does a knock out job with remastering! But the music is great --- not every track is a "hit" -- I thought there were a couple of tunes wandered aimlesslessly, but for the killer material are the sessions with string quartet -- WOW!!

Having peeked at the liner notes, written by Cuscuna, it is very interesting reading, as he give a brief synopsis of his own career in the record industry, how his relationship with Hill came about, and his early diggings into the vaults. Very nice! There is also a "complete" (always have to be cautious with this) discography of Andrew Hill's Blue Note sessions.

So far, a big thumbs up!

[Rooster_Ties]

Spent a little more time with the set, though mostly just disc #3 -- the one that's maybe the most "adventurous" of the three (open to debate). That, and the other draw for me was Sam Rivers and Woody Shaw.

Sure there are some problems with the material, here and there. Already heard a few -- some ensemble passages are rough, balances off here and there too -- like on the date with Howard Johnson, who sometimes seems low in the mix, and sometimes too loud for certain punctuated notes.

But the quality of the soloing (especially in the horns) and the writing (overall), seems to rise above the other issues exist with this material (at least IMHO).

The 3rd disc* also really reminds me of COMPULSION, in tone and a bit in concept too perhaps (*though maybe the second Sam Rivers date on the Select, more than the first).

I'll echo Stefan's comment about some of the material "wandering" a bit (sometimes more than just "a bit" too, perhaps especially on the "Chained" material, though I've not heard enough of it to really judge). BUT, that's often the way I've reacted to Hill's music over the years, on first listen. (Heck, I had the Hill 63-66 Mosaic for three years before I ever really began to connect with any of it, so why should I expect a complete nirvana instantly with these kind of sessions --- yes, even for a Hill fanatic like me.)

The sound is great too, I might add. I'm not an audiophile aficionado, but this thing sounds superb to my ears.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[sidewinder]

How's Andrew's playing on the soprano?

This thread has me salivating so in the meantime whilst awaiting shipment will have to reaquaint myself with the 'One For One' 2LP set. Always liked that session with the strings !

Edited February 19, 2005 by sidewinder

[JSngry]

The CHAINED session is nothing short of amazing.

Where have you gone, Mr. Robinson?

[jazzbo]

Andrew has a denser sound on the soprano than say the Coltrane-school sound. (It's a curved soprano too, which may be pertinent or not). Also he's playing less rapidly and fluidly here than the other soprano players on this set. It's obviously not his primary axe.

I've listened to the first two discs. I love them. I've always been a fan of what was released on "One on One" and the remainder of that material is fantastic here. I don't find the aimlessness at all, it's to me just the way Hill is and how his music segues from theme to theme, place to place. I've really enjoyed hearing the trio material as well, I love Hill in trio, and adding in the organ and that one outburst of soprano, just adds a new level of fascination. Robinson on drums adds interest for me as well as he has a differnt approach than the other drummers on Hill sessions and I like the approach and the very fact of difference.

Sound is wonderful. Addey's mastering seems to really allow the instruments to speak. McMaster's seems to add a sheen that homogenizes a little bit (and thins out the sound to my ears, more "digitally" sounding, I'm trying not to trash his work, but I'm always disappointed when he's the digital engineer). Addey's mastering here is a definite PLUS! Natural, full sound.

I've had to take a break before going back to this set. Truly powerful music.

[JSngry]

Yeah, Andrew's soprano playing is "functional". Serves the purpose just fine, but nothing more. The denser sound Lon refers to is what you get when a player hasn't gotten to learning the finer points of sound production on the instrument (or when they have and decided to go somewhere else with it). It's not so much in the tone as it is in the attacks and the quality of the sustaiined notes. Again, it serves the purpose of the session perfectly, so don't think I'm dissing it. Far from it.

I have more thoughts about the CHAINED session (and the set as a whole), but will save them for later. Suffice it to say that this puppy is a MAJOR release, and for many different reasons.

The two takes of "Illusion" are a real treat, too. The first retains the mix/balance/whatever of the ONE FOR ONE date, but the alternate brings the strings way up in the mix, which better serves the music, I think. Hill's solo on that one has always seemed to me to be a dialog with the strings, not a "solo with string background", and the new mix drives that point home marvelously.

Them ain't no "backgrond" licks!

Edited February 19, 2005 by JSngry

[jazzbo]

I agree about the mix on Illusion. I love that string session. Those players deserve gold medals and red carpets. They really pulled it off!

[JSngry]

Well, it sounds like they could have done even better with more rehearsal. thos charts are a B*TCH! But that gets into money, and you know how that went for an indie like Blue Note, even in the Liberty days...

Nevertheless, that's long been a favorite session of mine as well. Very moody, yet "accesible" at the same time.

Ron Carter plays so well on all these dates that I have to wonder why he sucked so badly on GRASS ROOTS (long a sore point of mine, and one which others may or may not agree). Go figure.

[Stefan Wood]

You know, having recently seen Hill play solo piano in Baltimore, I wanted to add about my comment regarding his "wandering." I saw both sets -- the first was directly from his sheet music, the second improvised. I liked the first set a lot more, because it was more structured. Now I am all for improvised, but in Hill's case, at least that night, he can go off on a tangent and as a listener, I totally forget where he's going or what he's doing or saying musically. It's like he's so busy exploring, searching for new forms, patterns, chords, etc., that the statement of the tune is no longer important. It can be good, but I'm not sure if Hill is at his best that way. It's the same when listening to some of the sessions here. WHen the pieces are rehearsed, thought out, revised, etc., and then performed, they are rock solid. When they're on the fly, not so. And maybe some of the tunes aren't fully realized compositions -- I don't know. Perhaps its just a reflection of the musicians being familiar with the music. But hell, overall, I enjoy the process and his unique approach -- I wish he could have played more with Sam Rivers -- I think they work great together! Heck, it's not too late......

I love this set, regardless. Best of the year, even this early into it.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Stefan Wood

[jazzbo]

Hmm. . . I enjoy both styles of performance. . . . When I was in bands I enjoyed the wandering more than the "let's do it once more just like that." Oy. That killed my love of playing at times!

Jim, have you heard the Osby that was possibly (seems sort of obvious to me sometimes) inspired by this session? Symbols of Light, a Solution? My favorite Osby!

[Stefan Wood]

There's improvising and there's drifting. That's what I was alluding to.

The Osby stuff is killer.

[jazzbo]

I know what you were referring to.

Structure can be good. . . and lack of structure can be good. My feelings.

[JSngry]

Jim, have you heard the Osby that was possibly (seems sort of obvious to me sometimes) inspired by this session? Symbols of Light, a Solution?

Oh yeah. Good stuff!

Robin Kenyatta really makes an impression on this set, too. Sounds a bit like James Spaulding with the "professional reserve" stripped (forcibly!) away. This set is as valuable an addition to his discography as it is to Hill's, relatively speaking.

And Teddy Robinson! WHOO BOY!!!!

[MartyJazz]

You know, having recently seen Hill play solo piano in Baltimore, I wanted to add about my comment regarding his "wandering." I saw both sets -- the first was directly from his sheet music, the second improvised. I liked the first set a lot more, because it was more structured. Now I am all for improvised, but in Hill's case, at least that night, he can go off on a tangent and as a listener, I totally forget where he's going or what he's doing or saying musically. It's like he's so busy exploring, searching for new forms, patterns, chords, etc., that the statement of the tune is no longer important. It can be good, but I'm not sure if Hill is at his best that way. It's the same when listening to some of the sessions here. WHen the pieces are rehearsed, thought out, revised, etc., and then performed, they are rock solid. When they're on the fly, not so. And maybe some of the tunes aren't fully realized compositions -- I don't know. Perhaps its just a reflection of the musicians being familiar with the music. But hell, overall, I enjoy the process and his unique approach -- I wish he could have played more with Sam Rivers -- I think they work great together! Heck, it's not too late......

I love this set, regardless. Best of the year, even this early into it.

Couldn't agree with you more. Hill's compositions when performed by an ensemble can be tremendously engaging on so many levels making for a very rewarding listening experience. However, having sat one night back around '76 in a short-lived club on 8th Street in the Village where Hill played solo for two sets, I must admit that I was never so bored in my entire life. And there were quite a few musicians present - after all, it's the Village in NYC and the rarely seen Andrew Hill is present - who were looking askance at each other. He emptied the house by the end of the 2nd set, sad to say. I was still there because I believe in giving my musical heroes all the rope they need to hang themselves. It just seemed structureless and unengaging on any musical level one can think of.

I have the solo set he did at Montreux many years ago on an Arista LP. Gotta take it out and hopefully revise my opinion of his solo work.

[jazzbo]

I guess it depends on how you feel about solo piano. . . . I think in some ways the happiest times I ever spent with my clothes on were spent in front of a piano in a practice room, or in a living room, just exploring the musical universe on those 88s. So I respond to noodling piano players with a lot more enthusiasm than the average bear I guess!

[jazzbo]

PS: Marty: you haven't answered a few emails. . . tha's cool. Got the envelope you last sent me and trust you got yours.

[Rooster_Ties]

Where have you gone, Mr. Robinson?

Ain't that the truth!!

Spontoonious had gotten me to not set my expectations too high about him, but I have to say -- going into it, my interest in Robinson's work on this set was still pretty darn high. (I mean, Hill wouldn't have used him on three dates, if he fucked up the first one, right?? )

I've definitely liked what I've heard so far. He's not as great as "the greats", but I've haven't been disappointed any either.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Stefan Wood]

I like solo piano! From Chopin to Shostakovitch to Janacek, to Herbie and Monk. Heck, even certain piano rolls.......

[ralphie_boy]

I've listened to Discs 1 and 2 so far. I really like the session with strings and the solo session. The track with Hill on organ is really interesting too. On to Disc 3 later today!

[JSngry]

I can see how some might view the CHAINED session as "wandering", but it didn't stike me that we at all. "Roaming", yeah, but not "wandering. The difference for me is that I hear a consistent attention to thematic exploration throught the pieces. No loss of focus, just a lot of looking at the same idea from a lot of different ways in the course of a performance. And Teddy Robinson's rapport w/Hill on these cuts is damn near telepathic. What a discovery!

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Still waiting for my copy of this, but in the meantime, here's the ENTIRE Teddy Robinson recorded history (apart from Andrew Hill sessions):

Donald Byrd: Chant (Blue Note, 1961)

Donald Byrd: Hip Entertainment 1 (VGM, 1961) [one trio track misleadingly issued under name of Miles Davis]

Byron Allen: Trio (ESP, 1964)

Mike

[JSngry]

Does anybody have any info as to why there was an 11 month gap in Andrew's BN recording schedule? Seems unusual, to say the least.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

You are speaking of 1966 into 1967?

The only relevant note I have in my files for this period is that the Left Bank Jazz Society show scheduled for August 21, 1966 with Sam Rivers, Andrew Hill, Richard Davis, Joe Chambers did not happen because the band did not show.

Hill played with a group that included Rivers in San Francisco at the Both/And, following John Handy - maybe about April 1966.

Mike