John Patton Mosaic Select: What's in, What's Out?

[Soul Stream]

Hey, if you think that's lame. Check out the AMG Reviews for Lou Donaldson's "The Scorpion, live at the Cadillac Club," and also I think it's "Pretty Things" mayabe another from that time.... Scott Yanow keeps talking about Lou's use of the Varitone as..."Donaldson plays BARITONE sax on these sides." What a COMPLETE idiot.

How do you get job reviewing for AMG??? He's horrible.

Scott, now that you're here. I hope you don't take it too personally for blasting you, as AMG misprinted Baritone for Varitone. As you might expect, any reviewer who would confuse the two wouldn't deserve the time of day.

That said, your review of Lou Donaldson's "Live At The Scorpion" is completely pedestrian. Your description that This set will bore anyone who listens closely. Are you a musician? Do you have an understanding of what these masters are doing on a musical level? Leon Spencer Jr.'s solo on "Laura" is one of the best organ solos ever recorded. The tight dynamic between Idris, Leon and Melvin is basically unsurpassed and make this perhaps the quintessential live organ funk record of the early 70's. It was the last gasp of the golden age of jazz organ, and to have the music documented at it's best like this is a godsend. I've listened to this session perhaps 400 times, and each time I find it fascinating. Lou's use of the Varitone is always highly musical, an basically unobtrusive. Unlike Stitt's sometimes "buzzsaw" quality....Lou gives it warmth and depth.

We all have our opinions on music, but I've found your reviews of many jazz organ classics to be simply silly at best. If you don't like organ jazz, just say so. But don't tear down these guys work without a real understanding of what's going on musically.

Your review of John Patton's "Boogaloo" is another joke. You describe John Patton's playing on this session as "never escaping entirely from the shadow of Jimmy Smith". There are plenty of players I greatly admire that this would qualify for (Lonnie Smith, Leon Spencer Jr., Caesar Frazier)....but John Patton is certainly not one of them. And ESPECIALLY on Boogaloo. If you can find one Jimmy Smith lick on that record please note it for me. His style by this point is so divorced from the mindset of JOS that it's just uninformed to say so. You also go on to say that this is a routine and now dated set of commercial late 60's jazz/funk. What are you basing this on? Harold Alexander's playing is commercial? Take a listen to "Spirit" and "B&J" and tell me that's routine commercial jazz/funk with a straight face? If you described Reuben Wilson's "Love Bug" as routine commercial jazz/funk, I would agree (although it's still a wonderful recording...a classic). But BOOGALOO...commercial jazz funk!!!! That's ridiculous!!! Patton's pushing the boundaries on that recording. Hell, it sounds more modern today that ever.

I can agree to disagree. But you need to quit reviewing jazz organ records as you don't know what you're talking about in any way.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

soul fountain?

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

scott: if ever u want to out-source your reviews to me i will write detailed fair reviews of the lps concerned- big john and jimmy S. are almost compeletly opposite ends of the pogo-stick

[Scott Yanow]

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.

[Soul Stream]

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.

I don't feel you have a deep understanding or grasp on the genre itself. To feel that nobody had a unique sound other than JOS and Larry Young is just to not have ears or care about the music. Don Patterson playing Oleo sounds like Jimmy Smith? John Patton playing "Steno" sounds like Jimmy Smith? Baby Face Willette playing "Blues In Maude's Flat" sounds like Jimmy Smith? If that's true to your ears, you shouldn't be put in a position to review these types of records. Joey Defrancesco and Tony Monaco sound like Jimmy Smith. Both unbelievable organists, but they'd be the first to admit they're debt to Jimmy. John Patton had never even heard Jimmy Smith until he after he was playing with Lou Donaldson.

If "Live At The Scorpion" bores you....you should leave the AMG organ reviews to Stephen Thomas Erlewine. Athough I don't always agree with his reviews, at least I feel he understands the music. If you don't like "Scorpion" so much as to claim it's a bore. Please give us a more in depth review of the music itself in this forum. You're dismissive AMG review is 4 sentences. Hardly enough to give me an insight into what you think is so bad. I'd love to hear your thoughts on "The Masquerade Is Over", "Laura" and the rhythm section's performance on the funk numbers. Also, please feel free to expand your thoughts on John Patton's "Boogaloo." Your AMG review is 2 sentences of lukewarm nothingness. I would be interested to know on a musical level why John Patton has no identity and not much to say outside of copying licks from JOS.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

BIG JOHN HAS A COMPLETELY UNIQUE ORGAN SOUND AND ITS FAR AND AWAY DIFFERENT FROM JIMMYS. R U NUTZ!??!?! THE ONLY SIMILARITY IS THAT THEY ARE BOTH HAMMOND ORGAN. THATS WHERE THE PARALELLS END. WHO R U ANYWAY. HOW DID YOU LAND THIS ALL MUSIC JOB ANYWAYS?

[Guest the mommy]

ss-i have to agree with yanow that the scorpion was a stinker. very disappointing.

now about the smith/patton stuff-that is silly.

but i also don't think AMG needs "specialist" reviewers.

you ever read the penguin guide? same thing in the sense they find most classic hard bop BN dates to be "dime a dozen". but the good stuff, they still appreciate. don't know if this is the case with mr. yanow.

but once you know how the reviewers think, you can at least sort of extraplote how the album rates against their biases (like if they think it's good it must be REALLY good).

i know i am not as passionate about the organ as you.

i certainly agree don patterson had his own thing going on and was a master.

just saying i don't think mr. yanow needs to be banned from reviewing soul jazz.

[Rooster_Ties]

FWIW, "Boogaloo" has to be one of my two or three all-time favorite John Patton dates. One of his very best, IMHO.

[Soul Stream]

ss-i have to agree with yanow that the scorpion was a stinker. very disappointing.

now about the smith/patton stuff-that is silly.

but i also don't think AMG needs "specialist" reviewers.

you ever read the penguin guide? same thing in the sense they find most classic hard bop BN dates to be "dime a dozen". but the good stuff, they still appreciate. don't know if this is the case with mr. yanow.

but once you know how the reviewers think, you can at least sort of extraplote how the album rates against their biases (like if they think it's good it must be REALLY good).

i know i am not as passionate about the organ as you.

i certainly agree don patterson had his own thing going on and was a master.

just saying i don't think mr. yanow needs to be banned from reviewing soul jazz.

My feeling on music reviews in general is that the reviewer should be as knowledgable and informed as the most ardent admirerer of the music. Otherwise, a disservice is being done to the artist and those interested in the music being presented. To say all jazz organists except Jimmy Smith and Larry young sound alike? That's like saying most all jazz trumpet players sound alike except Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis. I guess you COULD make an arguement for that. But to anyone except the most casual of jazz fans would take extreme offense to that. You have to have some deeper knowledge to review this music. All jazz organists are not created equal as Scott Yanow would have you believe. Freddie Roach, Baby Face Willette, Jack McDuff, ect were all masters of their craft and certainly held an individual approach to the organ apart from Jimmy Smith or Larry Young. In the 60's, jazz organists were a dime a dozen. To rise to the top of that genre you had to be saying something unique. All this guys did. To me, Jack McDuff and Jimmy Smith sound COMPLETELY different. However, to the casual listener they might sound the same.

[Jim Alfredson]

Shirley has her own bag. McDuff is instantly recognizable by his choice of harmonies. McGriff is instantly recognizeable by his basslines. Patterson is distinguished by his burning bop runs. Holmes is a bassline freak and a master at tension/release. Patton is his own man. His feel is unlike anybody elses. Johnny Hammond Smith is a master of understatement.

There is a lot of similarity in the genre, especially these days, but the masters all have their differences. Some may seem subtle to the un-initiated, but they stick out like red flags once you dig into the music.

[CJ Shearn]

Soulstream, Amen to everything you've said on this page! I agree that a level of total familiarity with the genre contributes to a better review. I am not a musician, but when I listen to any record, through the very small grasp of theory I have, and asking questions amongst y'all and musician friends I certainly feel and have an idea of whats going on in the music. For example, I may not be able to describe harmonic intricacy but intuitively I just sense and know it's there. If I don't like something, I won't say it's crap because I don't get it, I will just acknowledge it isn't my taste.

Anyway, BJP sounding like JOS is crazy. Patton has a whole other set of ideas of his own, as Jim noted. His basslines are incredible as are arrangements in his tunes. Yeah, BJP may have adopted the JOS registration as nearly everyone has, but his conception is totally different. Also, BJP was an adventurous player as musicians on his records like Harold Alexander demonstrate, and it was this adventurousness that led to his John Zorn association, who obviously got and dug what his message was.

Edited October 19, 2006 by CJ Shearn

[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.

[Soul Stream]

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.

Scott, I think you should be able to stand up for yourself in these circumstances. To say John Patton was not innovative on the organ is to miss the obvious. I will believe what I wish, because it is supported by the music. Your claim otherwise is just uniformed or should be viewed in the context of disinterest.

We like to have real music discussion on this forum. If you're not up for it and can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. I think that's a copout. We're all big boys here and have learned from others just as we have taught others here. I hope you can enjoy some honest debate here. Insults, maybe...but you have a cavalier attitude about music that is very important to me and others here. Perhaps you should grab some John Patton records and take a serious listen.

But innovative? Oh sure. ...for that comment alone you can kiss my ass.

[Chuck Nessa]

Back off folks.

Organ players hear stuff the rest don't.

That may be of little importance to the rest of us.

I appreciate "specialists" as much as anyone.

"Innovative" is an overused word and I fear few folks understand the meaning.

All participants should step back and understand what they said.

The organ is only one of a bunch of instruments played by "jazz musicians".

[RDK]

Chuck's right. As most BFTs will prove, 90% of the time i can't tell one organist from another. That doesn't mean i don't enjoy them though and shouldn't be able to have my favorites.

[Guest the mommy]

clem i guess my point was-and no offense to AMG or mr. yanow-that i don't think anyone is going to AMG for any sort of informative deep review. i mean it would be nice, i guess.

but that isn't really what AMG is about.

i can go there-basically i read "blah blah. recommended."

ok fine. what else am i expecting? based on the many absent albums from the review database, let's worry about getting some "seed" reviews down and if someone wants to jurek them afterwards, fine.

but i am not going to AMG for great literature. is anyone?

and i agree also-magnificent G sure as hell knows what he is talking about. as do jim and soul stream and many others who probably could do a better job of reviewing organ jazz albums.

however-people who KNOW about the genre and would be interested in hearing in depth analysis probably don't use AMG to learn about albums besides "oh hey here is another jack mcduff album i didn't know about...it has harold vick? i'm going to buy it." the guy or gal already in the know doesn't need the in depth review since they already know it and they don't need to know if yanow liked or disliked anything since they already have their opinion made up, being experts and all.

whatever-i don't know why i am defending mr. yanow. obviously his reviews could be a lot more informative. but again, i don't think that is what AMG is about.

taking mr. yanow as the "everyman" jazz listener is really the only way to approach the AMG reviews.

i mean i guess jurek likes a lot of different genres too and picks and chooses his spots to jurek things up with overlong and extra-passionate reviews.

[Soul Stream]

Chuck's right. As most BFTs will prove, 90% of the time i can't tell one organist from another. That doesn't mean i don't enjoy them though and shouldn't be able to have my favorites.

But with all due respect, you don't write reviews either. I'm not asking the average listener to understand the difference between major jazz organists, just guys that get paid to review their records and have a knowledge base to talk intelligently about it. Is that TOO much to ask? I certainly hope not.

[Soul Stream]

clem i guess my point was-and no offense to AMG or mr. yanow-that i don't think anyone is going to AMG for any sort of informative deep review. i mean it would be nice, i guess.

but that isn't really what AMG is about.

i can go there-basically i read "blah blah. recommended."

ok fine. what else am i expecting? based on the many absent albums from the review database, let's worry about getting some "seed" reviews down and if someone wants to jurek them afterwards, fine.

but i am not going to AMG for great literature. is anyone?

and i agree also-magnificent G sure as hell knows what he is talking about. as do jim and soul stream and many others who probably could do a better job of reviewing organ jazz albums.

however-people who KNOW about the genre and would be interested in hearing in depth analysis probably don't use AMG to learn about albums besides "oh hey here is another jack mcduff album i didn't know about...it has harold vick? i'm going to buy it." the guy or gal already in the know doesn't need the in depth review since they already know it and they don't need to know if yanow liked or disliked anything since they already have their opinion made up, being experts and all.

whatever-i don't know why i am defending mr. yanow. obviously his reviews could be a lot more informative. but again, i don't think that is what AMG is about.

taking mr. yanow as the "everyman" jazz listener is really the only way to approach the AMG reviews.

i mean i guess jurek likes a lot of different genres too and picks and chooses his spots to jurek things up with overlong and extra-passionate reviews.

This is actually a very good point. Not like AMG is a New York Times book review. Kind of like cotton candy, melts on contact.

[Chuck Nessa]

Since most of these folks are "music" reviewers, you ARE asking too much.

Music first, instrument second.

[Guest the mommy]

i like jurek. i just feel sometimes he makes me think an album must be AWESOME and then i hear it and it is ok.

but i respect how he stretches himself and seems to immerse himself in the musics.

[Chuck Nessa]

But with all due respect, you don't write reviews either. I'm not asking the average listener to understand the difference between major jazz organists, just guys that get paid to review their records and have a knowledge base to talk intelligently about it. Is that TOO much to ask? I certainly hope not.

Do you expect reviewers of Ellington records to be bandleaders, pianists, composer and arrangers?

It should be about MUSIC, not the specifics of an instrument.

If it works (or fails) as "music", the instrument should be of no concern.

[John Tapscott]

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 think that's unfortunate.

[clifford_thornton]

...and says a lot, too.

[Guy Berger]

But with all due respect, you don't write reviews either. I'm not asking the average listener to understand the difference between major jazz organists, just guys that get paid to review their records and have a knowledge base to talk intelligently about it. Is that TOO much to ask? I certainly hope not.

Do you expect reviewers of Ellington records to be bandleaders, pianists, composer and arrangers?

It should be about MUSIC, not the specifics of an instrument.

If it works (or fails) as "music", the instrument should be of no concern.

I'm with Chuck on this one.

That said, I don't have a problem with Soul Stream saying, "Scott, I think your review covered the music in too superficial a manner." That's legit.

Guy

[Rooster_Ties]

I'm with Chuck on this one.

That said, I don't have a problem with Soul Stream saying, "Scott, I think your review covered the music in too superficial a manner." That's legit.

Guy

Me too, on both points.