ep1str0phy

John Coltrane: Technician

35 posts in this topic

Not an especially thought-provoking topic, although this has been weighing on my mind lately:

Been slogging through the Kofsky book ('Black Nationalism and the Revolution in Music')--for thesis writing, no less. Irregardless of the author's slanted, misanthropic, and often bewildering opinions, there's a lot of factual material to deal with. One passage (with reference to Trane):

"Many of the devices that we associate with him were in fact initially introduced by other musicians: in the case of utilizing mid-Eastern modes, Yusef Lateef; in the case of playing harmonics on the saxophone, a still-anonymous Philadelphia musician." (Kofsky 174)

First question (someone has to know): where--cause I can't recall--is it stated that Coltrane developed his harmonics technique from an 'anonymous' Philadelphia musician? An interview, perhaps?

More generally: the origins of Coltrane's extended techniques/musical vocabulary are sometimes explicit, often obscure. The same might be said of much of the vernacular of the New Thing in general, occasionally regarded as unprecedented and uncalculated/random. Most folks on this board, I assume, are versed in the history of these techniques--extending as far back, further back than delta bluesmen and barwalkers. No point to be made, exactly--just looking for people to share anecdotes/ideas regarding the provenance of these musical devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a Trane bio a long time back (sorry, can't remember the title or author) in which he was quoted as saying that in his opinion the man who knew more about the saxophone than anyone else, and from whom he learned a lot while he was working for him, was Earl Bostic.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the book "Extended Play" by John Corbett it is mentioned on page 225 in an interview that John Coltrane was very impressed by Sun Ra's music in 1956. Pat Patrick and Sun Ra visited John Coltrane while he was staying at the Sutherland Hotel in 1956, and was showing him some new things they were working on. Sun Ra was pretty advanced harmonics wise already then.

Pharaoh Sanders, who later recorded with Coltrane and also worked with him in 1959, was playing with Sun Ra in the 50's.

- Jostein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, he specifically mentions Ayler as key influence (in the Kofsky interview) - and Ayler's statements back this up (to do with him sending Coltrane records etc.). If I ever get manage it, I've got an article to write on Ayler which attempts to elucidate one core element of these extended techniques.

You're right, Ayler does attribute it to R+ B - but I'm inclined to think he's lessening his achievement when he does that.

I mean it's vastly expanded, and it's made central, as a basis for musical expression.

Simon Weil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't cite specific refs right now (thought there's probably something in John Szwed's book on Sun Ra), but I know I've read multiple places and heard discussed here and back on the old BNBB -- that Trane picked up some technique things from John Gilmore.

And a couple quickie search hits on "John Coltrane John Gilmore" reveal that Trane took formal lessons from Gilmore in the late 50's (mentioned in Gilmore's Wikipedia article).

Edited by Rooster_Ties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, he specifically mentions Ayler as key influence (in the Kofsky interview) - and Ayler's statements back this up (to do with him sending Coltrane records etc.). If I ever get manage it, I've got an article to write on Ayler which attempts to elucidate one core element of these extended techniques.

You're right, Ayler does attribute it to R+ B - but I'm inclined to think he's lessening his achievement when he does that.

I mean it's vastly expanded, and it's made central, as a basis for musical expression.

Simon Weil

I think Ayler attributing some of his technique to R&B is more about vocabulary rather than the messages Ayler conveyed. His accent or dialect on the horn, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, he specifically mentions Ayler as key influence (in the Kofsky interview) - and Ayler's statements back this up (to do with him sending Coltrane records etc.). If I ever get manage it, I've got an article to write on Ayler which attempts to elucidate one core element of these extended techniques.

You're right, Ayler does attribute it to R+ B - but I'm inclined to think he's lessening his achievement when he does that.

I mean it's vastly expanded, and it's made central, as a basis for musical expression.

Simon Weil

I think Ayler attributing some of his technique to R&B is more about vocabulary rather than the messages Ayler conveyed. His accent or dialect on the horn, maybe?

I think that's correct to a very large extent. I think the early Avant Garde musicians owed quite a bit to R&B, but saying that doesn't, in my view, detract from what they actually achieved. Don't forget how old these guys were; they were mostly from the generation that grew up with the sounds of the R&B honkers in their ears. And, unlike the Bebop and Hard Bop men, their early jobs were with R&B and Blues bands.

Those Honkers were HOT in the ‘40s and early ‘50s; hot in both senses. They were extraordinarily popular because they provided a musical outlet for ghetto audiences; a catharsis that sometimes led to riots, when sax players would walk out of the dance hall and honk out in the streets, taking the audience with them. They were hot players, too; it’s difficult to see how they could have provided that catharsis if they’d played cool.

The first thing that strikes me, listening to Sanders and Ayler in particular, is how much they SOUND like the R&B honkers and screamers. Pharoah and Albert are probably the tenor players whose sound most recalls those men. Though he was a good deal calmer than either Sanders or Ayler, Ornette did as well, on the "Ornette on tenor" session, and commented on the importance of the “honk” to tenor playing, and its use as a rhythm instrument, in the sleeve notes.

In his period with Miles, and later up to “A love supreme”, Coltrane didn't sound like that, though he, being a bit older than the others, had actually been one of the Honkers and Barwalkers. With “Ascension” and “Village Vanguard again” (the only one of Trane’s later recordings I have at present), you find that sound creeping into his playing – by no means as much as in Pharoah’s, of course, but there are more than just hints.

Secondly, the Honkers played loooooong solos, shrieking over and over on one chord, winding up the tension to unbearable heights. Subtle it certainly wasn’t. Here’s a helpful little quote from a Robert Palmer sleeve note. “A lot that was perceived as new when Coleman and Coltrane did it in a new context – overblowing the horn to get a distorted tone, biting down on the reed in order to produce shrill squeals, playing lengthy solos that grew hotter and hotter until they verged on hysteria – came directly from the R&B saxophone tradition.”

I seem to remember (it’s a long time since I read it) that Kofsky’s book does more than hint that a significant part of the objective of the new music was the creation of a black catharsis that I can recognise as not too dissimilar from that provided by the Honkers. It seems to me not unnatural for the similarity of purpose to call into being some technical similarities, particularly given these guys’ backgrounds and experience.

But, of course, the new music was based on completely different assumptions from that of the old R&B honkers. The real achievement of Coltrane and the others was the creation of those new underlying assumptions. No amount of identification of points of technical similarity can detract from the revolutionary nature of that creative leap.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, I was thinking about the connection of avant garde sax players and R&B too the other day before this thread came up.. Certainly when I hear Trane, Sanders, Brecker, anyone do the low blatting honks I think of R&B but taken to the extreme. Michael Brecker mixes the free with R&B notions to me very clearly on "Delta City Blues" where he is setting up that ostinato figure for himself with a honk, using that as a device to jump off point where he alternates the upper register stuff, sounding out and earthy at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinkng that that "still-anonymous Philadelphia musician" might be Jimmy Oliver?

Hey - you want to talk about "extended techniques" on the saxophone, specifically the use of alternate (aka "false") fingerings to either color the tone or make a harmonic, you go back to Lester Young and then, to the best of my knowledge, stop. Lester was the source of the honkers as well as the "Brothers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey - you want to talk about "extended techniques" on the saxophone, specifically the use of alternate (aka "false") fingerings to either color the tone or make a harmonic, you go back to Lester Young and then, to the best of my knowledge, stop. Lester was the source of the honkers as well as the "Brothers".

Yeah, right. Jacquet, Cobb & co were all Prez men.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't cite specific refs right now (thought there's probably something in John Szwed's book on Sun Ra), but I know I've read multiple places and heard discussed here and back on the old BNBB -- that Trane picked up some technique things from John Gilmore.

Trane mentioned Gilmore's influence in the context of "Chasin' the Trane". There's also a story about Trane attending a NY jam session and being floored by Gilmore's playing.

And a couple quickie search hits on "John Coltrane John Gilmore" reveal that Trane took formal lessons from Gilmore in the late 50's (mentioned in Gilmore's Wikipedia article).

Hmmm, I've never heard this before (and am skeptical). Trane DID take lessons from Ornette.

Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that it's supposedly not easy to draw the line, but I think that the core of Ayler has much more to do with Gospel than R&B. Specifically, I heard some Gospel saxophonists on a local Sunday morning Chicago TV show in the early '60s that sounded very Ayler-esque and not very R&B-like -- a blizzard of ecstatic overtones and a similary ecstatic, rhapsodic-rubato-speechifying approach to time. (Hmm--Tyrone Washington, anyone?) Later on, I mentioned this to a Gospel fan who also enjoyed jazz, and he seemed to know what I was talking about and gave me the name of a few Gospel sax players, but none of them rang a bell. Maybe not many of these guys, if there are that many of them, have made it onto record or made it that big. BTW, if I recall correctly, the most striking and the most Ayler-esque of the guys I heard on TV played a capella. Also, he was fairly young, probably still in his teens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that it's supposedly not easy to draw the line, but I think that the core of Ayler has much more to do with Gospel than R&B. Specifically, I heard some Gospel saxophonists on a local Sunday morning Chicago TV show in the early '60s that sounded very Ayler-esque and not very R&B-like -- a blizzard of ecstatic overtones and a similary ecstatic, rhapsodic-rubato-speechifying approach to time. (Hmm--Tyrone Washington, anyone?) Later on, I mentioned this to a Gospel fan who also enjoyed jazz, and he seemed to know what I was talking about and gave me the name of a few Gospel sax players, but none of them rang a bell. Maybe not many of these guys, if there are that many of them, have made it onto record or made it that big. BTW, if I recall correctly, the most striking and the most Ayler-esque of the guys I heard on TV played a capella. Also, he was fairly young, probably still in his teens.

What I've heard of Gospel sax fits that description, too. But it's not much. I don't think the Gospel sax tradition is well documented, either on records or in the literature of Gospel music. That makes it much more difficult to relate particular jazz saxophonists to Gospel saxophonists and the tradition. But I don't doubt that that relationship exists.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a vast, old, on-line bio of Ayler somewhere in my files, but as I recall, he had a holiness church background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that it's supposedly not easy to draw the line, but I think that the core of Ayler has much more to do with Gospel than R&B. Specifically, I heard some Gospel saxophonists on a local Sunday morning Chicago TV show in the early '60s that sounded very Ayler-esque and not very R&B-like -- a blizzard of ecstatic overtones and a similary ecstatic, rhapsodic-rubato-speechifying approach to time. (Hmm--Tyrone Washington, anyone?) Later on, I mentioned this to a Gospel fan who also enjoyed jazz, and he seemed to know what I was talking about and gave me the name of a few Gospel sax players, but none of them rang a bell. Maybe not many of these guys, if there are that many of them, have made it onto record or made it that big. BTW, if I recall correctly, the most striking and the most Ayler-esque of the guys I heard on TV played a capella. Also, he was fairly young, probably still in his teens.

What I've heard of Gospel sax fits that description, too. But it's not much. I don't think the Gospel sax tradition is well documented, either on records or in the literature of Gospel music. That makes it much more difficult to relate particular jazz saxophonists to Gospel saxophonists and the tradition. But I don't doubt that that relationship exists.

MG

Brother Vernard Johnson? Of a later, post-Ayler generation, but certaily worth investigating for his understadning of / contributions to the gospel saxophone tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that it's supposedly not easy to draw the line, but I think that the core of Ayler has much more to do with Gospel than R&B. Specifically, I heard some Gospel saxophonists on a local Sunday morning Chicago TV show in the early '60s that sounded very Ayler-esque and not very R&B-like -- a blizzard of ecstatic overtones and a similary ecstatic, rhapsodic-rubato-speechifying approach to time. (Hmm--Tyrone Washington, anyone?) Later on, I mentioned this to a Gospel fan who also enjoyed jazz, and he seemed to know what I was talking about and gave me the name of a few Gospel sax players, but none of them rang a bell. Maybe not many of these guys, if there are that many of them, have made it onto record or made it that big. BTW, if I recall correctly, the most striking and the most Ayler-esque of the guys I heard on TV played a capella. Also, he was fairly young, probably still in his teens.

What I've heard of Gospel sax fits that description, too. But it's not much. I don't think the Gospel sax tradition is well documented, either on records or in the literature of Gospel music. That makes it much more difficult to relate particular jazz saxophonists to Gospel saxophonists and the tradition. But I don't doubt that that relationship exists.

MG

Brother Vernard Johnson? Of a later, post-Ayler generation, but certaily worth investigating for his understadning of / contributions to the gospel saxophone tradition.

Yes, I have a Vernard Johnson album - he has made three or four, I think, but only one became available, even as an import, in Britain. There are a few saxophonists working with some of the Mass Choirs, as well. But that's a very small, and relatively recent, sample. I haven't heard any players from the '40s or '50s - or indeed anything earlier than the late '80s. Houston Person's 1978 Gospel album, though it was genuinely a Gospel record, not jazz versions of Gospel songs, still featured Houston playing in his own normal style.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember (it’s a long time since I read it) that Kofsky’s book does more than hint that a significant part of the objective of the new music was the creation of a black catharsis that I can recognise as not too dissimilar from that provided by the Honkers. It seems to me not unnatural for the similarity of purpose to call into being some technical similarities, particularly given these guys’ backgrounds and experience.

But, of course, the new music was based on completely different assumptions from that of the old R&B honkers. The real achievement of Coltrane and the others was the creation of those new underlying assumptions. No amount of identification of points of technical similarity can detract from the revolutionary nature of that creative leap.

MG

Excellent input all 'round, guys. I think the R&B/barwalker/gospel lexicon is particularly interesting, however--mainly because its role can take on a variety of interpretations. I particularly dig the comments here: "But, of course, the new music was based on completely different assumptions from that of the old R&B honkers. The real achievement of Coltrane and the others was the creation of those new underlying assumptions." It may be--and sometimes is--argued that much of the early-avant mentality stemmed from a self-conscious co-optation of these (directly prior to the Trane era, at least) musically 'base' variables--musical reposession through the exigencies of an entirely different cultural milieu. The issue is, we've got to square this with the concept of purely musical innovation.

It's particuarly interesting in the case of the less explicitly political (although not apolitical) avant adherents--Ornette, for example--who, as numerous interviews attest, identified 'musical' freedom as an ultimate goal. Kofsky might construe this as fear-based equivocation--the whole "if they didn't need to work, they'd get more pissed" thing--but, at least in Ornette's case, the concern with purely musical emancipation--as the predominant element, if not singular goal--seems more difficult to misconstrue. Ornette, at times, seems more bent on assailing a European musical power structure than any dominant political force. Here, the revolution isn't in what he's doing--rather, it's in that he's doing it.

This is partly what the Kofsky analysis--and I'd be shocked to find anyone on this board it hasn't frustrated, at least in part--fails to do--that is, parse out and validate the purely musical element of these extended devices. Which is not to say that socio-cultural factors aren't or weren't the major force in the adoption of these techniques. Rather, in the broader analysis, purely socio-cultural argumentation can do a serious disservice to the practices of a musical movement--at worst, it's a total cop-out (a venue for hatred, if we're talking about the the racist/anti-revolutionary intelligentsia). Moreover, a lot of the social/political force behind the New Thing stems from, as with Ornette, the practice of musical revolution (and not the content itself)--and that's something that all people can admire, regardless of affiliation. Didn't Don Byas say something to the effect of "I've always wanted to play like that"... with reference to Albert Ayler? And that guy lived though bebop.

(Without further confounding my thread topic) Personally, I feel as if we need more socio-cultural analysis of these variables--tempered analysis, mindful of the musical schema we've been tracing here. In abstracting and dividing the two, a lot of shit gets left in the dust.

Edited by ep1str0phy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there IS such a thing as purely musical innovation. It seems to me that any jazz musician is simultaneously two things; a creator of art and a consumer of art.

As a consumer, he is a member of his culture. He's affected by substantially the same pressures as the other members of the audience. He's a part of the zeitgeist.

As a creator, he plays from what he knows; tells the stories he can tell from his experience; makes it up as he goes along.

The great innovators manage to capture the cultural changes that come along before others do, and reflect them, and the new or developing needs of the culture, through their own personal reactions to the developing situation. The degree of musical innovativeness, in order to be successful, probably needs to be commensurate with the degree of cultural change, or it will be perceived as being "too far out" for most members of the culture to identify with. Thus each of the musician's roles supports, limits, and stretches the other.

It also needs to be relatively "easy", in the sense that someone who plays what no one else can play cannot have the influence needed to make an innovation "stick" and form a "movement". I think this applied to Duke Ellington, whose approach to writing jazz for big bands was radically different to that of Fletcher Henderson. Duke's approach couldn't be taken up, it seems, until Mingus came along, simply because no one else was talented enough (and then the context in which Mingus was working was completely different). So that much of Duke's work remains a wonderful, individual, body of innovation that, though relevant, is "off to one side".

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken, MG. The semantics are flimsy, which is sort of the whole point. By 'purely musical innovation,' I refer to that element of the evolutionary enterprise that seeks and reacts to more explicitly musical factors--e.g., tenets of 'proper' intonation in pre-free, post-swing jazz. Which is not to say that these factors cannot be influenced by social happenings--e.g., Civil Rights and Black Nationalism(and they often are). Coltrane reacting as consumer of social circumstances forces 'Coltrane the creator' to break these 'purely' musical tenets. Whether or not the term 'pure' belongs, the distinction--in theory, if not in practice--persists.

It's a sloppy dichotomy that nonetheless provides the fulcrum (if not in the same wording) of much scholarship on the post-bop/free generation (from Kofsky to Jost). I'm not entirely happy with this conception (either), but it seems to be the brunt of the discourse. In any case, I do insist that (however we split it) one cannot ignore one or the other. A comprehensive examination of the Coltrane lexicon reaches a brick wall once we abstract the either the social or the musical--this is part of the problem with a lot of jazz criticism (especially of the free era)... some folks (still) insist that these 'purely musical' or 'purely social' innovation schemes exist independent of one another--or, worse still, one without the other. It confuzing.

I think you've indirectly posed the same dichotomy, although far neater--you've already implied the musical-social (integrated) relationship. This is, intellectually, a step toward how discourse (I posit) should go about.

As per the 'great innovators' idea--in total agreement, inasfar as being 'too far ahead' of the social environment often leads to early death (aesthetic or physical, I guess). Whether or not the commensurability of the endeavor renders one 'great' or not, it is, apparently, a major determinant of whether or not innovations are adopted--precisely why the Lennie Tristano stuff made a blip, Ornette a boom. But was Tristano a 'not-great' innovator simply because his color, environs (etc.) did not play into the revolutionary morass of the free generation? A lot of that material was arguably more strident than the bulk of the Atlantic Coleman work, and we recognize it today (alongside the early Cecil Taylor sides, which were similarly blip-like--at least early on). We're indirectly validating the musical v. social discussion: on a 'purely musical' level, Tristano was arguably as exciting.

Is timing/circumstance what separates the 'greats' from the rest? Maybe? I ask this because it plays into the former discussion; Tristano's revolution was what--as per the vernacular--one might call 'purely musical', whereas Ornette, Coltrane, Ayler and the brothers had the benefit of social synergy. We have to examine both these sides--the musical and the social, together--in order to come to terms with the canon.

Edited by ep1str0phy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there IS such a thing as purely musical innovation. It seems to me that any jazz musician is simultaneously two things; a creator of art and a consumer of art.

As a consumer, he is a member of his culture. He's affected by substantially the same pressures as the other members of the audience. He's a part of the zeitgeist.

As a creator, he plays from what he knows; tells the stories he can tell from his experience; makes it up as he goes along.

In line with this -- or rather running alongside it at times and at oblique angles it to at other times -- I just picked from the library what so far seems a fascinating new book, "Gauguin and Impressionism" (Yale U.P.) We all know the sort of paintings Gauguin is famous for and that he painted them in Tahiti. Turns out, though, that prior to that Gauguin was closely associated with the Impressionist movement as (at first) an amatuer painter, that he had been raised (after his parents died) by a wealthy financier who was a major collector of Modern French painting (which allowed Gauguin to see lots of excellent cutting-edge paintings on a daily basis in the home), that Gauguin himself as a young businessman became a collector of/successful investor in Impressionist paintings while producing canvases of his own in abundance (some of them without doubt Impressionst by any standard, some strikingly divergent in manner in ways that were unique to him, many arguably so damn good that they'd be regarded as masterworks if it weren't for the familiar great Gauguins to come -- all of this (so the authors convincingly show) an example of an artist who was in one sense a member of the audience an d part of the zeitgeist (and who for some of this time had yet to define himself as an artist) but also was peering fiercely at/going to school on specific canvases by specific artists (esp. Pissarro and Cezanne), including paintings of theirs that he actually owned, in order to find out how he wanted to/had to paint and, in fact, whether he was going to try to do it at all seriously. In any case, while Gauguin may have been extreme example in terms of his intense access to/fraught in terms of self-definition relationship to the prevailing great art of his time, his traceable to the point of being undeniable relationship to specific older colleages and specific paintings of theirs (which, again, led to strong paintings his own that were his alone stylistically) ... well, I wonder if this kind of thing is a heck of a lot more common in almost every art than we might think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not the commensurability of the endeavor renders one 'great' or not, it is, apparently, a major determinant of whether or not innovations are adopted--precisely why the Lennie Tristano stuff made a blip, Ornette a boom. But was Tristano a 'not-great' innovator simply because his color, environs (etc.) did not play into the revolutionary morass of the free generation?

Nope, it's because the Tristano stuff is boring and has no fucking soul whatsoever with that horrible drumming and those nothing bass lines. I mean, how can anyone listen to that stuff? Even the Chinese restaurant sides are boring and I really love Warne Marsh and Lee Konitz--hell, I heard Warne live dozens of times and he was NEVER boring. But Tristano? No, thanks . . .

Edited by Allan Songer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the specific point of where Ayler's technique came from...I think Don Cherry's comment, that he was conveying the spirit of the Sanctified Church, more or less fits the bill. But I do think it's more likely that his development was via R+B. I mean he played R+B as a teenager - and himself says the influence on his music is clear (Edited here). Moreover there's a record of him playing before his fully formed style where his solo style is an R+B one (He also does a Jazz style solo on a companion recording) - and etc.

What seems to have happened is that, after leaving the army, he "spiritualised" his music through listening to Coltrane (he says this) - and rather "reconstituted" an religious-style sound by adding this spiritual vibe to his capabilities as an R+B player. Kind of the root from Gospel to Soul in reverse. To set against this is the fact he played sax in church as a child.

On the zeitgeist stuff...it does seem like the whole changing the world vibe, chanelling grandiose powers, of the Civil Rights movement and whatever else - got into his work...

I mean, the scale of it.

Simon Weil

Edited by Simon Weil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the Tristano stuff is boring and has no fucking soul whatsoever...

Don't want to derail anything, but this probably can't go unchallenged... ;) Different strokes etc., but if anyone is left unmoved by e.g. 'Requiem', then my first reaction would be to take a pulse.

Another comment at the risk of a derailment: John Butcher is another saxophonist with a professed admiration for a couple of gospel horn players (names escape me just now).

Back to Ayler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the Tristano stuff is boring and has no fucking soul whatsoever...

Don't want to derail anything, but this probably can't go unchallenged... ;) Different strokes etc., but if anyone is left unmoved by e.g. 'Requiem', then my first reaction would be to take a pulse.

Another comment at the risk of a derailment: John Butcher is another saxophonist with a professed admiration for a couple of gospel horn players (names escape me just now).

Back to Ayler!

Different strokes-- ^_^ No accounting for taste--and, at this point, there's no point defending Tristano from anything other than a musicological/innovatory standpoint. Those early 'free' sides were, in principle, every bit as severe a rhythmic/harmonic 'break' as the avant-garde clique--more unprecedented, perhaps, in relation to the music of Tristano's peers (Third Stream notwithstanding). (I'd say that the relaxed, if not unambitious melodic and timbral character of the Tristano sides is the far less innovatory element of the 'free' material). The New Thing posed a more logical progression from the technical extremes of the post-boppers and the already folksish, 'groovy', blues-based strains of hard bop. Regardless of what you think about those Tristano sides, they're an interesting enough study in the influence of musical opportunity and circumstances.

As for Ayler--beyond the present discussion, I just like the notion of Ayler as 'born again' saxophonist--'re-sanctified' by the church of Coltrane. Without getting too oblique and fetishistic, that's an awfully powerful iconic image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2006 at 0:33 PM, Alexander Hawkins said:

Another comment at the risk of a derailment: John Butcher is another saxophonist with a professed admiration for a couple of gospel horn players (names escape me just now).

A very old (but interesting) thread.

Alexander Hawkins brings up an interesting point at a tangent to the main discussion at the end, regarding John Butcher being influenced by gospel saxophone playing.

This is news to me. But interesting news. If anyone knows anything about this, I’d be fascinated to know (including the names that escaped the poster back in 2006).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.