1956 Coltrane

[Guy Berger]

The consensus is that John Coltrane took his "great leap forward" in 1957, when he kicked heroin, joined Monk's quartet, and began recording under his own name. His playing with Miles and others in 1955-56, though enjoyable, was often erratic and not at the same level as after his breakthrough.

Let's say that Trane had not evolved beyond his 1956 playing. How would he be remembered -- "just another" 50s hard bop tenor?

Guy

[Dan Gould]

Probably a lot like Ernie Henry - potential; a uniqueness about his playing.

The more interesting question is what modern jazz would sound like if he had stopped in 1956.

[sal]

The consensus is that John Coltrane took his "great leap forward" in 1957, when he kicked heroin, joined Monk's quartet, and began recording under his own name. His playing with Miles and others in 1955-56, though enjoyable, was often erratic and not at the same level as after his breakthrough.

Let's say that Trane had not evolved beyond his 1956 playing. How would he be remembered -- "just another" 50s hard bop tenor?

Guy

I disagree with that consesus. I think that his tenor playing with Miles is better than most other tenors of that time frame. He was already a fantastic story teller and was playing with more intensity and heart than most of his peers.

[Guy Berger]

The consensus is that John Coltrane took his "great leap forward" in 1957, when he kicked heroin, joined Monk's quartet, and began recording under his own name. His playing with Miles and others in 1955-56, though enjoyable, was often erratic and not at the same level as after his breakthrough.

Let's say that Trane had not evolved beyond his 1956 playing. How would he be remembered -- "just another" 50s hard bop tenor?

Guy

I disagree with that consesus. I think that his tenor playing with Miles is better than most other tenors of that time frame. He was already a fantastic story teller and was playing with more intensity and heart than most of his peers.

Maybe I should have qualified "consensus" by limiting it to the first sentence. There is clearly disagreement about the second sentence.

Guy

[Guy Berger]

Probably a lot like Ernie Henry - potential; a uniqueness about his playing.

I was thinking along similar lines. Except Henry is different because he died young and I was thinking, what if Coltrane had continued without stylistic change through year X.

The more interesting question is what modern jazz would sound like if he had stopped in 1956.

I don't think Coltrane was historically indispensable... someone else would have picked up the baton.

Guy

[sal]

I'd say that Trane would be remembered as "one of the best" hard bop tenors rather than "just another" hard bop tenor. For me personally, the only other tenor who I'd prefer to Coltrane in those years is Sonny Rollins.

[John Tapscott]

Probably a lot like Ernie Henry - potential; a uniqueness about his playing.

The more interesting question is what modern jazz would sound like if he had stopped in 1956.

I generally agree with Dan's assessment. Some players might have picked up on him and extended his tenor work, but he obviously wouldn't have had the wide-spread influence that he's had to date. He would have remained a rather shadowy underground fugure (another name that comes to mind is Tina Brooks).

As for the second question, I don't think jazz "styles" would be much different, but they would have a different inflection or a somewhat different color. Jazz wouldn't have the distinctive

and pervasive 'Trane sound; maybe it would be more reflective of Sonny Rollins or Ornette Coleman or Miles Davis particular sound.

It seems to me that what 'Trane did was to take what others did first and and extend it to its logical conclusion (or maybe to the breaking point). In other words, complicated bop was being played before Giant Steps, modes and soloing with mininal harmonic motion were being explored at length before the Village Vanguard, free jazz was around before Ascension. Jazz was already going in a certain direction and

was going there inevitably and Trane grabbed the pieces and went with them full-bore. That's not to diminish his importance at all. In fact, it's incredible that he could do what he did in 10-12 years after he hit his stride. 'Trane was the person in in whom all these threads culminated, and so naturally he's the one people are drawn to and emulate (especially saxophone players to whom "Trane's technique and intensity

is awe-inspiring).

What I'm saying is that I think Coltrane's is a bigger influence on the sound of today's jazz rather than the styles of jazz. All the above "styles" would still be with us but played with a somewhat different sound.

[Jim R]

Probably a lot like Ernie Henry - potential; a uniqueness about his playing.

The more interesting question is what modern jazz would sound like if he had stopped in 1956.

I generally agree with Dan's assessment. Some players might have picked up on him and extended his tenor work, but he obviously wouldn't have had the wide-spread influence that he's had to date. He would have remained a rather shadowy underground fugure (another name that comes to mind is Tina Brooks).

As for the second question, I don't think jazz "styles" would be much different, but they would have a different inflection or a somewhat different color. Jazz wouldn't have the distinctive

and pervasive 'Trane sound; maybe it would be more reflective of Sonny Rollins or Ornette Coleman or Miles Davis particular sound.

It seems to me that what 'Trane did was to take what others did first and and extend it to its logical conclusion (or maybe to the breaking point). In other words, complicated bop was being played before Giant Steps, modes and soloing with mininal harmonic motion were being explored at length before the Village Vanguard, free jazz was around before Ascension. Jazz was already going in a certain direction and

was going there inevitably and Trane grabbed the pieces and went with them full-bore. That's not to diminish his importance at all. In fact, it's incredible that he could do what he did in 10-12 years after he hit his stride. 'Trane was the person in in whom all these threads culminated, and so naturally he's the one people are drawn to and emulate (especially saxophone players to whom "Trane's technique and intensity

is awe-inspiring).

What I'm saying is that I think Coltrane's is a bigger influence on the sound of today's jazz rather than the styles of jazz. All the above "styles" would still be with us but played with a somewhat different sound.

Very well put. I tend to agree with all of that, except for the first paragraph. I think his work with Miles' first quintet would have sealed his place as a legendary player. We can't know how large his reputation and influence would have become, but he (imo) would certainly have remained a much larger figure than someone like Tina Brooks.

[sal]

Probably a lot like Ernie Henry - potential; a uniqueness about his playing.

The more interesting question is what modern jazz would sound like if he had stopped in 1956.

I generally agree with Dan's assessment. Some players might have picked up on him and extended his tenor work, but he obviously wouldn't have had the wide-spread influence that he's had to date. He would have remained a rather shadowy underground fugure (another name that comes to mind is Tina Brooks).

As for the second question, I don't think jazz "styles" would be much different, but they would have a different inflection or a somewhat different color. Jazz wouldn't have the distinctive

and pervasive 'Trane sound; maybe it would be more reflective of Sonny Rollins or Ornette Coleman or Miles Davis particular sound.

It seems to me that what 'Trane did was to take what others did first and and extend it to its logical conclusion (or maybe to the breaking point). In other words, complicated bop was being played before Giant Steps, modes and soloing with mininal harmonic motion were being explored at length before the Village Vanguard, free jazz was around before Ascension. Jazz was already going in a certain direction and

was going there inevitably and Trane grabbed the pieces and went with them full-bore. That's not to diminish his importance at all. In fact, it's incredible that he could do what he did in 10-12 years after he hit his stride. 'Trane was the person in in whom all these threads culminated, and so naturally he's the one people are drawn to and emulate (especially saxophone players to whom "Trane's technique and intensity

is awe-inspiring).

What I'm saying is that I think Coltrane's is a bigger influence on the sound of today's jazz rather than the styles of jazz. All the above "styles" would still be with us but played with a somewhat different sound.

Very well put. I tend to agree with all of that, except for the first paragraph. I think his work with Miles' first quintet would have sealed his place as a legendary player. We can't know how large his reputation and influence would have become, but he (imo) would certainly have remained a much larger figure than someone like Tina Brooks.

[JSngry]

I dunno man. '56 Trane is pretty rough at times. More than a few moments of reaching for something and making it by just this much (and a few moments of missing it by just this much). If that was all we had, we'd probably think of him as one of those guys who was heading towards greatness but didn't get there.

Intensity & heart, yes. But not without some technical struggles that are probably less obvious to us now that we have the hindsight than they were at the time. A lot of those struggles were due to the rhythms of his lines, which were really looking at some unusal and/or compressed groupings of notes into the four beat bar. Whereas Bird did it by floating over the time, Trane seemed to be driven to do it by diving right into it, head first, caution be damned.

We'd had charging phrasologists before (Hawk, Byas, Lucky, etc.) but their groupings were always neatly subdivided. Warne was into the floating asymmetry, but truthfully, early on you could still hear a bit of residual metronome in him (which, of course, he would eventually gloriously and triumphantly transcend). Sonny, the leader of all things tenor in 1956, was doing the Bird thing, just putting his own (strong and deep) perspective to it.

So Trane was really getting into uncharted waters here, I think, and he was very much learning as he went along. Rough spots were inevitable, and his "personal problems" of the time didn't help any (although I think their influence might be overstated to some degree. But maybe not). Whatever happened after he cleaned up, whether it was just the increased clarity of a sober vision, or whether that clarity was a happy coincidence with the juncture in a muscian's development when things you've been working and working and working on finally come together, it was indeed a leap forward.

And really those sudden leaps forward were typical of Trane. He had another one with/around Giant Steps, when his "3 on 1" approach opened him up to all sorts of harmonic freedoms, another one in 1965, when the whole "classic quartet" reached what I think is by far and away it's fullest & deepest realization, and finally again w/Interstellar Space, where...everything came together.

Now, if all we had was the Trane of 1956, what would we have? The things w/Miles, a few PC dates, and a few more Prestige sides. On none of those is his playing fully formed (the date w/Dameron is probably his cleanest playing, but it's also his most calculatedly controlled. I'm sure he respected the occasion and wanted his shit to be right). Certainly one can hear the passion, the intensity, the searching, and the moments of brilliance. But I don't think there's anything there that, if that was indeed all we had, would make us say. "Man, this cat was a MOTHERFUCKER!" I tink it would be more like, "Man that Coltrane cat was deep. Shame he didn't get to do more, I bet he'd have been a motherfucker."

Fortunately, this is all irrelevant, isn't it.

[kh1958]

Even with nothing after 1956, he would still have been the tenor player in one of the best jazz small groups--Miles Davis, Coltrane, Red Garland, Paul Chambers, Philly Joe Jones.

[JSngry]

Another thing about Trane in '56 is that his tone wasn't fully under control on anywhere near a consistent basis. And that I do attibute, largely, to his personal problems.

[brownie]

Trane had a distinctive tone and style even then. He stood out from the other sax players.

I remember vivid discussions with other fans and musicians at the time about the respective merits of Rollins and Coltrane. Coltrane had mostly been heard on the early Miles Davis Quintet LPs.

This was when Rollins came up with albums like 'Saxophone Colossus' and 'A Night At the Village Vanguard', before the release of Coltrane's first Prestige album and 'Blue Train'.

The Coltrane supporters (I was one of those) were in a minority but won their case as soon as 'Giant Steps' reached these shores!

Edited January 19, 2007 by brownie

[clifford_thornton]

What I'm saying is that I think Coltrane's is a bigger influence on the sound of today's jazz rather than the styles of jazz. All the above "styles" would still be with us but played with a somewhat different sound.

Probably true - I was thinking the other day in terms of phrasing and was, to a degree, corrected w/r/t Coltrane & sound & recent-ish tenor players.

[acoustic]

Very interesting discussion... If Coltrane for some reasons did not evolved after 56 it probably would be another to take his place in the history of jazz,I agree, but if we think in reverse - some musicians did they best while working with Coltrane and just went into ordinary after his death, I'm refering McCoy Tyner.

[John Tapscott]

Very interesting discussion... If Coltrane for some reasons did not evolved after 56 it probably would be another to take his place in the history of jazz,I agree, but if we think in reverse - some musicians did they best while working with Coltrane and just went into ordinary after his death, I'm refering McCoy Tyner.

I don't want to come down too heavily on a new member. So welcome Acoustic. Let me just say that Tyner's "Enlightement" absolutely floored me when I first heard it in 1974 and it was one of the 6 albums that turned me on to "real jazz". I still remember the extraordianry experience of hearing that album for the first time on the radio one night. I bought the album the next day and it started to take my jazz listening down a much different road than the big band and fusion that I had been mostly listening to up to then. Tyner ordinary? Not in my book. Never.

[Chuck Nessa]

Very interesting discussion... If Coltrane for some reasons did not evolved after 56 it probably would be another to take his place in the history of jazz,I agree, but if we think in reverse - some musicians did they best while working with Coltrane and just went into ordinary after his death, I'm refering McCoy Tyner.

Jumping over JT's message, I agree with "acoustic".

Going a step further, I think the same could be said for Elvin. Just imagine his career without the JC quarter.

[kh1958]

Very interesting discussion... If Coltrane for some reasons did not evolved after 56 it probably would be another to take his place in the history of jazz,I agree, but if we think in reverse - some musicians did they best while working with Coltrane and just went into ordinary after his death, I'm refering McCoy Tyner.

I don't want to come down too heavily on a new member. So welcome Acoustic. Let me just say that Tyner's "Enlightement" absolutely floored me when I first heard it in 1974 and it was one of the 6 albums that turned me on to "real jazz". I still remember the extraordianry experience of hearing that album for the first time on the radio one night. I bought the album the next day and it started to take my jazz listening down a much different road than the big band and fusion that I had been mostly listening to up to then. Tyner ordinary? Not in my book. Never.

I'm with you (JT that is).

Edited January 23, 2007 by kh1958

[Soul Stream]

reached what I think is by far and away it's fullest & deepest realization, and finally again w/Interstellar Space, where...everything came together.

Isn't Interstellar space just a little bit too much influenced by Ayler? Just a thought. It always seemed to me that he was really under Ayler's spell on this one.

[clifford_thornton]

Very interesting discussion... If Coltrane for some reasons did not evolved after 56 it probably would be another to take his place in the history of jazz,I agree, but if we think in reverse - some musicians did they best while working with Coltrane and just went into ordinary after his death, I'm refering McCoy Tyner.

Jumping over JT's message, I agree with "acoustic".

Going a step further, I think the same could be said for Elvin. Just imagine his career without the JC quarter.

Ditto.

[clifford_thornton]

reached what I think is by far and away it's fullest & deepest realization, and finally again w/Interstellar Space, where...everything came together.

Isn't Interstellar space just a little bit too much influenced by Ayler? Just a thought. It always seemed to me that he was really under Ayler's spell on this one.

Not sure about that. Just not sure.

[clifford_thornton]

To echo previous sentiments, the music probably would have taken the turn it did under the auspices of some other figures. It would have been a slightly altered turn, however. I still think Ayler would have come along, if under a slightly different "spell."

[Guy Berger]

reached what I think is by far and away it's fullest & deepest realization, and finally again w/Interstellar Space, where...everything came together.

Isn't Interstellar space just a little bit too much influenced by Ayler? Just a thought. It always seemed to me that he was really under Ayler's spell on this one.

Not sure about that. Just not sure.

All I can say is that I hope the "too much" isn't a diss of the music.

Guy

[Michael Weiss]

some musicians did they best while working with Coltrane and just went into ordinary after his death, I'm refering McCoy Tyner.

I think that's some of the dumbest ignorant shit I ever seen posted here.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Michael Weiss

[John L]

Personally, I really loved what McCoy Tyner did in the 1970s. I never missed him when he came to town, and he almost always delivered. By the end of the 70s, he didn't excite me as much any more. But I may have just overdosed earlier on his brand of jazz.