That Dirty Thang

[GregN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dZ4ly5vnM

Mr Bill Heid shares his personal philosophy of music. Not sure if I can concur, but I do give the man props for his skills.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think a lot of what he was saying was right. And I DID like the dancer! She was right there with the music.

MG

[GregN]

I think a lot of what he was saying was right. And I DID like the dancer! She was right there with the music.

MG

Oh yeah, LOL, I need one of those dancers at my gigs.

Regarding Bill's stance on the state of jazz:

I do agree with some of what he is saying... however, I think jumping from iconic players to Kenny G, in making his point, is, in part, tantamount to the making of a straw-man and a bit too easy.

Of course, there will never be another Coltrane just as there will never be another you. Nostalgia is a disease I too can

suffer from, but I have to keep looking around me and forward. It is about choice. It is easy to romanticize and idolize the dead; to wrap

yourself up in the comfortable myths of the past. Quite another... to build your own living foundation.

Oh I know, certain elements of the shared language are necessary, but to what extent and at what price? The jazz that I understand was more work-a-day and in the trenches so to speak. Yeah, it is different today.

But guess what, everything is.

I also believe it is nonsense to say that the only way to keep a genre of music around (notice I didn't say "alive" as he appears

to think of jazz as dead) is to 'exclusively' pay homage to the masters. I am more excited about a player when he/she moves

me without obvious citations.

IMO, jazz (like any other definition) is neither dead nor alive, it is however, ever changing.

He does say that it is his opinion and he is certainly entitled to it. But, let's remember who he is and how he got there. Not bathing

for extended periods of time and obsessing over the past makes him a certain type of player. The not bathing could even serve

as an allegory of sorts, but we'll let that slide. The point is, he an amazing player and a great living resource. I respect the man's talent

immensely. IMO, he is a fascinating player and a walking book of history. He is necessary. I just hope he doesn't think he way is the only way...

though I fear that he does.

Museums usually don't require more than a few curators. My art is hopefully less dusty.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I agree, Greg. But Heid himself is a lot more than a museum curator.

Some months ago Larry started a thread about people who are happy to work within a previously existing framework because they see, for whatever reason, that that framework hasn't been worked out, in some important respects. Ruby Braff was one player I remember he particularly noted in this. Seems to me Heid is in the same boat and, in a way, in a way that's rather more important - or at least more interesting - than Braff's boat.

Heid is moving on from Larry Young. Young was a very innovative player (understatement of the week) but there were two problems, it seems to me.

First - no one had the skills to take up what he did, so the innovation faltered.

Second - Larry got involved in Rock/Fusion, which was OK as far as it went (though I don't like it) but, in doing so, moved away from the main stream of jazz.

So it seems to me that Heid is doing, whether he thinks of it this way or not, what might have been done, had things been different. This is not, it seems to me, work for museum curators. It's certainly also not work for people who want to be out there at the leading edge of their societies' musical needs and adventures. But between the two, there's a lot of room.

I do agree with you about the remark about Kenny G undermining his argument. People do that all the time, though.

MG

[Jim Alfredson]

Heid is moving on from Larry Young. Young was a very innovative player (understatement of the week) but there were two problems, it seems to me.

First - no one had the skills to take up what he did, so the innovation faltered.

Second - Larry got involved in Rock/Fusion, which was OK as far as it went (though I don't like it) but, in doing so, moved away from the main stream of jazz.

No, Heid is not "moving on" from Larry Young. He's doing the same stuff as Larry Young circa '64 to '65. Heid never touches what Larry got into on later Blue Note albums like "Of Love And Peace", "Mothership", etc.

And there's nothing wrong with that. If we can have a dozen modern Jimmy Smith imitators, then why not a Larry Young imitator, especially someone who was taught by Young himself? But he's definitely not "moving on" from what Larry was doing, not by a long shot. He's working within that context of Larry Young's playing during that small time period ('64 and '65), while also doing some greasy shuffles ala Don Patterson (another one of Heid's mentors).

As far as no one having the skills to do what Larry Young did, I don't buy that at all. There's nothing mystical about Young's approach. I hear all the time that he's the "Coltrane of the organ". No, he's more like the McCoy Tyner of the organ during that time period. As he started taking things further out I guess you could compare him to Coltrane, but lots of people were experimenting with "free jazz" during that time.

A contemporary of Young's that followed a similar path was Big John Patton. Obviously Patton has more blues in his playing, but his approach is very similar on his later Blue Note stuff.

As for players who have used those approaches as a launching pad for their own style (ie, players taking those concepts and "moving on" from them), Dan Wall, Larry Goldings, and Sam Yahel are the names that immediately come to mind.

None of this is meant as a put-down of Uncle Bill. I love his playing and his approach. I've been raving about his discs on this forum for years. I don't necessarily agree with his assessment of the current state of jazz; but so what?

[GregN]

I agree, Greg. But Heid himself is a lot more than a museum curator.

Some months ago Larry started a thread about people who are happy to work within a previously existing framework because they see, for whatever reason, that that framework hasn't been worked out, in some important respects. Ruby Braff was one player I remember he particularly noted in this. Seems to me Heid is in the same boat and, in a way, in a way that's rather more important - or at least more interesting - than Braff's boat.

Heid is moving on from Larry Young. Young was a very innovative player (understatement of the week) but there were two problems, it seems to me.

First - no one had the skills to take up what he did, so the innovation faltered.

Second - Larry got involved in Rock/Fusion, which was OK as far as it went (though I don't like it) but, in doing so, moved away from the main stream of jazz.

So it seems to me that Heid is doing, whether he thinks of it this way or not, what might have been done, had things been different. This is not, it seems to me, work for museum curators. It's certainly also not work for people who want to be out there at the leading edge of their societies' musical needs and adventures. But between the two, there's a lot of room.

I do agree with you about the remark about Kenny G undermining his argument. People do that all the time, though.

MG

You are right. The logical leap with my "curator" comment was on the same level as the Kenny G citation. I guess I am getting down on myself as much as anyone.

I have several Heid cds. He is amazing! I surely can see the utility in taking your inspiration from the masters, and working within a giving paradigm to further "work things out." I get the feeling sometimes, however, that such generations via synthesis can be a bit dusty.

And, I wont agree that jazz is dead...

(but of course, that all depends on one's definition(s))

[JSngry]

Great place to visit (even for an extended period), but I don't think I could live there without a guaranteed foolproof escape plan.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Heid is moving on from Larry Young. Young was a very innovative player (understatement of the week) but there were two problems, it seems to me.

First - no one had the skills to take up what he did, so the innovation faltered.

Second - Larry got involved in Rock/Fusion, which was OK as far as it went (though I don't like it) but, in doing so, moved away from the main stream of jazz.

No, Heid is not "moving on" from Larry Young. He's doing the same stuff as Larry Young circa '64 to '65. Heid never touches what Larry got into on later Blue Note albums like "Of Love And Peace", "Mothership", etc.

And there's nothing wrong with that. If we can have a dozen modern Jimmy Smith imitators, then why not a Larry Young imitator, especially someone who was taught by Young himself? But he's definitely not "moving on" from what Larry was doing, not by a long shot. He's working within that context of Larry Young's playing during that small time period ('64 and '65), while also doing some greasy shuffles ala Don Patterson (another one of Heid's mentors).

As far as no one having the skills to do what Larry Young did, I don't buy that at all. There's nothing mystical about Young's approach. I hear all the time that he's the "Coltrane of the organ". No, he's more like the McCoy Tyner of the organ during that time period. As he started taking things further out I guess you could compare him to Coltrane, but lots of people were experimenting with "free jazz" during that time.

A contemporary of Young's that followed a similar path was Big John Patton. Obviously Patton has more blues in his playing, but his approach is very similar on his later Blue Note stuff.

As for players who have used those approaches as a launching pad for their own style (ie, players taking those concepts and "moving on" from them), Dan Wall, Larry Goldings, and Sam Yahel are the names that immediately come to mind.

None of this is meant as a put-down of Uncle Bill. I love his playing and his approach. I've been raving about his discs on this forum for years. I don't necessarily agree with his assessment of the current state of jazz; but so what?

I sit corrected - thanks Jim.

MG

[GregN]

Great place to visit (even for an extended period), but I don't think I could live there without a guaranteed foolproof escape plan.

Very well put.

[.:.impossible]

Great place to visit (even for an extended period), but I don't think I could live there without a guaranteed foolproof escape plan.

Shanghai?