Eric Alexander vs Joshua Redman

[Kevin Bresnahan]

There was a bit of a transition here between the trumpet playing leader of a revival jazz band in Texas led by Jim Cullum, and pianist/vocalist "Frank Sinatra in sneakers" Jamie Cullum.

Mea culpa on the transposing of Jim Cullum to Jamie Cullum. Freudian slip?

[jazzbo]

Reminds me. .. I need to go see Jim Cullum's excellent band again soon!

[Guy Berger]

It's unbelievalbe that Eric came in second to Joshua in the Thelonious Monk competition a few years ago. IMO there's no comparison between the two. I can't hear Redman's music at all. Eric more than any of the other tenorists today plays "in the tradition".

I'm not really interested in the argument, but I do think it's a little silly to judge the quality of anybody's music by how "in" or "out" of "the tradition" (or any tradition) they are.

I also think the initiator of this thread might have been trolling.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I was excited by the title, but I was disappointed when I opened the thread. I was hoping to find a link to a wrestling video.

I think Joshua Redman could take Eric Alexander in three rounds.

Although I know you're kidding, you should know that Eric Alexander is a triathlete. I would not bet against him in any athletic event, even wrestling.

[sonnymax]

Sounds like Kevin has a man-crush.

[sal]

Dammit I've been meaning to pick up one of those Reeds and Deeds albums for years. I might have to pull the trigger this weekend.

[jlhoots]

Gosh, based on the reaction by some here to Alexander, I might as well toss those recordings I purchased a few days ago, immediately in the trash bin.

Don't do that.

[A Lark Ascending]

One of my most played CDs of the noughties:

The version of 'Estate' is gorgeous.

[mrjazzman]

It is interesting that Joshua Redman not only beat out Eric Alexander in the Thelonious Monk Competition, but Chris Potter as well. Potter finished 3rd, but has arguably become the more interesting player of the three.

have to disagree with you on potter, he could cure my insomnia.......

[mrjazzman]

I know this is a threadcrap, but sorry, sometimes I get FREAKING tired of the "traditional sound." Alexander's a good player and a nice guy, but his style has been done better and more creatively by many players. Honestly, sometimes I feel that the "hard bop tradition" is now on the level of the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.

Then why are you here on Organissimo's web forum? After all, they are a "traditional" organ trio.

Hadn't realized that being a fan of "hard bop (or any) traditionalism" was a requirement for membership here.

Did you like Matthew's self-proclaimed "threadcrap"? My reply was to point out that if a traditional playing style bugs him that much, he might be better off hanging out at a website run by a band that plays in a less traditional style.

Would Matthew come into a thread about Organissimo's "Groovadelphia" and bitch that it's "organ trio tradition" is now on the level of the Jamie Cullum Jazz Band? I think not.

No, I would not. I happen to enjoy the Organissimo cd, of which I have them all. In fact, a lot of the jazz cds I own are "in the tradition." What I'm objecting to is that now jazz has become so solidified and attached to a certain sound, that everything else is judged but "that traditional sound." It just grates my nerves at times. We all can agree that jazz is bigger than that hardbop sound, and let it go at that. I apologize to the original poster -- sometimes emotional reactions get the better of common sense.

no apologies necessary my friend, the most important thing is that we all love and support jazz by buying lp's/cd's and attending live events...........

[mrjazzman]

a) vs. = why does it have to be a competition? Maintaining the spirit of the cutting contest? I'd hope music can be about more than 'who's best?'

I never liked that there had to be winners either. However, it was instrumental in getting new players into the public's eye and in my book, that's a good thing.

By the time Joshua Redman won in 1991, winning equated with a recording contract with Warner Brothers Records, which is also a good thing.

BTW, Chris Potter tied for 3rd with Tim Warfield, another favorite of mine.

A complete list of Monk Competition winners is here: http://www.monkinstitute.org/competition.php?Page=COMP-PW. Check out some of the winners and losers. It's a who's who of today's Jazz stars. If this competition made them into the players they are today, it has to be a good thing, right?

thanks for that link, it introduced me to a couple of artists......

[Van Basten II]

It is interesting that Joshua Redman not only beat out Eric Alexander in the Thelonious Monk Competition, but Chris Potter as well. Potter finished 3rd, but has arguably become the more interesting player of the three.

have to disagree with you on potter, he could cure my insomnia.......

[Peter Friedman]

An interesting thread but one factor seems to have been ignored. The age and listening background and experience of the individual making the judgements.

I expect I am one of the oldest members here. I developed my initial jazz listening experience in the period when both West Coast jazz and Hard Bop were developing and flourishing. I "bonded" with that music and it became vitally important to me in a variety of ways.

I spent some time listening to Ornette, Albert Ayler and a number of other "free jazz" players and soon realized that it was not something that gave me the musical/ emotional pleasure that I got from the above mentioned styles. In fact, I began to find a lot of musical richness in jazz that pre-dated my entry into becoming a serious jazz listener. So the jazz of the 20's, 30's and 40's entered my pleasure dome. A good friend once put it very well when he said that both he and I like our jazz to be based on tunes with chord changes. That was basically the way jazz evolved up to the time when Ornette and others moved things in a different direction.

As the original players associated with Hard Bop, West Coast Jazz, Mainstream, etc. have been dying off I find it very rewarding to find there are newer players who have come on the scene who are continuing to play in the styles of jazz that are highly meaningful to me. It is also true that many of these "newer" players learned to play standing next to members of the previous generation. If the musical traditions are passed on so directly that would seem to fit with the way things have been happening throughout so much of the history of jazz.

In the final analysis it boils down to personal taste. While some find the playing of someone such as Eric Alexander, and dare I mention Scott Hamilton, to be old fashioned, and tradition bound and not "what's happening" in 2010, I hear their music as refreshing, swinging, and emotionally rich in a sea of rather unmelodic,rather dull uninteresting music that does not speak to me. That "bonding" that took place for me back in the mid to late 1950's when I began collecting records and going to hear live jazz can still remain alive and well for me when I can listen to Grant Stewart, Eric Alexander, Scott Hamilton

and many others who are keeping that music I love so much alive.

[A Lark Ascending]

Very well put, Peter.

Acknowledging that we all hear things differently based on our varied experiences and preferences is not the same thing as saying 'it's all good'. It is saying 'you may not be able to hear what I'm hearing but that doesn't mean it's not there.'

[John Tapscott]

Though I am bit younger, I agree for the most part with what Peter is saying. I am largely in that same camp - a listener who leans toward swinging tunes with chord changes, though I often enjoy jazz that doesn't quite fit within that definition. Swinging or hard-swinging is probably more important to me than chord changes, which is why I really enjoy Ornette's Atlatic recordings.

I enjoy many of Eric Alexander's CD's. Still, there is something in Eric's playing that I sometimes don't quite connect with. Sometimes I feel a little tinge of resistance rising up in me when I go to play one of his CD's. I don't ever have that sense with Grant Stewart or Scott Hamilton. I enjoy Eric more when he's with other horns such as in the One for All group, or on a record like Mode for Mabes on Delmark which has has two other horns.

[Brad]

I have some of Alexander's records and I have seen him in concert and I enjoyed them and him but there's a certain sameness and it just doesn't grab me. I love hardbop but why not listen to some of its trailblazers rather than its followers?

[A Lark Ascending]

I have some of Alexander's records and I have seen him in concert and I enjoyed them and him but there's a certain sameness and it just doesn't grab me. I love hardbop but why not listen to some of its trailblazers rather than its followers?

That is only of any relevance if you were around at the time of the trailblazers (unless, of course, you are doing a historical analysis rather than listening for pleasure). If you come from a later era you ought to acknowledge the pioneering work of the trail blazer (assuming you are interested in the history of the music); but I can see why a living player might be of more significance to you.

I think this is where a lot of hard core jazz fans lose the plot on jazz singers - 'listen to Ella, Billie etc'. But if you are 25 there's a more direct relationship with someone you might see live.

And, of course, there's always the option of loving the 'trailbazers' but also enjoying the take on their work by more recent musicians. I enjoy listening to Young, Getz, Parker, Coltrane, Rollins...but it doesn't stop me enjoying Peter King, Alan Barnes or Eric Alexander.

Asserting the latter were of more historical importance...now that would be a different matter.

[JSngry]

It is so hard to choose.

And it's a choice made even more complicated by the presence of scores of others of the same type!

[Chuck Nessa]

this thread indicates jazz might be over.

now we can safely move on to "working within styles" without denigration until the last real jazzman dies. It won't be long kiddies.

[bertrand]

'BTW, I don't think you should completely discount the fact that Redman's dad Dewey was friends with most of the judges. While I would hope that wasn't a deciding factor, I don't see how it could hurt Joshua if everything else was equal.'

I don't think this is an accurate statement. The judges were Jackie McLean, Jimmy Heath, Frank Wess, Benny Carter and one more (possibly Branford Marsalis?). I have no reason to believe any of these gentlemen had anything against Dewey, but I don't think any of them hung out a lot with him, so I doubt this would have weighed strongly in their opinion.

I was in the audience when Joshua won, and he just played better than anyone else that day. Since then, I have been more interested in Potter's work than that of the others.

Bertrand.

[A Lark Ascending]

this thread indicates jazz might be over.

now we can safely move on to "working within styles" without denigration until the last real jazzman dies. It won't be long kiddies.

Trying to start the 'Jazz is Dead' debate again? Tut! Tut!

I though studied world weariness was the province of 17 year olds.

[papsrus]

[JSngry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBMa43b6ggY

[A Lark Ascending]

An even more famous example of a bunch of people eagerly awaiting 'The End':

[JSngry]

Yeah, well, people still listen to Wagner today, but who goes around still writing like him?

It was fun while it lasted, right?