Eric Alexander vs Joshua Redman

[mjzee]

Unfortunately, due to location and family duties, I don't get out much to jazz clubs anymore. But a few years ago, I went to Birdland in NYC. There was a benefit night for Barney Kessel, who was dying of brain cancer. I could only stay to hear one or two sets, because I had to catch a train. The opening set was Pat Martino with his organ trio (Joey, Billy Hart) and, sitting in, Eric Alexander (who had played with Pat on Stone Blue). With very little preparation, Pat counts off to begin Oleo, taken at a very fast tempo. Pat had this grin on this face as he looked at Eric, which seemed to say, "Deal with this!" Eric did; he definitely kept pace with such fast company. And I was in jazz bliss.

Strangely enough, the next band was George Coleman, Horace Parlan, Jimmy Cobb, and I forget who else (did Jim Hall sit in?). It was nice. I left soon after that.

One other point I want to make: Eric Alexander, Grant Stewart, Joshua Redman, Chris Potter, Tim Warfield, Jim Snidero, and the rest, are virtually unknown to the general public. And there's a level below them: I can go to a local restaurant that has, on certain nights, 2 or 3 musicians playing jazz. I'm sure (I hope) this isn't their day jobs, as I'm sure the pay isn't much. But once they start playing, if they're good enough (and they invariably are), I get that good vibe where I'm enveloped in jazz. I can listen, and all is right with the world for that 45 minutes or an hour they're playing.

So if Alexander, Stewart, Redman, etc., devote their lives to playing this music, let's give them some props. We can enjoy one more than another, but we should be thankful for all of it. There aren't too many people at it these days.

[Larry Kart]

We have different definitions of beauty then, that's all I can say. Which is, I suppose, as it should be.

But I mean, fucking your grandmother is weird enough. But making love to her, man, that's really jacked!

Jim, did you just make that up?

[JSngry]

Yeah.

And if somebody repeats in in 50 years as if it's their own (or even worse, recognizes it as mine but thinks they deserve props simply for using it and not making up their own shit), I want the young folk here who will still be alive then to smack them silly. Draw blood and shit, it's ok.

Palladin Rulz!

Edited January 10, 2010 by JSngry

[thedwork]

But I mean, fucking your grandmother is weird enough. But making love to her, man, that's really jacked!

Jim, did you just make that up?

Yeah.

proof that 'originality' alone does not always make something a worthwhile work of art

[Chuck Nessa]

Nothing original about that.

[thedwork]

Nothing original about that.

good one!

[JSngry]

Yeah, but remember, if we can't have art, we still be delighted by living interpretations of long-standing traditions or so wonky bullshit like that.

These days,the bar is wherever we set it, so you can't lose. Neat trick, eh?

[Chuck Nessa]

neat trick indeed.

[Chuck Nessa]

In about 10 years my kids can enjoy "almost jazz". If I wanted to, I could do it now.

[JSngry]

And the thing is - it's not just about music. It's about ongoing quality of life. What we have here w/the Alexander Redmans of the world is just a symptom of a much larger syndrome. The "it's just music" thing misses the point entirely.

[Chuck Nessa]

yup.

[Jim Alfredson]

Why am I reminded of my best friend's father, who still thinks anything even remotely resembling bebop is not jazz?

Time moves on. Music is a language which changes constantly. Whether it is devolving or evolving is a matter of personal opinion and its never just one or the other.

Joe and I listened to some inspiring stuff on the way to and from the gig this evening; some Adam Rogers, some Matthew Garrison (son of Jimmy Garrison) which was really wild and creative and inspiring, and some Metheny trio. All people working within the idiom and bringing some new and fresh ideas to it. It may not be your "jazz" but its still jazz.

I think the stylists have their place. I hope that I am not one, but maybe I am. I would rather listen to the ones who are pushing things, but that's not for everyone. There is so much music I haven't heard, its overwhelming. I'm just starting to get into Chuck's extensive catalog and I'm blown away by what I hear. And there are so many things outside of jazz that inspire me.

I totally understand what you're saying Sangry, but I'd like you to put the words into action! I've heard those Quartet Out recordings. You know what needs to be done. Take action, my friend.

All I know for sure is that I need some fucking gigs.

[jlhoots]

Why do some get to decide who's being fooled?

I'm just as smart, have listened just as long, etc. & can make up my own mind.

[Jim Alfredson]

The "it's just music" thing misses the point entirely.

Not really. I apologize for the continual referencing of my father, but in the year and half since he's passed I've been reflecting on all the things he taught me. With the birth of my brother, number five of seven, he gave up performing and learned the piano business. He still wrote songs; in fact, he wrote hundreds of songs in all styles, with lyrics and the whole bit. And he recorded those and once he was done he moved on to ambient music and wrote hundreds of tunes, countless hours of pieces within that idiom.

And for what?

For himself.

So yeah, it's only music. Its what I've been doing since I came out of the womb, and I'll never stop. But if it gets to the point where I just make it for myself and enjoy it myself because I need to take care of my kids... well, then that's what I'll do.

It's only music. Whether Joshua Redman is a better player than Eric Alexander really doesn't matter when my newborn is fighting RSV and I have an empty refrigerator. You know what I mean?

[John L]

Let's face it. The golden years of jazz were not an ordinary, but an extraordinary, musical phenomenon. The fact that it came to an end was as inevitable as it was for other great musical movements in the past.

I think that it is very understandable that many musicians today who were not even alive back then are nevertheless inspired by the golden years of jazz, even to the point of devoting their own energies toward finding a voice within the older styles. That makes just as much sense to me as the fact that 1000s of young musicians today still decide to devote their pursuits to baroque music, or 19th century opera, or classic flamenco, or Chicago blues, and so on.

I think that it is very unfair when these people get accused of being some sort of malaise or the cause of the decline, like if these people didn’t exist, we would be back in the golden age of jazz again. If anything, I think that it is just the opposite. They can even provide part of the springboard for other musicians who are more forward looking. I agree with Bev, Peter, and others that there is plenty of room in music for both.

[JSngry]

It's only music. Whether Joshua Redman is a better player than Eric Alexander really doesn't matter when my newborn is fighting RSV and I have an empty refrigerator. You know what I mean?

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I also know that the quality of life in a society that aggressively but intelligently places a premium on moving ahead is different (dare I say better?) that one that settles for what it has and pretends it's as good as it needs to be.

You got people justifying Eric Alexander, you got people loving their Wal-Wart. In the greater scheme of things, it's part and parcel of the same syndrome. Your newborn could have access to better health care and you could have some food in your refrigerator, but society has made it choices to this point, and getting them interested in reconsidering those choices ain't an easy task.

Music does not function in a vacuum (even if that's where the gigs are...). It is a part of a broader collective awareness, consciousness, consensus, whatever you want to call it. If we have people here saying that "this player" is as food as we can get today so we will embrace him instead of saying hey. c'mon we need better and going about getting it, then is it any wonder that the rest of society follows suit?

See ya' at Wal-Mart, and no complaining!

[papsrus]

... If we have people here saying that "this player" is as good as we can get today so we will embrace him instead of saying hey. c'mon we need better and going about getting it, then is it any wonder that the rest of society follows suit?

See ya' at Wal-Mart, and no complaining!

I don't think anyone is saying this, are they?

Now Vonski, that's another story.

[A Lark Ascending]

But I also know that the quality of life in a society that aggressively but intelligently places a premium on moving ahead is different (dare I say better?) that one that settles for what it has and pretends it's as good as it needs to be.

Why does it have to be either/or? Society embraces both change and continuity. Some eras are characterised by change, at other times the continuities take precedence. And the latter is necessary - if you've ever worked in a profession where new initiatives are pouring out almost weekly, you'll recognise the relief when those in control declare that it's time for a period of consolidation. There's a natural rhythm in that.

I think we are going through a period of consolidation culturally at present (a generalisation - the overall picture is more varied). I too can despair when I turn on the TV to see members of the public pretending to be Michael Jackson or George Michael; or read of yet another movie remake of a Sixties 'classic'. But this is happening at a time of extraordinary technological and social change (to say nothing of concerns about changing geopolitical balances of power and wealth; and worries about whether we have the long term resources to sustain a constant pace of change). There might be a connection - the instability of everyday life creating a longing for the familiar in culture.

We don't live in the musical era of Lewis and Clarke anymore. So much of the unexplored landscape of their time has now been mapped and it gets harder to forge new exploratory routes. It might be that the groundbreaking explorations take place in an area of music that we find hard to recognise as jazz.

But I feel...and this is very much a personal hunch, not an assertion of what is...that there really is a lot more marvellous music to be made in C major. Given the speed of change in the 20th C a lot of things were moved beyond before the possibilities were fully explored. One area of music I've very much enjoyed in the last 15 years or so are the many musicians who've revisited the early electric Miles era. Sometimes not going beyond the Miles themes, at other times seeing what else they can do with that palette.

I know it's not the same as Charlie Parker or Coltrane breaking through into fresh territory; but it keeps my interest.

I could be mischievous (again!) and suggest that your assertion that moving ahead is vital might be questioned. Could be viewed as a very Whiggish interpretation of how things should occur; there have been times in our own culture and in many other cultures where circling in order to find perfection has been placed as of greater importance than constantly trying to move on (I can think of one very good 19thC example of a culture based on the circular belief being virtually exterminated by a culture driven by the concept of progress).

I'm not saying I want things like that; just that the idea of 'progress' is actually a very recent concept in the broader historical picture.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[thedwork]

But I also know that the quality of life in a society that aggressively but intelligently places a premium on moving ahead is different (dare I say better?) that one that settles for what it has and pretends it's as good as it needs to be.

Define ‘moving ahead.’ Define ‘as good as it needs to be.’ this kind of phrasing reminds me of politics. Using vague phrases like these to which everyone can attach their own different definitions merely spins the wheel in ridiculous debates like these. And for me, making an analogy that that equates society moving ahead to putting a premium on avant-garde artists comes close to pretentious. I value avant-garde artists too – very much so. But society ‘moving ahead?’ society ‘as good as it needs to be?’ for me, there are many things more important to improving our society than appreciating Von Freeman and Cecil Taylor – like dealing with poverty, endless war, corrupt government, corporate crime, racism, etc… again, I value art of all kinds. It’s in fact one of my favorite things in life. That’s why we’re all here, right?

You got people justifying Eric Alexander, you got people loving their Wal-Wart. In the greater scheme of things, it's part and parcel of the same syndrome.

Really? Equating enjoying an excellent, if not innovative, jazz saxophone player to supporting corporate consolidation, monopolization, unfair business practices, and unethical treatment of a workforce? This is exactly what I mean when I say I think this kind of arguing borders on pretentiousness. I love music too, but come on.

If we have people here saying that "this player" is as food as we can get today so we will embrace him instead of saying hey. c'mon we need better and going about getting it, then is it any wonder that the rest of society follows suit?

I don’t see anyone here saying Alexander/Redman are ‘as food as we can get.’ I also don’t see any contradiction in embracing both of them while also saying “i think ’so and so player’ is better and more forward looking in my book.”

[Peter Friedman]

I get the sense that in one respect Jim has it backwards. It is WalMart that is the relatively "new' way to sell things. It replaced the locally owned smaller

stores and ruined many smaller ciites and towns mainstreets. This sense that the new innovations and and ways of doing things move our society in a positive direction is highly questionable. SOME new things are very good indeed, but others are destructive and harmful to the society.

The point , once again, is that we benefit from a mixture of both.

[JSngry]

It might be that the groundbreaking explorations take place in an area of music that we find hard to recognise as jazz.

It already has been - in, among other places, the deep underground of the "DJ culture" which is slowly beginning to influence some jazz, quiet as its kept. Which is why "justifying" the relevance players like Eric Alexander is like justifying VCRs.

Otherwise, I rest my case. Revisit this thread in ten years.

Edited January 12, 2010 by JSngry

[TMadness1013]

After reading all these responses I'm surprised a few things haven't been touched on.

Apples & oranges! Alexander has admitted himself that he's not doing anything groundbreaking...he's not trying to reinvent himself constantly. He just wants to play straight ahead jazz. And he does it with a modern approach - he plays "inside" but has an incredible harmonic sense that allows him to get "outside" just long enough to be extremely tasteful in the style. Alexander has been doing this since his first release "Straight Up" and will continue to do so. I'm someone who digs straight ahead playing very much - so all in all, Alexander has been in the heaviest rotation for me in the past 10 years.

Redman on the other hand is a player who is much more well-rounded and capable of playing in many styles. He's also grown quite a bit since that Monk competition. He's one of the only guys out there I can think of that has given a unique approach (notably the Elastic band on the Elastic & Momentum recordings) While Redman is extremely well rounded in terms of style, I personally don't feel he plays in the straight ahead post-bop genre better than Alexander. Can he play some funk/rock oriented stuff better than Alexander? I think so, without a doubt. I think his trio approach has been very interesting in recent years. He's very exposed...and there's so much communication going on. Sax/drums/bass, a la Sonny Rollins has been a really beautiful outlet for his playing.

In terms of their command of the instrument...Redman clearly has more control in the altissimo register which he capitalizes on. Alexander I feel is much more comfortable at blazing fast tempos. I think it's also interesting what someone earlier noted...Alexander has recorded a TON more than Redman. 31 albums as a leader. 20 as a co-leader. 132 albums as a sideman (from my research - not a definitive number). Redman doesn't even touch this. In terms of live performance, I'm pretty sure that Alexander is much more active as well. Is this because Redman is pulling in more money because of greater name recognition? Or Alexander is incredibly ambitious? Probably a little of both.

Regardless, Alexander & Redman are easily my two favorite living tenor players. I would kill for a recording (or even just a set list!) of what these two (along w/ Potter) played at that infamous Thelonious Monk Competition.

[Drumolator]

I really like Joshua Redman and have most of his albums. I do not know much about Eric Alexander, but I will check him out. Peace and goodwill.

[Hoppy T. Frog]

It might be that the groundbreaking explorations take place in an area of music that we find hard to recognise as jazz.

It already has been - in, among other places, the deep underground of the "DJ culture" which is slowly beginning to influence some jazz, quiet as its kept. Which is why "justifying" the relevance players like Eric Alexander is like justifying VCRs.

Otherwise, I rest my case. Revisit this thread in ten years.

I'm not convinced that "DJ culture" will be influencing anything. "DJ Culture" itself is way past its peak popularity and general cultural influence. As a musically adventurous teenager I was big into that stuff over 20 years ago, and was devouring English music magazines in the late 80s when English yoof were having guerilla raves in fields and warehouses. In 1988-91, that stuff was the future, and the music seemed genuinely innovative and exciting, either because of its association with what seemed like a genuine grass roots underground, or maybe it genuinely was innovative and exciting. A few years later "electronica" seemed poised to become an overground chart phenomenon in the US (Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, etc). It didn't. (Also, a lot of the music being marketed by the majors sucked.) Jazz artists tried to come to grips with it, like Ben Neill (judgement: he sucked. I had a hard time selling his big-label CD back to a used CD store--no one wanted it). The acts got dropped, the festivals collapsed, or changed musical emphasis, the CD compilations with cheesy covers slowed to a trickle, even the magazines dedicated to the phenomenon folded, and kids moved on to something else. What I'm trying to say is that although you may have discovered it recently, the "DJ culture" scene is so over, that whole scene and the music involved might as well be Dixieland at a Shakey's Pizza. It ceased to innovate, and it is no threat to the authorities like those English raves in 1989. (Look up the Criminal Justice Act).

I'll give you a good old-fashioned unsubstantiated Clementine pronouncement from on high: The future of "jass" is the Taylor Ho Bynum/Mary Halvorson/Peter Evans type of scene where they play whatever the hell tickles their fancy, jazz n'pop n'folk and METAL whetever they hell they feel like playing in whatever musical configuration they choose, yet they can still bring mad chops and discipline it to a Braxton composition.

Walkin' with Jesus in Exurban Maryland,

Hoppy

Edited to add METAL IN CAPS

Edited January 15, 2010 by Hoppy T. Frog

[Matthew]

Though, that "DJ Culture" is still influencing jazz to some extent. The whole EAI movement was/is, at least in part, a response to what was going on in the whole DJ community. Yet, I wonder how much influence that is having on the current jazz scene. Look at someone like Keith Rowe, who does great work, and yet, how many jazz fans even would consider his work in a jazz light? There used to be a great amount of argument over EAI and the Earstwhile artists, and yet now, that seems long ago. Which is too bad, Jon Abbey is on to something, and is fighting the good fight, but even he must get discouraged at times over the music biz, and where it's going.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Matthew