BLINDFOLD TEST #4 - ANSWERS

[relyles]

Tucker dedicated his "Blues for Khalid Yasin" on the Xanadu LP "Triplicity" to him, and they shared a drummer, Eddie Gladden. Have to check the Lp liner if there's more info.

Yeah I know Gladden played with Young. How is Triplicity? I might try to locate it.

[randyhersom]

Triplicity is available as MP3 files on www.emusic.com. Unlike most emusic files the Xanadu's have no in-print CD counterpart. Some of the Xanadu's were transferred from newly unsealed LPs.

[relyles]

But how is it?

[mikeweil]

Typical Tucker, I might say.

Side one is piano trio with Gene Perla on amplified upright and Eddie Gladden.

1. Happy - very fast exuberant modern bop with solos by all three, with some typical unexpected harmonic twists.

2. Blues for Khaldi Yasin - based on a motif Young frequently used in the solo piano piece, not your typical blues, of course, much more modern, still with some older piano techniques, a hint of stride etc.

3. Malapaga - lively rhythmic number with a Latin feel and Footprints-like changes.

4. Strange Blues - just what the title implies, it never runs the changes they way it is supposed to be in the theme. Tuckish humor.

Side two is Tucker on organ with Jimmy Ponder on guitar, and Gladden.

5. Giant Steps - the only time (?) this has been done on organ, a tour de force.

6. Suite for Eddie - for Gladden, in three parts, typical Tucker.

I say typical Tucker because once you've heard his personal mixture of hard bop, Tyner and humor, you know what to expect, although it sounds a little different every time. I can recommend it.

Edited January 3, 2004 by mikeweil

[JSngry]

AMG lists a Moody Muse CD called JAMES MOODY & THE HIP ORGAN TRIO, or something like that, which seems to be NEVER AGAIN coupled w/the organ tracks off of TRYPTYCH. Anybody ever, EVER, seen this?

And somebody asked me a while back who the tenor player was on the Marvin cut. It's either Charles Owens (an intriguing figure in his own way) or Fernando Harkness, about whom I know nothing other than he's got a cool name.

[relyles]

I say typical Tucker because once you've heard his personal mixture of hard bop, Tyner and humor, you know what to expect, although it sounds a little different every time. I can recommend it.

Thanks for the info.

[couw]

Jim Sangrey, I sent you a PM

[JSngry]

There have been a response.

[mikeweil]

Contrary to the Moody LP, Tucker uses the B-3's bass pedals on the B side of Triplicity. Perla is not heard - I edited my previous post accordingly. I have no idea why they used a bass player on the Moody, he does fine on the organ bass.

[couw]

as time has returned to its regular beat with the holidays over, I've spent some time with Jim's test and answers:

As a general remark, I would like to comment that this was too much music -- although most of it very good -- to deal with in a BF context. I really had my problems keeping track of all the comments and to what piece of music they belonged. The time I took now for listening to the second disk would otherwise have gone into a second listening of the same material and I would somehow have internalised the music to some extent. Not to diss Jim, whom I owe a lot for exposing me to some great stuff, just an opinion. Maybe worth of discussion in light of future BFTs.

Then, with respect to the answers, I would have liked to see a bit more discographical information. I am not familiar with many of the players and would like to at least know who's on there, playing what instrument. Even if that seems obvious info to most, it isn't always obvious to all, I think. Also some indication of time frame of recording would have suited me well, just to be able to place the stuff in my personal idea of general musical development. Again, not to diss Jim, just a point I'd do differently because I see advantages there.

Right, to the music:

To track 2-1 Hadley Caliman: "Iapetus": If this isn't Nature Boy, why not? Jim writes the band has the tune completely internalised; can it not be that they have, simply because they are actually playing a standard? You have to tell me because I don't hear things in terms of changes and whatnot, I only hear melody I guess, and in this case my ears tell me I'm hearing Nature Boy. So, whassupwivvat?

The electric piano sounds better after a couple of more listens than it did initially, when it merely struck me as rather dated. As the bass, it's really playing Nature Boy to my ears. The drummer is still really great.

To track 2-2: FWIW, on repeated listening, the drumming/percussion reminded me of the Jackson track on the first disk.

Are you telling me this is a trombone being played on this track? That's some weird trumpet ass playing there then.

To track 2-3: the spoken intro still sounds like it belongs to a Zappa song making fun of the idiom which is supposedly treated with so much sincerity here. Sorry, that really spoils it for me. I appreciate the voice, the music, whatever, but somehow it doesn’t sound as sincere as Jim tells me.

Track 2-4 may get many Johnsons pointing skywards, it makes my dinner come up again. Really not my cup of tea AT ALL. To elaborate: Although I can hear some of the musical qualities that make others go all gooey and berserk (I mean: it is well executed and I can even tap my foot to it at times), I cannot dig into it because this immense wall of revolting sounds (as in tone) is there keeping me out of the playground. Sorta like with them strings I guess.

In my initial comment to Track 2-6, I wrote I liked the alto. On second listen (only now, with all the answers in front of me) I should rather have said tenor. The alto is nice for sure, it's cool & relaxed. The tenor is WAY cool and far more adventurous in its rhythmic concept of what constitutes relaxing music. You really only notice when paying a lot of attention to it, I find. I am not familiar with Marsh at all; besides some tracks with Tristano on some CD I have not yet played often enough.

Track 2-8: I have only recently (well a year ago) started listening to Young and hell, I dig this a lot. I will have to invest 1. WAY more time and 2. WAY more money in the guy's playing. I know he is considered sort of like the basis where to start from where a lot of modern jazz is concerned, but I have done jazz sort of top-down, starting with Out To Lunch and now finally finding my way to the Prez.

Track 2-9: okay, who's going to please, please, please offer me a burn of that RCA album?

[mikeweil]

Then, with respect to the answers, I would have liked to see a bit more discographical information. I am not familiar with many of the players and would like to at least know who's on there, playing what instrument. Even if that seems obvious info to most, it isn't always obvious to all, I think. Also some indication of time frame of recording would have suited me well, just to be able to place the stuff in my personal idea of general musical development.

I know there's much work involved, but we should agree on some "discographical standard" for the track info besides the personal remarks/comments - which are essential to me, and in Jim's case I expected nothing less than the brilliant short essays he delivered - I suggest it should read like this:

track title

leader or group name

Personnel (names, instruments)

recording location and date

LP or CD title

label name and LP or CD number

in the case of larger groups or doubles solo order would be nice

All of course, as known or available - this could be helped by board members with more accurate information.

This also makes for nice convenient tracklists or booklets to store with the CDs, just copy and paste ...

Edited January 3, 2004 by mikeweil

[JSngry]

To track 2-1 Hadley Caliman: "Iapetus": If this isn't Nature Boy, why not? Jim writes the band has the tune completely internalised; can it not be that they have, simply because they are actually playing a standard? You have to tell me because I don't hear things in terms of changes and whatnot, I only hear melody I guess, and in this case my ears tell me I'm hearing Nature Boy. So, whassupwivvat?

The opening phrase of Caliman's melody IS lifted from "Nature Boy", but that's all. If you can't hear how it goes off after that first phrase, the only suggestion I might make is to try singing the rest of the melody of "Nature Boy" over what is being played on the record. It just doesn't fit.

If that doesn't do the trick for you, then all I can say is, "Trust me".

[couw]

To track 2-1 Hadley Caliman: "Iapetus": If this isn't Nature Boy, why not? Jim writes the band has the tune completely internalised; can it not be that they have, simply because they are actually playing a standard? You have to tell me because I don't hear things in terms of changes and whatnot, I only hear melody I guess, and in this case my ears tell me I'm hearing Nature Boy. So, whassupwivvat?

The opening phrase of Caliman's melody IS lifted from "Nature Boy", but that's all. If you can't hear how it goes off after that first phrase, the only suggestion I might make is to try singing the rest of the melody of "Nature Boy" over what is being played on the record. It just doesn't fit.

If that doesn't do the trick for you, then all I can say is, "Trust me".

I trust you (as long as you don't want to pretend to be my doctor)

I'm not very familiar with the rest of the song and believe you that it doesn't fit, but I do hear a lot of references to the theme line throughout the song. That sorta makes it a version of Nature Boy for me. I mean, if Cecil Taylor can do a version of Love for Sale that doesn't even allow you to hum anything, why call his something else? Maybe I'm being naive, I know there's money involved, but still.

[JSngry]

Then, with respect to the answers, I would have liked to see a bit more discographical information. I am not familiar with many of the players and would like to at least know who's on there, playing what instrument. Even if that seems obvious info to most, it isn't always obvious to all, I think. Also some indication of time frame of recording would have suited me well, just to be able to place the stuff in my personal idea of general musical development.

I know there's much work involved, but we should agree on some "discographical standard" for the track info besides the personal remarks/comments - which are essential to me, and in Jim's case I expected nothing less than the brilliant short essays he delivered - I suggest it should read like this:

track title

leader or group name

Personnel (names, instruments)

recording location and date

LP or CD title

label name and LP or CD number

in the case of larger groups or doubles solo order would be nice

All of course, as known or available - this could be helped by board members with more accurate information.

This also makes for nice convenient tracklists or booklets to store with the CDs, just copy and paste ...

I'll see what I can do. Some of this stuff is from LPs that don't give dates, location, etc., & some of the information that is given is wrong. For instance, I'm told that the Daley cut is actually studio, with phony live effects dubbed on/in. Apparently RCA didn't like the recording quality of the actual live stuff, although 1 cut on the album really is from the Newport gig. But the liners say it's from a rehearsal.

Also, how much personnel do you guys want on the big band stuff? I can do full listings if you like. Might be interesting, especially for the Goodman band. It'll take longer to type, me being one of the world's worst AND slowest typists, but if y'all want it, I'll do my best.

[couw]

searching online discographies should make the right info available for a copy/paste job. I'd have done it myself, but have no access at home. There are limits to what I can allow myself wrt to time spent online at work.

[JSngry]

I'm not very familiar with the rest of the song and believe you that it doesn't fit, but I do hear a lot of references to the theme line throughout the song. That sorta makes it a version of Nature Boy for me. I mean, if Cecil Taylor can do a version of Love for Sale that doesn't even allow you to hum anything, why call his something else? Maybe I'm being naive, I know there's money involved, but still.

There's traces, sure, but the bottom line is that the song "Iapetus" has a melody, chord changes, and overall structure that are different from those of "Nature Boy".

Consider it an "impression" of "Nature Boy" if you like. For all I know, maybe that's what it was intended to be, especially since I have no earthly idea what, if anything, the word "Iapetus" actully means. It may bear a resemblance, but in the ways that count, it is a different song. To a musician, to say it's not would be akin to telling an athlete that natural grass and artificial turf were the same thing. No matter how strong certain similarites may be, they are really quite different things whose only real commonality is that they prevent the players from having to play on dirt.

[JSngry]

I mean, if Cecil Taylor can do a version of Love for Sale that doesn't even allow you to hum anything, why call his something else? Maybe I'm being naive, I know there's money involved, but still.

Well, that's an interesting point you raise there, because chord changes by themselves are not copyrightable. But Cecil (or more accurately, the rhythm section), maintain the "Love For Sale" changes and bar structure all the way through, and everybody's solos, even Cecil's, show an abidance to them. But since the melody is never explicity stated, they COULD have called it something else, but didn't.

Cecil did take this tact on LOOKING AHEAD, where he played "Take The A Train" w/o any reference to the melody (follow the bass player and you can hear it) and called it "Excursion On A Wobbly Rail". Somebody probably wanted the Porter reference on the UA album in hopes of drawing in more listeners, that's my guess. You know, a shot for the "Well gee, I hear this Cecil Taylor guy is pretty far out, but, hey, look at this, he's playing "Love For Sale", so how far out can he REALLY be? I mean, I can follow Brubeck!" audience.

But like I said, "Iapetus" ain't "Nature Boy", no matter how much it refers to it.

Edited January 5, 2004 by JSngry

[rockefeller center]

Iapetus

[JSngry]

THANK YOU!

So, is that a Latin word, or what?

[rockefeller center]

THANK YOU!     

So, is that a Latin word, or what?

I'm quite certain that it's a greek word.

Iapetus  -- In Greek mythology, a son of Uranus and Gaea. Father of Atlas, Epimetheus, Menoetius, and Prometheus. Source

[JSngry]

Thanks again! Learn something every day if you ask the right people.

[rockefeller center]

I'd like to thank those internet search engines.

[rockefeller center]

From Bill Crow's "From Birdland To Broadway"

[mikeweil]

This describes some of the traits of Benny I always disliked. Why do great musicians have to act like big you-know-what-kind-of-holes? I never had any problems when someone played a chorus better than anything I played that evening.

About the personnel listings: If an online listing is available for copy and paste, posting a link would be sufficient IMHO.

[mikeweil]

Well, that's an interesting point you raise there, because chord changes by themselves are not copyrightable. But Cecil (or more accurately, the rhythm section), maintain the "Love For Sale" changes and bar structure all the way through, and everybody's solos, even Cecil's, show an abidance to them. But since the melody is never explicity stated, they COULD have called it something else, but didn't.

Cecil did take this tact on LOOKING AHEAD, where he played "Take The A Train" w/o any reference to the melody (follow the bass player and you can hear it) and called it "Excursion On A Wobbly Rail". Somebody probably wanted the Porter reference on the UA album in hopes of drawing in more listeners, that's my guess. You know, a shot for the "Well gee, I hear this Cecil Taylor guy is pretty far out, but, hey, look at this, he's playing "Love For Sale", so how far out can he REALLY be? I mean, I can follow Brubeck!" audience.

But like I said, "Iapetus" ain't "Nature Boy", no matter how much it refers to it.

It's funny that you identify an improvisation on a theme by the chord changes, although these can't be copyrighted! Of course this is common practice, and I would have explained it the same way you did, Jim ....it ain't Nature Boy, no way, though I hear the resemblances you talk about, couw. Sometimes the references to a certain song or melody are done unconsciously, I'm convinced, sometimes it is a creative game. It's part of the game ever since beboppers wrote new themes on standard chord changes.

On the other hand, take blues changes: They are all the same, and nobody would discuss similarities between themes, because it is expected to be that way! There a many roads to travel ...