Jump to content

Herbie Hancock Memoir


Recommended Posts

Wasn't referring to you, Larry, not about the "worrying" part.

I don't get how Herbie Hancock is less "authentic" than Muddy Waters. Both just be who they be, Herbie the gifted college-educated musician with the electrical engineer's penchant for curiosity and tinkering, Muddy the son of the Delta who knew what it meant to pick cotton, etc etc etc. I don't see how one is more or less authentic than the other. If I wanted to raise crops to feed my family, I'd want somebody like Muddy. But if I wanted to design an automated irrigation system for them, I'd want somebody like Herbie.

I can understand "preferences" based on both reflex and bias, but to conflate that with "authentic feelings", I mean, whoa...

Sorry, Herbie, you're a creative son of a bitch, and you do all kinds of shit and some of it's been really great and some of it's been really shitty, but sorry bro, you have inauthentic feelings, so...fuck you.

Anybody wants my seat on that train, they can have it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whether something is "authentic" or not is subjective. It's all opinion, there is no "seal of approval" issued from the great authenticity supreme court.

I enjoy the music that moves me or fits whatever particular mood I'm in. Sometimes it's "important" music, sometimes it's just a groove I dig, or a great guitar riff or a funky bassline. The motives behind the music matter not, I could care less about the artist's intentions or their credibility, I'll leave that to over-thinking scholars to chase their tail over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, we all make judgments on a regular basis. Otherwise we would sit at home, never vote, never do what we consider to be the right things, never make any attempts at personal growth.

Yeah, but I'd prefer to vote for a progressive who will vote in my interests but seems personally "inauthentic" over an authentic wingnut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, Shawn, I caught my tail a long time ago. Now I'm licking my nuts.

but that's another story - however, you should re-read my reiteration that I am not talking motivation but the specific quality of the work. You may disagree, but the issues need to be clear.

Val - many writers will tell you that they think of a title first - before writing a song, a story, an article. That the title is the stimulus that gets them going. I've even done this a few times with jazz compositions (and everyone will tell you that Larry Kart came up with the name of his book collection in 1947; but that's another story).

now, I don't always reject something based on title - but the word "child" became, at some prior point, a delusional symbol for innocence. This kind of thing makes (or has already made) me crazy.

No one's perfect. I open doors for old ladies, am kind to animals, help my friends, and pay my taxes. I just cannot listen to or read anything with the word "child" in it.

now, Pete C. - to me anyone who agrees with me politically is authentic -

Jim - as for judgement being a middle class value - nah, I don't think so. There are too many important critics I've read, from Larry K. here to Walter Benjamin to Adam Kirsch, for me to think that judging and criticizing is some kind of class-based luxury. For me it's education, and more like breathing. It's part of engaging life and ideas. Old fashioned, maybe, but it works.

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one's perfect. I open doors for old ladies, am kind to animals, help my friends, and pay my taxes. I just cannot listen to or read anything with the word "child" in it.

I'll admit to the same bias. The title Speak Like A Child to me makes me think of some doe-eyed brat with a speech impediment clamoring for attention. (Yes, thankfully I didn't have kids). While it may have been more the reviews and the word "transitional" that kept me away from the album for a few years, the title didn't help matters.

With that problem and my atheistic tendencies and it took a little extra gumption to try "God Bless The Child" but thankfully the draw of Dolphy's bass clarinet won out. Later I discovered Bill Holiday. So there might be one or two exceptions Allen. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epist: I hear you, but ain't messin' with it myself-though it's fun to get to brass tacks and play some JB rhythm or some raw blues or funk. But it's not ME. I do best in pop w/the melodic stuff. People just like my sound and I'm glad. I put a lot of work in on just melodic purity bringing out a song. If I got into, say, pedals or even a lot more treble I'd fool no one and sound dumb. So I do my thing and let the guys who do THAT do that. Now to Grant Green, I think Grant was cool but lazy. I think their are many better and more developed models for horn-like single-string playing. Start with his (and my) hero Jimmy Raney. Eddie Diehl, from his own generation and a natural talent like Grant, holds up as way more interesting. But then I played with Eddie a lot and never with Grant. Never even heard him live. But for a time he was a favorite. He's lyrical, swings, has a sound. And no one, Wes included, who was pretty great, ever touched the Father of them all: the man from Oklahoma City, Charles Christian.

To compare Eddie Diehl's playing to Grant Green in terms of quality is laughable. Sure, the recent playing I saw of Eddie Diehl on the documentary is brilliant and unique, but it wasn't during the time Grant Green walked the earth. And by what authority do you have that Grant Green held Jimmy Rainey in hero status. Something I have read you state more than once. The only source I have is a quote he has tossed off to a liner note writer (or maybe a Downbeat article). Get real. Grant Green doesn't come across to me as a lazy musician. Just because he stopped making albums with changes playing. The level of commitment and focus on the song selection and groove of his funk albums is far beyond anything any artist does who is not following his muse. Carryin On and Green Is Beautiful are great Grant Green albums. I think the changing social/cultural conditions for Black music allowed Green to focus on aspects of his playing that were already considered an integral part of his gift anyway. Same as they did for Herbie Hancock. Having a drug problem and having to travel the US for gigs outside the confines of the first class concert halls might sap some energy and make Grant Green look less productive than he was.

As to Allen Lowe's "I spent 5 years showing that there are other ways into the blues for jazz people than through the top 40 or Lincoln Center" well so have whole generations of players for whom the sound and feeling of the blues is intrinsic, even if blues forms were not always used. From the most radical to the most conservative. This thread on Herbie Hancock illustrates that, from his most radical to his most corny music. Maybe you assimilated the blues and jazz traditions from different directions, as you often mention the white blues players as your earliest influences, while your jazz influences are more directly black perhaps. So maybe reconciling the two is your own personal journey. I don't think it's ever been a 'thing' for the players I've listened to.

Edited by freelancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I love Grant Green and Jimmy Raney -- so there. The evidence for Green digging Raney may just be that one quote (maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that Green was a guy who made a habit of talking about his music that much), but different though he and Raney sound from several points of view, I think they did share something deep -- a feel for the pull of tonal gravity and how much one could do, rhythmically and melodically, by subtly, linearly pulling against it. In particular, both men knew the secret of how to make one's succession of pitches more or less swing by themselves (as those pitches pulled variously against the tonal gravity), quite apart from how individual notes were attacked. Yes, Raney was quite chaste in not attacking notes much, doing so less often than Green did, but even so, with Green primarily it was the pitches that swung, which is why he sounds a good deal different IMO than a lot of more conventionl bluesy-greasy guitar players. In any case, given that resemblance between Raney and Green, Green's quote, and the fact that Raney was around and prominent when Green was fairly young, I think the possibility was quite possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I love Grant Green and Jimmy Raney -- so there. The evidence for Green digging Raney may just be that one quote (maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that Green was a guy who made a habit of talking about his music that much), but different though he and Raney sound from several points of view, I think they did share something deep -- a feel for the pull of tonal gravity and how much one could do, rhythmically and melodically, by subtly, linearly pulling against it. In particular, both men knew the secret of how to make one's succession of pitches more or less swing by themselves (as those pitches pulled variously against the tonal gravity), quite apart from how individual notes were attacked. Yes, Raney was quite chaste in not attacking notes much, doing so less often than Green did, but even so, with Green primarily it was the pitches that swung, which is why he sounds a good deal different IMO than a lot of more conventionl bluesy-greasy guitar players. In any case, given that resemblance between Raney and Green, Green's quote, and the fact that Raney was around and prominent when Green was fairly young, I think the possibility was quite possible.

Well they did share something deep on a formal level. Strong clear tone, heavy use of be-bop chromaticism, sure. The deeper the space Raney presented on record with harmony-melody, was matched by what Green alternately presented in blues feeling and rhythmical slipperiness. However, to say that Grant Green idolised Raney (and thereby infer he studied his lines in more than a cursory way) is a different matter. Green did say he spent many hours studying Charlie Parker. And he obviously did the same with Sonny Rollins. It's a similar call perhaps to the arguments about Hancock that often emerge here. ie. Raney-Green as opposed to Hancock-Tristano/Evans. Raney was on record when Grant Green was still learning in St.Louis that's true. So if he was studying Parker and Rollins perhaps he paid attention to Raney as well. What is clear, is that outside the song choices he made on his organ sessions, when he played with piano, he often relied on re-interpreting songs and arrangements from record by more famous players (and different instruments) from the time immediately preceding him. So he obviously had a learned and deep attachment to the records of his day.

Edited by freelancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I love Grant Green and Jimmy Raney -- so there. The evidence for Green digging Raney may just be that one quote (maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that Green was a guy who made a habit of talking about his music that much), but different though he and Raney sound from several points of view, I think they did share something deep -- a feel for the pull of tonal gravity and how much one could do, rhythmically and melodically, by subtly, linearly pulling against it. In particular, both men knew the secret of how to make one's succession of pitches more or less swing by themselves (as those pitches pulled variously against the tonal gravity), quite apart from how individual notes were attacked. Yes, Raney was quite chaste in not attacking notes much, doing so less often than Green did, but even so, with Green primarily it was the pitches that swung, which is why he sounds a good deal different IMO than a lot of more conventionl bluesy-greasy guitar players. In any case, given that resemblance between Raney and Green, Green's quote, and the fact that Raney was around and prominent when Green was fairly young, I think the possibility was quite possible.

Well they did share something deep on a formal level. Strong clear tone, heavy use of be-bop chromaticism, sure. The deeper the space Raney presented on record with harmony-melody, was matched by what Green alternately presented in blues feeling and rhythmical slipperiness. However, to say that Grant Green idolised Raney (and thereby infer he studied his lines in more than a cursory way) is a different matter. Green did say he spent many hours studying Charlie Parker. And he obviously did the same with Sonny Rollins. It's a similar call perhaps to the arguments about Hancock that often emerge here. ie. Raney-Green as opposed to Hancock-Tristano/Evans. Raney was on record when Grant Green was still learning in St.Louis.

And Grant Green didn't/couldn't listen to records when he was still learning in St.Louis? Isn't that when guys tend to do that a good deal? Also, aside from the obvious trait of bluesiness, Green sounds a whole more like Raney than he does like Bird, IMO. Also to idolize is one thing, to dig is another. I said that Green quite likely dug Raney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I love Grant Green and Jimmy Raney -- so there. The evidence for Green digging Raney may just be that one quote (maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that Green was a guy who made a habit of talking about his music that much), but different though he and Raney sound from several points of view, I think they did share something deep -- a feel for the pull of tonal gravity and how much one could do, rhythmically and melodically, by subtly, linearly pulling against it. In particular, both men knew the secret of how to make one's succession of pitches more or less swing by themselves (as those pitches pulled variously against the tonal gravity), quite apart from how individual notes were attacked. Yes, Raney was quite chaste in not attacking notes much, doing so less often than Green did, but even so, with Green primarily it was the pitches that swung, which is why he sounds a good deal different IMO than a lot of more conventionl bluesy-greasy guitar players. In any case, given that resemblance between Raney and Green, Green's quote, and the fact that Raney was around and prominent when Green was fairly young, I think the possibility was quite possible.

Well they did share something deep on a formal level. Strong clear tone, heavy use of be-bop chromaticism, sure. The deeper the space Raney presented on record with harmony-melody, was matched by what Green alternately presented in blues feeling and rhythmical slipperiness. However, to say that Grant Green idolised Raney (and thereby infer he studied his lines in more than a cursory way) is a different matter. Green did say he spent many hours studying Charlie Parker. And he obviously did the same with Sonny Rollins. It's a similar call perhaps to the arguments about Hancock that often emerge here. ie. Raney-Green as opposed to Hancock-Tristano/Evans. Raney was on record when Grant Green was still learning in St.Louis.

And Grant Green didn't/couldn't listen to records when he was still learning in St.Louis? Isn't that when guys tend to do that a good deal? Also, aside from the obvious trait of bluesiness, Green sounds a whole more like Raney than he does like Bird, IMO. Also to idolize is one thing, to dig is another. I said that Green quite likely dug Raney.

No I'm saying that it is certainly possible Green studied Raney on records. Not that he did or didn't. He does sound like Rainey more than he does any other guitarist I think that also. Even moreso than he does Kenny Burrell. Yes he does also sound more like Rainey than Parker to a certain extant as well. I have read fasstrack say Grant Green idolised Jimmy Raney. Just wondering whether it is a speculation based on listening, or perhaps from another source. Eddie Diehl perhaps, who obviously knew and played with Grant Green.

Edited by freelancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't hear that Eddie's just as swinging as Grant and just as much a blues player but more subtle and more interesting lines, less repetitive...well I'm not gonna argue. You got rights, I got rights. But with all respect, I'm a jazz guitarist born and bred in NY. These guys are my predecessors, they set the table for what I've tried to do with my life. And I know Eddie very well and knew Jimmy and am still in touch with his son Jon. At least listen to what I say b/c I know this drill-didn't read it in DumbBeat. Grant did take a lot from Jimmy-so did many, he was very influential. Every player in the know knew he was one of the giants. That's why Bradley's was packed when he was in town, etc. Grant was a natural talent who IMO never developed fully b/c like others he got caught up in gigs and dates that went to feed a drug habit unfortunately. But other musicians into shit didn't let it stop their musical growth. To me it's lazy when a guy makes no or little progress. For one thing to me a little of him

If you can't hear that Eddie's just as swinging as Grant and just as much a blues player but more subtle and more interesting lines, less repetitive...well I'm not gonna argue. You got rights, I got rights. But with all respect, I'm a jazz guitarist born and bred in NY. These guys are my predecessors, they set the table for what I've tried to do with my life. And I know Eddie very well and knew Jimmy and am still in touch with his son Jon. At least listen to what I say b/c I know this drill-didn't read it in DumbBeat. Grant did take a lot from Jimmy-so did many, he was very influential. Every player in the know knew he was one of the giants. That's why Bradley's was packed when he was in town, etc. Grant was a natural talent who IMO never developed fully b/c like others he got caught up in gigs and dates that went to feed a drug habit unfortunately. But other musicians into shit didn't let it stop their musical growth. To me it's lazy when a guy makes no or little progress. For one thing to me a little of him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pt. 2: To me he just repeated and never grew, never explored the instrument chordally, for one thing. He achieved some nice things and was talented, though. Who knows what he would've done had he straighted out? Sad. Maybe I'm picking on him b/c the romantic image of the junkie jazz musician is not only sickening horseshit drivel, it's downright destructive. People not only want to play like these guys, they want to BE them. Well, like I said, Grant was cool. Good player w/o even trying. If he tried maybe he'd of been a MF. We'll never know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Jimmy didn't return the compliment. He made at least one snotty comment to me and I stuck up for Grant! Jimmy was a snob and picky in who he liked. I think he considered both Grant and Rene Thomas copycats. BS if so b/c both had way more happening than Jimmy's shit. Jimmy Gourley was guilty if charged. Into very little beside ripoffs-and weak ones-of Raney's 50s work. Not in the same universe as Grant Green and Rene Thomas (who himself took some things from GRANT later in the day). 'Will the Circle..'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, fass, in terms of how static Grant's technique was over an extended period of time. I'm a hardcore Grant fan, although more for the mileage he gets out of economy rather than anything associated with Francis Wolff/jazz image and especially the whole junkie/martyr/icon BS. The "sameness" of Grant's playing over any number of recordings is a double-edged sword; on the one hand it illustrates how a simple but instinctual understanding of jazz harmony can be applied to dozens of musical situations (straight up standards playing via his early Blue Note sides, slowburn/mood music ala Idle Moments and Street of Dreams, blues/gospel harmony w/Feelin' the Spirit, Coltrane-ish modalism/progressivism with Matador and solid, funk with Alive and so on...), on the other it's limited in color and technical scope, if not emotional content. A lot of folks talk about just how much Grant absorbed from Bird, but his playing reads kind of like a reduction of bebop phrasing--there's actually very little chromaticism and not that much rhythmic sophistication, and the the real bebop in there is in the shape/contour of his lines.

In terms of Grant "not going far enough"--I always understood Grant's dedication to single line playing as sort of a marker of his own identity, but I can't help but imagine it limited both his professional opportunities and the depth of his music in the long run. I always thought it was interesting how he never really comped on any of his own albums, a fact that casts an intriguing shadow on Grant's several, very sympathetic recorded relationships with top-drawer chordal instrumentalists/compers (Herbie, Larry Young, Bobby Hutcherson, Sonny Clark, Jack McDuff, etc.). In other words, Grant's playing isn't particularly interactive, but it is intensely propulsive--time that sits on or on top of the beat, hard attack, staccato phrasing--which made him an ideal partner for keyboardists/organists who knew how to make their own music, so to speak. At the same time, I get the sense that more demanding company really has to work to integrate him into the ensembles--listen to Herbie's My Point of View or Lee Morgan's Search for the New Land, where Grant will usually show up for a unison line or break and then disappear until/unless there is a guitar solo.

The fact that Grant never got into chordal territory is a shame, because he was one of the most adventurous guitar players of his generation, context-wise. Wes's bag was ultimately a blues/hard bop thing, Kenny Burrell was in a similar bracket, guys like Jim Hall were much more harmonically adventurous but not as meaty or intense, and the next "evolution" of the instrument into progressive territories was something else entirely (James "Blood" and Sonny Sharrock in free jazz terms, Larry Coryell and John McLaughlin in rock terms). Maybe it's too late for me to think hard enough about it, but jazz guitar never really had a Herbie or McCoy in the 60's, did it? (i.e., someone who could play mainstream/standards music convincingly and excitingly but also innovate in any number of progressive situations). Sonny Greenwich? Barney Kessel? Attila Zoller?

Edited by ep1str0phy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pt. 2: To me he just repeated and never grew, never explored the instrument chordally, for one thing. He achieved some nice things and was talented, though. Who knows what he would've done had he straighted out? Sad. Maybe I'm picking on him b/c the romantic image of the junkie jazz musician is not only sickening horseshit drivel, it's downright destructive. People not only want to play like these guys, they want to BE them. Well, like I said, Grant was cool. Good player w/o even trying. If he tried maybe he'd of been a MF. We'll never know...

I do take what you say seriously, and I do respect your social history and achievements within the music. I am questioning what you said though. I don't believe the recorded work by Eddie Diehl justifies your position - that you have further elucidated. I find the idea that Eddie Diehl had a sound and musical opus big enough to co-exist with Tyner/Jones and Larry Young/Jones - in any way comparable to Grant Green, almost offensive to the principle of the musicians who chose to work with Grant. That you suggest Grant Green is held in over-regard because of the so-called romantic legacy of substance abuse, even more so. I am also suggesting that the decision by Grant Green to use electric instruments and play groove based music, was also an artistic decision that related to the changing music around him, as well as his ability to contribute to it. In regards to the narrative of this thread, there is nothing in these records he made (the funk ones), that suggest insincerity or unprincipled manoeuvres (made for popularities sake alone). As has also been pointed out in this thread, they probably weren't made for 'you' as an audience. It would have been retrogressive, conceptually, for him to have begun exploring 'chord-melody' at this point in time. With the reality of Black music the way it was. The direction he took with the funk albums was every bit as logical as the way Hancock ran with the more radical funk of the In A Silent Way/Bitches Brew sound towards the Headhunters. I am saying also that Grant Green 'was' a MF and he 'was' trying. He just wasn't trying to be Joe Pass. So yes, if you think not being concerned with extending the trio/standards format is lazy, well and good. I don't, compared to finding musicians who have a vision for 1969 instrumental music, working the guitar into the front line of that music without recourse to Hendrixisms - and organising the style and arrangements that will fill clubs and create the atmosphere you can hear on Alive and Live At The Lighthouse.

Edited by freelancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lazy's a strong word, but I've listened to at least 70% of Grant's recorded legacy and he really wasn't that versatile a player. His one thing was un-freaking-believable, but nothing could make me believe he could keep up with Raney, Hall, Wes, Benson, etc. chordally. Sonny Sharrock (in the 60's, at least--there's a lot more going on in his 80's work than got documented, I think) wasn't really that versatile either, but that's not really a knock on the handful of things he could do in amazing ways. Like Allen was saying a little ways up the thread--it's not really about genre as much as it is "quality" of the music, if "technique" = "quality" in this particular case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, fass, in terms of how static Grant's technique was over an extended period of time. I'm a hardcore Grant fan, although more for the mileage he gets out of economy rather than anything associated with Francis Wolff/jazz image and especially the whole junkie/martyr/icon BS. The "sameness" of Grant's playing over any number of recordings is a double-edged sword; on the one hand it illustrates how a simple but instinctual understanding of jazz harmony can be applied to dozens of musical situations (straight up standards playing via his early Blue Note sides, slowburn/mood music ala Idle Moments and Street of Dreams, blues/gospel harmony w/Feelin' the Spirit, Coltrane-ish modalism/progressivism with Matador and solid, funk with Alive and so on...), on the other it's limited in color and technical scope, if not emotional content. A lot of folks talk about just how much Grant absorbed from Bird, but his playing reads kind of like a reduction of bebop phrasing--there's actually very little chromaticism and not that much rhythmic sophistication, and the the real bebop in there is in the shape/contour of his lines.

In terms of Grant "not going far enough"--I always understood Grant's dedication to single line playing as sort of a marker of his own identity, but I can't help but imagine it limited both his professional opportunities and the depth of his music in the long run. I always thought it was interesting how he never really comped on any of his own albums, a fact that casts an intriguing shadow on Grant's several, very sympathetic recorded relationships with top-drawer chordal instrumentalists/compers (Herbie, Larry Young, Bobby Hutcherson, Sonny Clark, Jack McDuff, etc.). In other words, Grant's playing isn't particularly interactive, but it is intensely propulsive--time that sits on or on top of the beat, hard attack, staccato phrasing--which made him an ideal partner for keyboardists/organists who knew how to make their own music, so to speak. At the same time, I get the sense that more demanding company really has to work to integrate him into the ensembles--listen to Herbie's My Point of View or Lee Morgan's Search for the New Land, where Grant will usually show up for a unison line or break and then disappear until/unless there is a guitar solo.

The fact that Grant never got into chordal territory is a shame, because he was one of the most adventurous guitar players of his generation, context-wise. Wes's bag was ultimately a blues/hard bop thing, Kenny Burrell was in a similar bracket, guys like Jim Hall were much more harmonically adventurous but not as meaty or intense, and the next "evolution" of the instrument into progressive territories was something else entirely (James "Blood" and Sonny Sharrock in free jazz terms, Larry Coryell and John McLaughlin in rock terms). Maybe it's too late for me to think hard enough about it, but jazz guitar never really had a Herbie or McCoy in the 60's, did it? (i.e., someone who could play mainstream/standards music convincingly and excitingly but also innovate in any number of progressive situations). Sonny Greenwich? Barney Kessel? Attila Zoller?

Grant comped on all his organ records, his own and others. Patton Young etc. He just didn't do it much on piano dates. It would have been interesting if he had of gone on the musical journey John Patton took, and been required to function more in that context. But he didn't, he did something else with his music. Blood Ulmer and Jimmy Ponder provide guitar playing that works with the Tyner harmony Patton was exploring. Ted Dunbar and Calvin Keys also sound like an extension of this as well. I prefer the Lifetime stuff with Ted Dunbar actually. Sonny Greenwich has this sound as well, but I don't think chordal work was as important to any of them as much as the sound of their lines. Larry Coryell's duet with Elvin Jones is a favourite of mine, as well as Jam with Albert.

Edited by freelancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per the notion that resorting to chord melody was retrogressive at that time--I agree that there's plenty that's sociopolitical about specific techniques and instrumental lineages, but deciding not to play chords on a chordal instrument strikes me as more of a self-imposed technical limitation rather than an ideological one. Even Hendrix spent some time with octaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per the notion that resorting to chord melody was retrogressive at that time--I agree that there's plenty that's sociopolitical about specific techniques and instrumental lineages, but deciding not to play chords on a chordal instrument strikes me as more of a self-imposed technical limitation rather than an ideological one. Even Hendrix spent some time with octaves.

He didn't not play chords. He was always playing with keyboards, he didn't do a piano/guitar duet lp, but still. He is playing chords on Search For The New Land on some of the tunes. He is very interactive with Patton. Actually, guitar wise, who was really playing full bodied chordal work with piano in the 60's anyway? And if they were, they didn't have the conception of Hancock, that's for sure.

Edited by freelancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant comped on all his organ records, his own and others. Patton Young etc. He just didn't do it much on piano dates. I would have been interesting if he had of gone on the musical journey John Patton took, and been required to function more in that context. But he didn't he did something else with his music. Blood Ulmer and Jimmy Ponder provide guitar playing that works with the Tyner sounds Patton was exploring. Ted Dunbar and Calvin Keys also sound like an extension of this as well. I prefer the Lifetime stuff with Ted Dunbar actually.

OK, you got me--shit called where shit is laid. I put some Grant on while reading through this thread and came across this:

...and it's pretty solid, interactive organ trio comping. I was remembering, probably a little too tiredly, the frequent occurrence of stuff like this:

-which is one of my favorite performances of all time. He does comp on a lot of blues, some slow burners, and the occasional uptempo piece, but I am a little perplexed by the fact that he tends to sit out comping duties on a lot of the more complex standards tunes on his own albums. Yes, you don't need two comping instruments on every single track (especially on stuff like Street of Dreams where you have three of them at the band's disposal), but Grant's comping--propulsive as it is--is nowhere near as coloristically or rhythmically sophisticated as, say, Jim Hall (or Wes, for that matter, who made a similar "commercial" turn later in life).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per the notion that resorting to chord melody was retrogressive at that time--I agree that there's plenty that's sociopolitical about specific techniques and instrumental lineages, but deciding not to play chords on a chordal instrument strikes me as more of a self-imposed technical limitation rather than an ideological one. Even Hendrix spent some time with octaves.

True, about Hendrix, who couldn't play swing in the literal sense of it, and he couldn't play changes, but he often gave you the impression he was, because of his wonderful gift for using those triad shapes he inserted into his improvising. I love Villanova Junction though, and the later Billy Cox bands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant comped on all his organ records, his own and others. Patton Young etc. He just didn't do it much on piano dates. I would have been interesting if he had of gone on the musical journey John Patton took, and been required to function more in that context. But he didn't he did something else with his music. Blood Ulmer and Jimmy Ponder provide guitar playing that works with the Tyner sounds Patton was exploring. Ted Dunbar and Calvin Keys also sound like an extension of this as well. I prefer the Lifetime stuff with Ted Dunbar actually.

OK, you got me--shit called where shit is laid. I put some Grant on while reading through this thread and came across this:

...and it's pretty solid, interactive organ trio comping. I was remembering, probably a little too tiredly, the frequent occurrence of stuff like this:

-which is one of my favorite performances of all time. He does comp on a lot of blues, some slow burners, and the occasional uptempo piece, but I am a little perplexed by the fact that he tends to sit out comping duties on a lot of the more complex standards tunes on his own albums. Yes, you don't need two comping instruments on every single track (especially on stuff like Street of Dreams where you have three of them at the band's disposal), but Grant's comping--propulsive as it is--is nowhere near as coloristically or rhythmically sophisticated as, say, Jim Hall (or Wes, for that matter, who made a similar "commercial" turn later in life).

Yes that's true re=Hall and even Wes for that matter. Wes comped more with a full chord sound on his organ dates. But Melvin Rhyne had a much 'thinner' sound than the organists Grant played with. Except maybe Billy Gardner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...