60's hardbop trumpeters in 'progressive' contexts

[felser]

Eddie Henderson on the Herbie Hancock Sextet stuff with Bennie Maupin, Julian Priester, Buster Williams, and Billy Hart.

Edited November 13, 2005 by felser

[Rooster_Ties]

Donald Byrd on that Sam Rivers LP that wasn't released at the time - can't remember the title. It also had Julian Priester and James Spaulding. I have always liked that one very much.

←

Good catch!! - hadn't thought of that one, but it fits this topic perfectly...

Donald Byrd on Dimensions and Extensions (1967)

Edited November 14, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Chuck Nessa]

Are we talkin' 'bout trumpeters worried about being "behind the curve" and adding some "trappings" to their "repertoire"? This happened a bunch to musicians unsure of their skills and "assaulted" by rock/fusion on one side and free music on the other.

[andybleaden]

I must admit I share you opinions regarding the 'progressive' playing of 'hard bop' players/

I really enjoy the style and substance of these recordings which rank among some of my nearest and dearest Blue Note recordings. I also see no difference between liking these and some standard fare recordings in a hard bop fashion.

Its almost as if you are hearing two different artists sometimes

I particularly liked the Lee Morgan sides with others as I hear a different sound than I hear on his classics ( love em though I do)

Good topic and one that you could imagine on other artists.....or styles

[Joe]

IMO, Lee Morgan's most "progressive" playing is on Moncur's EVOLUTION. And wasn't that date one of the first Mogie made upon emerging from his mini-retirement?

[mrjazzman]

rooster ties, purchased "it's time" recently by mclean, a kick ass set..........

[Uncle Skid]

Are we talkin' 'bout trumpeters worried about being "behind the curve" and adding some "trappings" to their "repertoire"? This happened a bunch to musicians unsure of their skills and  "assaulted" by rock/fusion on one side and free music on the other.

←

That's a good question, and I have to admit I never considered it that way. I'm hearing this music isolated from that time in jazz history, and now have to wonder how much of it was fueled by real innovation and desire, vs. a reaction to the times. And wonder some more how much it matters in the end...

My suspicion is that the closer one gets to 1970, the more potential there is for reactionary responses to the (more popular) music of the time, especially the rock/fusion angle.

But then I see that Evolution was made in 1963, and Out to Lunch in 1964. That seems pretty "progressive" to me for that time, and least from my perspective.

Fascinating discussion...

[sal]

Pardon me if I'm incorrect in saying this, but why hasn't "Search for the New Land" been mentioned? I thought that was one of Lee's more progressive dates.

[ep1str0phy]

Are we talkin' 'bout trumpeters worried about being "behind the curve" and adding some "trappings" to their "repertoire"? This happened a bunch to musicians unsure of their skills and  "assaulted" by rock/fusion on one side and free music on the other.

←

That's a good question, and I have to admit I never considered it that way. I'm hearing this music isolated from that time in jazz history, and now have to wonder how much of it was fueled by real innovation and desire, vs. a reaction to the times. And wonder some more how much it matters in the end...

My suspicion is that the closer one gets to 1970, the more potential there is for reactionary responses to the (more popular) music of the time, especially the rock/fusion angle.

But then I see that Evolution was made in 1963, and Out to Lunch in 1964. That seems pretty "progressive" to me for that time, and least from my perspective.

Fascinating discussion...

←

I agree, Skid. Sometimes it's difficult to separate genuine aesthetic predilections from reactionary inclinations--especially considering the "genre-hopping" tendencies of many modern jazz musicians. One thing is for sure, however--it's nowhere near as difficult to suss out the genuine progressives, a class of innovator to which few may be catalogued. Practically no "hard bop" trumpeters fit this label--if by progressive we're dealing with the archetypal 60's "New Thing" and associated schools (Blue Note?). For the most part, then, we're dealing with dabblers and journeymen--people fundamentally out of context. Some sincerity here (Woody Shaw, I'm looking at you), some half-hearted BS... but none of the guys under discussion would qualify as singularly "progressive" in mind--and, therefore, it really is difficult to identify the poseurs. There's really no telling, and it's probably useless to make assumptions regarding "intent".

It may be useful, however, to examine the aesthetics of individual group "leaders". Whether or not Freddie and Woody were genuine about the music, it's far easier to place them at the vanguard of 60's hardboppers. Simply participating in sessions by Ornette, Coltrane, Hill, Dolphy, Moncur (etc.) is enough to suggest an openness to progressive tendencies, if not an outright desire to innovate. The first couple waves of the "New Thing" were for real, untested and gestative--it's safe to assume that the groundbreaking work of Messrs. Ornette, Coltrane (etc.) was created by individuals of (generally) "un-reactionary" tendencies. But those weren't their sessions. Hubbard is unambiguously "hard bop" for the very reason that, for the rather nebulous purposes of classification, we have to assume from record--and Hubbard's personal leadership has been relatively conservative (at least in relation to, say, Lester Bowie).

I say the reacitonary/progressive distinciton is rather moot--all of the guys under discussion are out of "canonical" context. Lee Morgan may have been more "avant" than history gives him credit for (considering what he's said about "Evolution", etc.), but, for the purposes of discussion, his work with Moncur, Hill (etc.) is relatively aberrant.

[JSngry]

Of what good are innovations if people don't try and catch up to them?

And even if they don't/can't/whatever fully make a permanent leap, isn't the effort still useful in terms of moving the overall "mainstream" ahead?

To use a tenor player as an example, I think that Harold Land is a perfect example of somebody who was perpetually "behind the curve", yet his distance behind the curve remained pretty much constant as the curve moved ahead (at least up to the Post-Ayler zone, which isn't so much a curve as it is a whole new world springing out of the old), and his playing remained organic as his vocabulary shifted. He was never an innovator, yet he continued to grow as a player. for every Hubbard, who experimented often (and sincerely) but ultimately reamined true to his original style, there's a Land, who moves ahead and never goes back, always behind "the curve" but still ahead of where they used to be. Well, maybe there's not a 1/1 equivalency, but you know what I mean...

Innovation is not everybody's destiny. But surely the opportunity to grow is. Lots of wasted opportunities, retrenchment, etc. follow, sure, but that's life, for better or worse.

[ep1str0phy]

Of what good are innovations if people don't try and catch up to them?

And even if they don't/can't/whatever fully make a permanent leap, isn't the effort still useful in terms of moving the overall "mainstream" ahead?

To use a tenor player as an example, I think that Harold Land is a perfect example of somebody who was perpetually "behind the curve", yet his distance behind the curve remained pretty much constant as the curve moved ahead (at least up to the Post-Ayler zone, which isn't so much a curve as it is a whole new world springing out of the old), and his playing remained organic as his vocabulary shifted. He was never an innovator, yet he continued to grow as a player. for every Hubbard, who experimented often (and sincerely) but ultimately reamined true to his original style, there's a Land, who moves ahead and never goes back, always behind "the curve" but still ahead of where they used to be. Well, maybe there's not a 1/1 equivalency, but you know what I mean...

Innovation is not everybody's destiny. But surely the opportunity to grow is. Lots of wasted opportunities, retrenchment, etc. follow, sure, but that's life, for better or worse.

←

Oh, absolutely. We're dealing with matters of categorization, though--and, frankly, "genre" categorization has always been a nebulous science. I think the capacity to "aspire" is different from artistic record (or nature, for that matter). The efforts of Messrs. Hubbard, Shaw, Morgan (etc.)--whose careers, like many jazz musicians, are all over the place--are admirable for what they are, irrespective of nature. Jazz, improvised music, creativity, art would be nothing were it not for the tide of innovation and those who weather the storm.

At the same time--and I think this was the issue a few posts up--it's difficult to divine sincerity from artistic product. Again, this may be a non-issue, but the interpretation of music can be severely altered by knowledge of its origins. People jive. There's a wide gulf between those who approach innovation as opportunity and those who simply "cope" with, dismiss, and capitalize on it. Few individuals are so easily categorized. Regardless, it's difficult to apotheosize those who fall anywhere near the latter camp. That much, at least, I'm certain.

Again, I could care less for categories. The idea that one is "hard bop" or "free jazz" or whatever is moot, but we use these terms anyway. It's just... in a Lockian sense, I guess, easier to organize discourse in this manner. Sadly, we're usually defined by what comes across, what people see--regardless of what we aspire to do (or don't, for that matter). Only Lee Morgan, after all, can fully assess Lee Morgan. We can only relish his efforts--and be glad that we know them.

[JSngry]

I do consider Woody Shaw an "innovator". Not for moving the music ahead per se, but for coming up with a trumpetistical "answer" to the harmonic challenges posed by Trane's early-60s music. It's not sufficient to say that he found a way to "play Trane on the trumpet", because he really did more than that - he really did forge a new language for the instrument, a language that Hubbard only hinted/flirted at. It's a type of innovation that perhaps is best appreciated by musicians and musically knowledgeable fans, but an innovation it is. It's a distinctive vocabulary, and one that didn't exist before he invented it. Based on Trane, certainly, but certainly not wholly imitative.

So now we have different degrees of "innovation". Where does that leave us? Same place we always end up - listening to a bunch of different stuff and liking/disliking it for all sort of reasons, only some of which we can easily defend.

[ep1str0phy]

ISo now we have different degrees of "innovation". Where does that leave us? Same place we always end up - listening to a bunch of different stuff and liking/disliking it for all sort of reasons, only some of which we can easily defend.     

←

Christ--exactly. Innovators, progressives, revolutionaries, the avant-garde... a mud-pit of poorly defined parameters. One might call Kenny G an innovator, but that's a whole other bag...

Anyway... Shake Keane? Wasn't always so far out as on those Harriott dates, was he?

[Uncle Skid]

One thing is for sure, however--it's nowhere near as difficult to suss out the genuine progressives, a class of innovator to which few may be catalogued. Practically no "hard bop" trumpeters fit this label--if by progressive we're dealing with the archetypal 60's "New Thing" and associated schools (Blue Note?). For the most part, then, we're dealing with dabblers and journeymen--people fundamentally out of context. Some sincerity here (Woody Shaw, I'm looking at you), some half-hearted BS... but none of the guys under discussion would qualify as singularly "progressive" in mind--and, therefore, it really is difficult to identify the poseurs. There's really no telling, and it's probably useless to make assumptions regarding "intent".

←

Yes, but this really begs the question -- can someone who was originally a "60's hardbop trumpeter" transition into a "genuine progressive"? If not, why not??

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it seems like you are suggesting that being truly progressive almost requires one to be insulated from the mainstream and the journeymen. Isn't the opposite true -- can anything new and innovative arise from someone that is not fully cognizant of the past?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree that trying to categorize musicians (or any artist, for that matter) is difficult and error prone.

But back to Rooster’s original post – what is it about the records on this thread that make them so attractive to many of us? I think that many of these dates are excellent examples of “forward-thinking” musicians being either pushed or pulled (or both!), into creating some very new and exciting music.

[Chuck Nessa]

Of what good are innovations if people don't try and catch up to them?

And even if they don't/can't/whatever fully make a permanent leap, isn't the effort still useful in terms of moving the overall "mainstream" ahead?

To use a tenor player as an example, I think that Harold Land is a perfect example of somebody who was perpetually "behind the curve", yet his distance behind the curve remained pretty much constant as the curve moved ahead (at least up to the Post-Ayler zone, which isn't so much a curve as it is a whole new world springing out of the old), and his playing remained organic as his vocabulary shifted. He was never an innovator, yet he continued to grow as a player. for every Hubbard, who experimented often (and sincerely) but ultimately reamined true to his original style, there's a Land, who moves ahead and never goes back, always behind "the curve" but still ahead of where they used to be. Well, maybe there's not a 1/1 equivalency, but you know what I mean...

Innovation is not everybody's destiny. But surely the opportunity to grow is. Lots of wasted opportunities, retrenchment, etc. follow, sure, but that's life, for better or worse.

←

From my perspective, Land is a perfect example of a very fine musician with something personal to say, who lost many of those "personal" qualities trying to be "hip". I feel lots of very good musicians lost a bunch in this period.

[ep1str0phy]

One thing is for sure, however--it's nowhere near as difficult to suss out the genuine progressives, a class of innovator to which few may be catalogued. Practically no "hard bop" trumpeters fit this label--if by progressive we're dealing with the archetypal 60's "New Thing" and associated schools (Blue Note?). For the most part, then, we're dealing with dabblers and journeymen--people fundamentally out of context. Some sincerity here (Woody Shaw, I'm looking at you), some half-hearted BS... but none of the guys under discussion would qualify as singularly "progressive" in mind--and, therefore, it really is difficult to identify the poseurs. There's really no telling, and it's probably useless to make assumptions regarding "intent".

←

Yes, but this really begs the question -- can someone who was originally a "60's hardbop trumpeter" transition into a "genuine progressive"? If not, why not??

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it seems like you are suggesting that being truly progressive almost requires one to be insulated from the mainstream and the journeymen. Isn't the opposite true -- can anything new and innovative arise from someone that is not fully cognizant of the past?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree that trying to categorize musicians (or any artist, for that matter) is difficult and error prone.

But back to Rooster’s original post – what is it about the records on this thread that make them so attractive to many of us? I think that many of these dates are excellent examples of “forward-thinking” musicians being either pushed or pulled (or both!), into creating some very new and exciting music.

←

It's semantics. Although I don't think that the definition (previously) set forth precludes the qualities that you put forward--a guy like "Hubbard" may not be as stridently "progressive" as Ornette, but he did play on a few seminal avant sessions--I sympathize with your concerns. This dilemma illustrates the central point: we're dealing with a term ("progressive") that is woefully inadequate. It's all canon, practicality, and convention--none of which I'm particularly fond of, but all of which I (we?) have to cope with. Music's music, though.

On Rooster's points... it's just fun watching people stretch. Not just "inside" cats, though--I mean, it's always fascinating to hear individuals step out of comfort zones. Confusion, unease, frustration, strain, resolve, bravery in the face of danger. In a way, it's psychodrama. Unusual situations take us back to our most primal instincts, the deep, dark, blue center of creativity--true improvisation. Yeah, I'm lapsing into superlative, but seriously--and I'm sure some of the other musicians can testify to this--in discomfiting circumstances, there's something in the back of your skull that's just primally unsettled, invigorated. It makes for some beautiful sounds.

[JSngry]

From my perspective, Land is a perfect example of a very fine musician with something personal to say, who lost many of those "personal" qualities trying to be "hip".  I feel lots of very good musicians lost a bunch in this period.

←

Fair enough, but for me, the most personal aspect of his playing was always his tone and articulation, neither of which really changed. What did change was his approach to harmony and the shape of his lines as a result. The different intervals required a somewhat different phraseology. I do miss his loose, natural swing of the earlier days, but I feel that it's compensated for by a different type of swing, one that's not as loose, but in the end just as propulsive. Mileages will vary on that one, obviously, and yeah, there were certainly some awkward moments along the way. But overall, I think he came out of it ok.

I really don't think, though, that "trying to be "hip"" does justice to what he was going after. No varitones, blatant/overt Trane-isms, or other "popular devices", mechanical or otherwise. I just think that he was a serious musician who wanted to continue to develop his knowledge and continue to grow as a player rather than stay in the same one bag all his life (which, as you say, was a damn good bag to begin with). It's not like he totally abandoned his core approach, he just continued to develop and modify it as he learned new stuff. A "restless conservatism" if you will, and if that's as ultimately futile as trying to move to a new city be simply redecorating your house, so be it. That's just how some people are wired, don't you think?

Edited November 17, 2005 by JSngry

[Alexander Hawkins]

(JSngry @ Nov 15 2005, 10:27 PM)

Of what good are innovations if people don't try and catch up to them?

I agree to an extent...I just find that some players end up like 'painting by numbers' imitations of the innovators. Running the same scales, licks, etc...Sounding like the innovator becomes a guiding principle, from there a set of rules, and ultimately hinders freedom of expression (a freedom which is presumably the core attraction of the innovation in the first place)...

Interesting exchange on Land...I'm off to have a listen!

[JSngry]

(JSngry @ Nov 15 2005, 10:27 PM)

Of what good are innovations if people don't try and catch up to them?

I agree to an extent...I just find that some players end up like 'painting by numbers' imitations of the innovators. Running the same scales, licks, etc...Sounding like the innovator becomes a guiding principle, from there a set of rules, and ultimately hinders freedom of expression (a freedom which is presumably the core attraction of the innovation in the first place)...

←

Sure. But imitators are going to be imitators no matter what, don't you think? It's a character flaw of sorts, and if they didn't have something new to imitate, I thiink they'd just end up imitating something older.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Fair point!

I guess not everyone's going to be 'restructuralist'. Thinking about it, I think imitation is just a particular problem in this post-bop sound world, which with it's chords/scales is just particularly amenable/susceptible to rote playing. But I wholly take your point!

[JSngry]

Thinking about it, I think imitation is just a particular problem in this post-bop sound world, which with it's chords/scales is just particularly amenable/susceptible to rote playing.

←

Yeah, especially since all the viable discoveries that can be made in the realm of traditional, tonal, harmony have been made, at least as far as tertiary and quartal harmony goes. Beyond that, I think it all gets too "unnatural" to ever become a working model (Bill Barron being a notable exception), although I'd love to be proved wrong on an ongoing basis...

But even if everybody's playing the same notes, more or less, that still leaves tone, phraseology, and structure as outlets for meaningful personal expression in what has become a less than personalized medium. But finding that within yourself, if it even exists within yourself - by no means a sure thing - is a difficult task, and the jazz world of today (not least of all within the musician's community...) is not set up to encourage difficult tasks, no matter how great the potential rewards.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Thinking about it, I think imitation is just a particular problem in this post-bop sound world, which with it's chords/scales is just particularly amenable/susceptible to rote playing.

←

Yeah, especially since all the viable discoveries that can be made in the realm of traditional, tonal, harmony have been made, at least as far as tertiary and quartal harmony goes. Beyond that, I think it all gets too "unnatural" to ever become a working model (Bill Barron being a notable exception), although I'd love to be proved wrong on an ongoing basis...

But even if everybody's playing the same notes, more or less, that still leaves tone, phraseology, and structure as outlets for meaningful personal expression in what has become a less than personalized medium. But finding that within yourself, if it even exists within yourself - by no means a sure thing - is a difficult task, and the jazz world of today (not least of all within the musician's community...) is not set up to encourage difficult tasks, no matter how great the potential rewards.

←

It's probably a separate thread to ask about what Bill Barron did, is it??? I hadn't appreciated he was onto anything different in that respect!

[JSngry]

Oh, he was into all sorts of unique intervallic shit in his composing and improvising. That's not all he did, mind you, he was at times a more traditional player. But he had a bit of logic-freak in him as well, Check out the Muse sides (if you can find'em), as well as a Savoy side called Motivation (mega-ditto). Some pretty interesting/unique science on display there.

[DukeCity]

How about that Miles Davis dude with that one quintet with Wayne Shorter and some other guys?

←

So where does Miles fit in this discussion? Sure, he was ahead of (or at least on) the curve around '59 with Kind of Blue, but he kept the way-inside Wynton Kelly trio into the early '60s [insert plug here for this week's AOTW] even as he (and Trane) are going out a bit. Still playing very straight-ahead tunes and arrangements.

[Chuck Nessa]

I really don't think, though, that "trying to be "hip"" does justice to what he was going after.

←

I put hip in quotes to cover all kinds of "explanations". Hip is too narrow to cover what I meant in totality. For my tastes, Mr. Land made unfortunate choices.