Some superb Warne Marsh on video

[Larry Kart]

 

[JSngry]

Free.

Seems to be channeling Haek somehow in a few spaces...

Warne Is Free

 

[John L]

Thanks!  Very enjoyable. 

[Larry Kart]

More from the same gig:
 

 

And more:
 

 

All this is two months to the day before Warne died on the bandstand.

[JSngry]

Yeah, I noticed the chronology almost right away.

What I found striking was his physical presence, on older clips, he wasn't nearly that "whole body", not as I recall (apart from the other-worldly gum-chewing embouchure on that one clip). He really got kinda Hawk-y at times, musically and physically, imo.

No matter, Warne...wow, one of my true heroes of music, a player - hell a musician, a musical thinker/doer - of the very highest order, regardless of "genre".

[sgcim]

Warne went down swingin' and playing the same standards he played back in the 50s. So much for the fetish with 'originality'.

Some great Larry Koonse as well. When I heard him first with the LA Jazz Quartet, I knew I had to get a Borys B-120, his guitar.

[JSngry]

3 hours ago, sgcim said:

Warne went down swingin' and playing the same standards he played back in the 50s. So much for the fetish with 'originality'.

I don't know if Warne fetishized originality, but surely he was dedicated to it (as well as to mastery of his chosen vocabulary...perhaps one feeds the other?).

[sgcim]

I was saying that the fact that Warne was still playing the same tunes that he was back in the 50s (Konitz, too) that he DIDN"T fetishize 'originality.

[Chuck Nessa]

3 hours ago, sgcim said:

I was saying that the fact that Warne was still playing the same tunes that he was back in the 50s (Konitz, too) that he DIDN"T fetishize 'originality.

And I do not understand. Warne played original lines on chord sequences more than anyone I know.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Chuck Nessa

[Larry Kart]

3 hours ago, Chuck Nessa said:

And I do not understand. Warne played original lines on chord sequences more than anyone I know.

Absolutely. On "Subconscious Lee" from "All Music" (Nessa), Warne's solo begins with a dazzlingly complex unbroken improvised melody that lasts almost an entire chorus.

[sgcim]

I'm talking about the compositions and changes he played on. Warne didn't have to write things in 17/4 and play things in straight 8ths and play free/modal tunes.

He could (and you could extend that to other players) get as complex or as simple as he wanted to, and still play off the changes to tin pan alley tunes like It's You or No One, and sound original without adding non-jazz elements.

In short, Warne was one of the greatest jazz improvisers that ever lived!!!!!!!

[JSngry]

6 hours ago, sgcim said:

I'm talking about the compositions and changes he played on. Warne didn't have to write things in 17/4 and play things in straight 8ths and play free/modal tunes.

He could (and you could extend that to other players) get as complex or as simple as he wanted to, and still play off the changes to tin pan alley tunes like It's You or No One, and sound original without adding non-jazz elements.

In short, Warne was one of the greatest jazz improvisers that ever lived!!!!!!!

Those are three true statements.

They're also three totally unrelated statements.

[sgcim]

Maybe to you...

[JSngry]

What made Warne a great musician, not just "jazz improviser", was his clarity of thought, his endless inquisitiveness, and his tireless expansion of his possibilities.

Which in the end, yes indeed, most certainly one of the greatest jazz improvisers and/but because of everything he did do. What he did not do is not relevant to that point, unless you want to start from the position that what he did not do = a greatest jazz improviser, which is...kinda check-listy, to say nothing of arbitrary.

And the thing about 17/4 time...just silly. He used polymetric phrasing over 4/4 time out the ass (Bach is not a "non-jazz influence"?) , so the notion that 4/4 is the alpha-omega of jazz is kind of a...crude perception, imo.

 

[Quasimado]

On 1/3/2018 at 7:30 AM, sgcim said:

I was saying that the fact that Warne was still playing the same tunes that he was back in the 50s (Konitz, too) that he DIDN"T fetishize 'originality.

Unfortunately the phrase 'fetishize originality' can trigger certain sensitivities on this board ...

20 hours ago, sgcim said:

In short, Warne was one of the greatest jazz improvisers that ever lived!!!!!!!

Most would agree with that.   Q

 

[Quasimado]

On 1/3/2018 at 1:18 AM, JSngry said:

What I found striking was his physical presence, on older clips, he wasn't nearly that "whole body", not as I recall (apart from the other-worldly gum-chewing embouchure on that one clip). He really got kinda Hawk-y at times, musically and physically, imo.

Re Warne’s physicality while playing, in the 1983 documentary “Manhattan Studio” by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation about Lennie, Sheila Jordan has this to say:

"Oh, it used to be a kick to watch Warne… when he was really on … he was so emotional … his whole body used to just move back … you know it was wonderful to watch him play. It was really something to see – and of course to hear …"

 

I guess she’s talking about the early to mid 50’s.   Q

[sgcim]

On 1/3/2018 at 5:35 PM, Chuck Nessa said:

And I do not understand. Warne played original lines on chord sequences more than anyone I know.

That's what I was saying. Rather than hiring a funk rhythm section and playing things in straight 8ths in 17/4 on three or four sus chords, Warne was still creating beautiful, original lines on the same chord sequences he and Konitz had been playing for 50 years.

He was being original, within the jazz tradition, rather than going outside the jazz tradition to be 'original'.

[JSngry]

I think that the "jazz tradition" is whatever "jazz musicians" make it to be and/or turn it into.

Nobody played like Warne before Warne, and everybody who has tried since (including Ted Brown, whom I like quite a bit, and Lenny Popkin, whom I can like or not like) can't NOT sound like Warne. Never mind Mark Turner, self-confessedly influenced heavily by Warne, I don't get that guy too much at all, mostly because I don't hear what he got from Warne except all of the surface and none of the depth.

I think it's cheapening to his genius, hell, to the notion of "genius" in general, to base its claim, in part or in whole, on whether he did or did not stay inside the "jazz tradition". What is or is not the "jazz tradition" and who can or cannot lay claim to it, and by what means they can or can not do so, is a....regressive though process which inevitably shrinks souls rather than grows them.

For that matter, some of the masterful and stale music I know lies firmly inside the "jazz tradition". At some point, inbreeding no longer works.

It would be different if we've not had more than a century of records, but we do. We have more people with more information than ever, and the circle jerk of masterful imitation/recreation under the guise of "tradition" is masturbatory, not procreative. If that means we don't really need "jazz" any more, fine. It's genius we best hope we never run out of, because masturbation, individually or collective, creates contact/connection without consequence. Mimicry is just as much of a dead end as is the alchemy of arbitrary "originality". In one case, you get a towel, the other a mule. Dead ends, both.

Hello genetics!

Having said that...if the real lesson of Warne's genius is that staying true to yourself over the long haul is what gets you there, then yes, definitely, and and if you want to say that doing that is something that the "mainstream" of the socio-economic ways of the world have regressed from indifferent to outright hostile rapidly becoming homicidal, then, yeah, no argument here.

But if you want to think that the lesson of Warne's genius is just that if you keep playing/digging into  tunes, you'll get there, then no. No way in hell, although hell might be where you do get.

Then again, if there's a hell below, we're all gonna go and/or heaven is a place on earth. Curtis Mayfield or Belinda Carlise.

I'll take Warne.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

wow dog!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sgcim]

4 hours ago, JSngry said:

I think that the "jazz tradition" is whatever "jazz musicians" make it to be and/or turn it into.

Nobody played like Warne before Warne, and everybody who has tried since (including Ted Brown, whom I like quite a bit, and Lenny Popkin, whom I can like or not like) can't NOT sound like Warne. Never mind Mark Turner, self-confessedly influenced heavily by Warne, I don't get that guy too much at all, mostly because I don't hear what he got from Warne except all of the surface and none of the depth.

I think it's cheapening to his genius, hell, to the notion of "genius" in general, to base its claim, in part or in whole, on whether he did or did not stay inside the "jazz tradition". What is or is not the "jazz tradition" and who can or cannot lay claim to it, and by what means they can or can not do so, is a....regressive though process which inevitably shrinks souls rather than grows them.

For that matter, some of the masterful and stale music I know lies firmly inside the "jazz tradition". At some point, inbreeding no longer works.

It would be different if we've not had more than a century of records, but we do. We have more people with more information than ever, and the circle jerk of masterful imitation/recreation under the guise of "tradition" is masturbatory, not procreative. If that means we don't really need "jazz" any more, fine. It's genius we best hope we never run out of, because masturbation, individually or collective, creates contact/connection without consequence. Mimicry is just as much of a dead end as is the alchemy of arbitrary "originality". In one case, you get a towel, the other a mule. Dead ends, both.

Hello genetics!

Having said that...if the real lesson of Warne's genius is that staying true to yourself over the long haul is what gets you there, then yes, definitely, and and if you want to say that doing that is something that the "mainstream" of the socio-economic ways of the world have regressed from indifferent to outright hostile rapidly becoming homicidal, then, yeah, no argument here.

But if you want to think that the lesson of Warne's genius is just that if you keep playing/digging into  tunes, you'll get there, then no. No way in hell, although hell might be where you do get.

Then again, if there's a hell below, we're all gonna go and/or heaven is a place on earth. Curtis Mayfield or Belinda Carlise.

I'll take Warne.

And yet, Warne ignored all the fads jazz went through, and stayed with the tradition of spinning off masterful improvisations on tunes with a solid musical architecture, like Pops, Bird, Brownie,Prez, Bud, Sonny Rollins, Bill Evans, Lee Konitz, Jimmy Raney and others.

The fact that players like Ted Brown and Mark Turner lack his creativity and imagination says more about them than the tradition.

Even Warne needed to work on some things that he was deficient in (sound being the main thing).

[Chuck Nessa]

Sigh.

[Peter Friedman]

Jim's  lengthy statement has within it a number of important points. While I agree, to some extent with much of what he says, his emphasis on masturbation / procreation seems to me, to miss some important ideas. Personal taste among jazz fans / listeners was left out.

Speaking only for myself, I have been listening seriously to jazz for numerous decades. During that long time span I have developed an affection for the playing of many many jazz musicians, and also for certain stylistic approaches to the music. When I listen to jazz either live or on recordings, the pleasure / enjoyment I get depends on a variety of factors, but procreation and musical mastubutation, are not in my mind. The ability of the musicians to play within styles I find appealing, the choice of notes, the technical competence, the ability to play interesting solos, the  ability to swing, and  the tunes played, are main factors in what matters.

To use an example, the above means that I can enjoy the tenor playing of Bud Freeman, Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Dexter Gordon, Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Warne Marsh, Hank Mobley,  Zoot Sims, Al Cohn, Johnny Griffin, James Moody, Sal Nistico , Scott Hamilton, Eric Alexander, and Grant Stewart, to list just some of the tenor players I  enjoy. In the history of jazz, some of these players are of major importance, while others not so much. But that is not what counts for me at the moment I am listening to the playing of either Coleman Hawkins of Eric Alexander.

 

 

[JSngry]

3 hours ago, Peter Friedman said:

Personal taste among jazz fans / listeners was left out.

That's because the point(s) were about/directed at players, not fans. I believe an objective reading/rereading of the post will show that.

With apologies to Chuck - sigh.

[Larry Kart]

On 1/6/2018 at 6:38 PM, sgcim said:

And yet, Warne ignored all the fads jazz went through, and stayed with the tradition of spinning off masterful improvisations on tunes with a solid musical architecture, like Pops, Bird, Brownie,Prez, Bud, Sonny Rollins, Bill Evans, Lee Konitz, Jimmy Raney and others.

The fact that players like Ted Brown and Mark Turner lack his creativity and imagination says more about them than the tradition.

Even Warne needed to work on some things that he was deficient in (sound being the main thing).

No, Ted Brown was not at Warne's exalted level, but I don't buy the implicit dis in the above comparison. Ted, within the ambience that itself formed Warne and within the ambience of Warne's influence as well, was a highly creative and imaginative player. 

Was Sonny Stitt at the same level of creativity and imagination as Bird? No. Was Stiit at his best highly creative and imaginative? Yes.

And Mark Turner and Ted are two quite different sorts of players -- in terms of historical formation at the least.

[clifford_thornton]

Ted still plays and sounds great at 90.