David Ayers

Stone cold classic tracks post-Coltrane

54 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Rabshakeh said:

The Köln Concert?

that was my first impulse as well ... also that Miles Davis phase in the late 60s, Bitches Brew, In a Silent Way... feels classic to me... Accent on the Blues, of course, I still see a lot of classic stuff coming out in the years after Coltrane's death...no, not far away from Coltrane, and after like 1982 stuff becomes even more difficult... and, yes, with Bitches Brew, the point was never glory note by note... I mean, you might argue that glory note-by-note is really an ideal from the 78 era which was still somewhat alive in the early 60s among musicians who had come to age listening to Duke Ellington's Koko...

Edited by Niko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely something by Joe Henderson, but what?

Album-wise, I'd argue for Power To The People (Milestone, 1969) as THE quintessential post-Trane (after July 17, 1967) Henderson leader-date.

Or if we have to limit ourselves to individual tracks, then either "Black Narcissus" (arguably a standard?) -- and either "Power To The People" or maybe "Afro-Centric" -- all 3 from that same album.  As essential as anything Joe recorded for Blue Note, imho.

Just a touch of fusion, or at least electricity -- those are precisely the 3 tracks that Herbie plays electric piano on (he's on acoustic piano on the other 4 tracks).  And Ron carter is on electric bass on "Power To The People" and "Afro-Centric" too - just those two tracks only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miles Davis, "Pharaoh's Dance", is imho one of the most exciting jazz recordings of any era, pre or post Coltrane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Guy Berger said:

Miles Davis, "Pharaoh's Dance", is imho one of the most exciting jazz recordings of any era, pre or post Coltrane

100 percent agree. Nearly fifty years later and I still find it exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the more you listen, the more you hear the splices, which confirms the "hang on every note" attraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A few more:

Mahavishnu Orchestra, “The Dance of Maya”

Keith Jarrett, “In Flight”

Stan Getz, “How Long Has This Been Going On” (from BLUE SKIES)

Paul Motian, “It Should’ve Happened a Long Time Ago” (TRIOISM version, not the earlier version on ECM)

Edited by Guy Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guy Berger said:

A few more:

Mahavishnu Orchestra, “The Dance of Maya”

Keith Jarrett, “In Flight”

Stan Getz, “How Long Has This Been Going On” (from BLUE SKIES)

Paul Motian, “It Should’ve Happened a Long Time Ago” (TRIOISM version, not the earlier version on ECM)

How many people have heard of these tracks?

And how many have heard of Coltrane's "My Favorite Things"?

After all, classic status is being claimed for the four listed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What of Woody Shaw's post-1967 output would classify as being a 'stone classic'?

Cuz if being 'widely known' is a requirement for consideration, I hesitate to even know what (if anything) might even qualify for consideration.

Woody's not as obscure as Tina Brooks, but I fear he's a LOT closer to Tina, than he is Trane -- though perhaps not among those who've heard more than half-a-dozen Trane albums.

Or Billy Harper, for that matter (who may not even be as well-known as Woody).  Though with Billy, at least I feel like there's intrinsically 2 more obvious choices:  1) The 1973 Strata East version of "Capra Black" -- or else 2) the 1979 Soul Note version of "Priestess".

But then again, finding anyone who knows Billy Harper or Woody Shaw these days, is like a needle in a haystack - sad to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rooster_Ties said:

What of Woody Shaw's post-1967 output would classify as being a 'stone classic'?

Cuz if being 'widely known' is a requirement for consideration, I hesitate to even know what (if anything) might even qualify for consideration.

 

You could well be right there.

After all, things like Hawkins' "Body and Soul' were being mentioned early in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillF said:

How many people have heard of these tracks?

And how many have heard of Coltrane's "My Favorite Things"?

After all, classic status is being claimed for the four listed here.

In the case of the Mahavishnu, probably a lot of people have heard the music in question.  The band sold a lot of albums by jazz standards!

Anyway, "classic status" is pretty loosely defined.  I'm taking it as music that's exceptionally good and memorable, that draws me in again and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coltrane d. July 17, 1967.

Bobby Hutcherson, ""My Joy," rec. July 21, 1967 (from the album Oblique," not released until 1980):

Hutcherson, Herbie Hancock, Albert Stinson, Joe Chambers

Cascading Hutcherson,  Gorgeous Herbie solo, jaw-dropping one from the late Albert Stinson
(that's sort of like what Russell Thorne sounded like) and sublime support from Joe Chambers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It seems to me the issue is a thorny one.  Jazz has rarely, if ever, managed to attain huge recognition with anything post-1960.  I would still consider the 1960s to be one of the great decades for jazz music.  But for rock, pop, and folk, that decade is simply THE GREATEST of the 20th Century.  There are  phenomenal stone cold classics like "A Hard Day's Night, "My Generation," "Cherish," "Like a "Rolling Stone," "Good Vibrations,"  "A Change is Gonna Come," "Groovin," "Light my Fire," and I could name a hundred more.  They evoke time and place, yet also timelessness and usually pure joy. There are many jazz masterpieces since 1960, but they can't begin to have the impact of the songs I have named.

        

Edited by Milestones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Milestones said:

It seems to me the issue is a thorny one.  Jazz has rarely, if ever, managed to attain huge recognition with anything post-1960.  I would still consider the 1960s to be one of the great decades for jazz music.  But for rock, pop, and folk, that decade is simply THE GREATEST of the 20th Century.  There are  phenomenal stone cold classics like "A Hard Day's Night, "My Generation," "Cherish," "Like a "Rolling Stone," "Good Vibrations,"  "A Change is Gonna Come," "Groovin," "Light my Fire," and I could name a hundred more.  They evoke time and place, yet also timelessness and usually pure joy. There are many jazz masterpieces since 1960, but they can't begin to have the impact of the songs I have named.

        

Yes, when looking for classic status post Coltrane we need to look to other musics than jazz.

 

11 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

In the case of the Mahavishnu, probably a lot of people have heard the music in question.  The band sold a lot of albums by jazz standards!

I saw the Mahavishnu Orch and can confirm that as a jazz group their music was heavily influenced by the more popular musics of their era, which of course accounted for their success.

Quote

Anyway, "classic status" is pretty loosely defined.  I'm taking it as music that's exceptionally good and memorable, that draws me in again and again.

"Me" doesn't count for much where classic is concerned. It's about something that's universally accepted over time as being of the highest quality.

Edited by BillF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at this thread two ways -- tracks that already were/are acknowledged classics and tracks of such quality that they deserved to be regarded as classic. My nominee, Bobby Hutcerhson's "My Joy" was in the latter category and all the more relevant for that IMO -- because its beauty may be new to many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it comes to universal, it is perhaps more useful to think of that kind of success belonging as much (or more) to individual pieces rather than specific performances.  These include both standards and jazz compositions.  Thus we would be thinking of "St. Louis Blues,"  "One O'Clock Jump," "I Got Rhythm," "Take the A Train," "Body and Soul," "Round Midnight," and "So What." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

Coltrane d. July 17, 1967.

Bobby Hutcherson, ""My Joy," rec. July 21, 1967 (from the album Oblique," not released until 1980):

Hutcherson, Herbie Hancock, Albert Stinson, Joe Chambers

Cascading Hutcherson,  Gorgeous Herbie solo, jaw-dropping one from the late Albert Stinson
(that's sort of like what Russell Thorne sounded like) and sublime support from Joe Chambers

 

A magnificent performance, for sure!  :tup:tup:tup 

Hutcherson's two quartet records with Hancock -- Happenings and Oblique -- are two of his very best, IMO. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're defining classic as 'universally accepted' as such, then there wasn't much before Coltrane either, nor in rock, very few things are universally accepted as classic.  There are people who don't accept that Kind of Blue is classic, or the Beatles, or pretty much anything else you might mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 8/14/2020 at 2:00 AM, BillF said:

"Me" doesn't count for much where classic is concerned. It's about something that's universally accepted over time as being of the highest quality.

In that case Jazz is totally fucked as far as “classic status” is concerned, pre- or post-Coltrane.  Small and hermetic fan base, no hope whatsoever for universal acceptance.

Edited by Guy Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

In that case Jazz is totally fucked as far as “classic status” is concerned, pre- or post-Coltrane.  Small and hermetic fan base, no hope whatsoever for universal acceptance.

"Small and hermetic fan base" certainly describes the situation of jazz today, but the music is a century old and in the swing era it was a music of mass popularity and even in the "jazz boom" of c.1960, the era of Coltrane, it had a major following among younger people.

Edited by BillF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

In that case Jazz is totally fucked as far as “classic status” is concerned, pre- or post-Coltrane.  Small and hermetic fan base, no hope whatsoever for universal acceptance.

Again, I would say that it depends on how you want to define jazz.   For example, in virtually every African country I have been, Grover Washington's Mister Magic is considered a classic that is requested and played regularly by hundreds of bands, much more classic than the 60s rock songs cited above.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillF said:

"Small and hermetic fan base" certainly describes the situation of jazz today, but the music is a century old and in the swing era it was a music of mass popularity and even in the "jazz boom" of c.1960, the era of Coltrane, it had a major following among younger people.

But there's a consistent flow of young -- and in many cases highly talented and innovative -- musicians emerging. Does the existence of this "base" (if you will) count for nothing? To sharpen the point a bit, if the music is as near moribund or worse as you think it is, what accounts for the phenomenon I've just described. Are secret agents paying these guys to devote their lives to the music and somehow programming their minds  al la Dr. Frankenstein so that they play in what seems to many to be a worthwhile innovative manner? Or is something going on here that may (or may not) bear significant fruit down the road? No, no one is making cash on the barrelhead from jazz these days, but (old TV kiddie show reference) its "magic twanger" is still being plunked with some regularity, and as long as it continues to vibrate , tales of jazz's irrelevance or impending doom are just tales.

P.S. Ah, yes, the  heyday of the Swing era. The last truly major jazz musician who was, without making compromises, widely popular was IMO Errol Garner. Garner had his shtick but it was wholly genuine , self-invented, and musically worthwhile. Some will say Brubeck -- I don't dismiss him myself but wouldn't put him in that category; not a major figure musically. The MJQ would qualify and maybe the initial Mulligan Quartet, but their audiences weren't populous or broad enough. Don't have figures on this, but I think that the percentage of Americans, and people in other lands, who knew and dug Garner on his own terms was considerable and long-lasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

But there's a consistent flow of young -- and in many cases highly talented and innovative -- musicians emerging. Does the existence of this "base" (if you will) count for nothing? To sharpen the point a bit, if the music is as near moribund or worse as you think it is, what accounts for the phenomenon I've just described. Are secret agents paying these guys to devote their lives to the music and somehow programming their minds  al la Dr. Frankenstein so that they play in what seems to many to be a worthwhile innovative manner? Or is something going on here that may (or may not) bear significant fruit down the road? No, no one is making cash on the barrelhead from jazz these days, but (old TV kiddie show reference) its "magic twanger" is still being plunked with some regularity, and as long as it continues to vibrate , tales of jazz's irrelevance or impending doom are just tales.

P.S. Ah, yes, the  heyday of the Swing era. The last truly major jazz musician who was, without making compromises, widely popular was IMO Errol Garner. Garner had his shtick but it was wholly genuine , self-invented, and musically worthwhile. Some will say Brubeck -- I don't dismiss him myself but wouldn't put him in that category; not a major figure musically. The MJQ would qualify and maybe the initial Mulligan Quartet, but their audiences weren't populous or broad enough. Don't have figures on this, but I think that the percentage of Americans, and people in other lands, who knew and dug Garner on his own terms was considerable and long-lasting.

Certainly there is a consistent flow of young musicians emerging, an admirable fact which in this country anyway I see as almost entirely attributable to the inclusion of jazz in music college curriculums in recent decades. This means that a significant part of the "small and hermetic fan base" for jazz now consists of young musicians.

I am sure that jazz will survive in the long term, but only through and in the academies, as has happened with some European classical musics which no longer have a popular following but which have been preserved..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BillF said:

Certainly there is a consistent flow of young musicians emerging, an admirable fact which in this country anyway I see as almost entirely attributable to the inclusion of jazz in music college curriculums in recent decades. This means that a significant part of the "small and hermetic fan base" for jazz now consists of young musicians.

I am sure that jazz will survive in the long term, but only through and in the academies, as has happened with some European classical musics which no longer have a popular following but which have been preserved..

 

I know the "jazz education spits out legions of cookie-cutter jazz nerds who will go on to spit out more of the same and will end up sitting in grotty apartments with pee-stains on their underwear"  theme, but when I look at the bios of the young players who catch my ear, in almost every case  they cleaved to the music well before than entered any jazz program and sure don't sound like they're clones of anyone.  Maybe that was the case x number of years ago, but it's not what I hear these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2020 at 2:49 AM, BillF said:

"Small and hermetic fan base" certainly describes the situation of jazz today, but the music is a century old and in the swing era it was a music of mass popularity and even in the "jazz boom" of c.1960, the era of Coltrane, it had a major following among younger people.

The swing era was 75 years ago, so that music was thoroughly "de-classic'd" a long time ago.

Jazz's following in the 60s was bigger than it is today, but still pretty small relative to popular music of the day.  That was also more than half a century ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.