j lee

Another encouragement for anyone interested in filling up on all this great Hewitt now available. The first record's a stunner, beautiful. Can't wait to hear the second. I had the good luck to catch Frank Hewitt's thing maybe 50 or so times live at Smalls's and at a very few other places, and these records really catch that way he had of getting around on the piano all the way upfront. Great, great job Luke and Smalls Records. John.

Don't forget (on LP) -- "The Challenge." One of the *great* solo piano records ever, IMO. Easy enough to find a copy of, I think. Also, "The Sermon" (not sure if it's on CD yet) -- w/ Leroy Vinnegar on bass playing jazzed-up versions of spirituals. I also like "The Seance" a lot too, sort of a later recording compared with all of his great 50s stuff, but on acoustic piano throughout. Has anyone heard his electric piano work? I haven't, but there's no reason why it couldn't be amazing, in principle.

I have a Toshiba 3960 -- sounds gorgeous, and it is very inexpensive. I don't really know about any "longevity issues" -- it has a plastic case and doesn't weigh a ton, but that doesn't mean anything vis-a-vis durability or audio quality. The mods I've seen involve adding aftermarket "shock absorbers" and replacing the stock AC mains cable. I'm skeptical of the value of the replacing the mains cable, but some audio nuts go for it. You can read audiophile reviews at audioasylum, audioholics -- all of these big forums should have detailed discussion of the Toshiba "discovery." Oh yeah, DVDs play OK through it as well, if you're into that sort of thing.

Sent you a PM, Tjazz.

Old hat -- pretty well explained by evolutionary psychology. I'm pretty sure there are good data which don't test mating strategies on infantile preference -- these would be the ones to look at, IMO, if they exist. Just like why most men in cross-cultural studies prefer a woman with a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio. Is good! [edited to respond to eric's post facto post: yes, of course! after all, the data are already "in" to support certain claims, such as: men prefer women who have the physical markers which are nature's way of indicating an ability to successfully reproduce, e.g., are fertile, etc. the very fact that we can have a babes thread on such a forum where we can all (mostly) agree on the attractiveness of such obvious smokin' babes as Phoebe Cates, Brooke Langton, Michelle Yeoh, seems to prove the point, even though we can all nitpick here and there about who's a dog and who's not....]

I'm looking forward to hearing your guys's freshman effort, as soon as the postman delivers. Given any thoughts to touring out to Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse? You could easily follow a great lakes trajectory -- Bobby Militello's "Tralfamadore" club would be a natural fit for you guys, but there are some other great clubs in Buffalo I could put you in touch with with friendly (=generous, at least by rock and roll standards) proprietors.

A Wurlitzer 120 -- in quite average/mediocre condition, except for the amp, which is still great. $100 six years ago. Second purchase: Dr. John, "Sun, Moon, and Herbs" for like $3.00.

What an incredible performance, B3-er -- if that's any indication of what your group is capable of, this will be just a *classic* record for years to come.

Sounds good to me! (I'm responding to Bruce's post here -- I'll need some more time, Free for All, to digest your great post -- but, yes, even as just a blues/R&B guy with a yen for jazz, I'll be the first to agree that the discussion is really really interesting as far as theory is concerned).

Well, I don't see the *thread* as a waste of time -- I don't know who initiated it, but surely the question can and should go far beyond picking apart any one particular tune. Maybe everyone else already knew this -- in which case I can and must apologize for my naivete -- but I think it's not so bad to know that if one finds oneself in a jam-type situ playing "Oleo" it's best to play such-and-such a chord rather than risk ridicule, especially since it runs counter to the various published accounts of the tune. Next?

Thanks, Scott -- I shall consider myself enlightened on this point from now on. I actually didn't get an e-mail from you -- I'm guessing you must have sent to my free.fr (or online.fr -- same account) address, which I can't retrieve right now easily without setting up my other computer (just moved -- things are in a mess as of now). Is there any way you could resend to the yahoo acount (jr6670 + the usual at symbol etc.) assuming you still have a record (a big assumption, but hoping against hope the information isn't totally lost!)? Sorry about that -- I tried to give my good e-mail acct at the end of my message, but I believe yahoo must have interceded on my "behalf" somehow with this other account which, as I said, I haven't been using in a while.... Oh, the McDuff tune was originally on his "Soul Circle," but all the cuts have been released on CD (Concord, I think) on "The Last Goodun'." Patterson's version was originally on his session, "The Boss Men" (1965, on Prestige, I think), released on CD under Stitt/Patterson's names, as, also, "The Boss Men" (includes "Night Crawlers," a Stitt session using the same group as Patterson's "The Boss Men" -- Stitt, D.P., and Bill James on drums, and two cuts from "Patterson's People" -- which is now all available on CD across like three different reissue discs). The Don Patterson thread is at http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=36&hl= The thread's titled, "Don Patterson," subtitled "King of BeBop Organ" -- B3-er just added a link to an original tune he calls "Patterson's People" (I couldn't get the link to work, but I think others have managed just fine with it). It should also be listed under "Today's Active Topics" (or the equivalent) to reflect the new content added. Cheers, John

Hey, B3-er -- any chance that the mp3 you posted of "Patterson's People" wasn't quite the one you thought it was? I only heard a 2 second clip -- but it may be a prob on my end. Great album, "Patterson's People," as well as an excellent title to pick up on for your original. J.

Glad to see you made it over here, Scott -- I've really enjoyed reading some of the discussions here (great thread devoted to Don Patterson, for example) but only just got around to registering. Haven't disappeared -- I've been spending the afternoon studying and admiring Jack McDuff's multi-tracked recording of Cole Porter's "Easy to Love." Really great boppish fills during the first tenor chorus, as well as total mastery of the head. (Maybe I'll start a new thread to see if anyone has any information about the particular sessions this tune was cut at -- it's a work of art, the way the engineer and/or producer gave each B3 track its own "spot" in the mix) Don Patterson has also got a fine recording of that tune using his great melodic/chordal comping underneath Sonny Stitt's statement of the tune's melody, as you know. The only two performances of that tune I think I've ever heard in instrumental jazz. So, the consensus on "Oleo" seems to be in favor of a more fluid, context-dependent approach, which depends as much on the skill of the soloist as on any other consideration? I *think* that's the POV I was trying to make a case for over at organ-ized and, to some extent, here (although, in the latter case, not really trying to argue any particular point -- just present some different viewpoints for consideration). Is that something you'd be willing to go along with, Scott? Or would it be better to, for example, stick completely with the dominant for the head and use one's wits as an accompanist to tune in to the rest of the group for solos, etc.? Cheers, J.

Absolutely, Free for All -- I can see completely how the #9 vs. maj/min 7th thing differs in quality, when you put it like that. I also agree with your other point about the difference between really laying these two tonalities against each other versus for example, playing like Miles does sometimes, a maj 7th on top of a blues dom7th chord. Playing something for effect, a note that "needs" to be resolved a certain way, versus just pitting two competing tonalities against one another. I think about all of my original arguments posted on organ-ized have been summed up -- by me and by you and others -- and yet I'm still somewhat convinced by the idea I originally rallied against that *really* when one plays "Oleo", one plays Bb7...even given the fact that a soloist is *free* to do whatever makes the best melodic sense, and that whoever's comping is (arguably) obliged to make the best environment for the soloist...I guess I can't really make up the argument from the other side without really understanding it....Perhaps some from organ-ized (Yahoo group) will migrate over and help give devil's advocate a bit.... UK? Nah, not me...I live in Buffalo, NY, always enjoying the Hammond history of the town, even though we're not in our glory days anymore, quite. I liked what you said about the sharp keys, at least A and E -- funny, it used to be I dreaded the flat keys, like Db and Ab, but it's turned full circle the other way. Time to practice some more. J. [EDIT: Meant to say that "come grab a salad" was hysterical! That's classic humor.]

Thanks for the responses, and for the hearty welcome, guys. You know, Free For All, that was one of the points I raised with my interlocutor on organ-ized -- that, after all, if you think of sevenths as extensions or colors to a chord, then they should be dealt with by sensitive-to-the-soloist chordal players on the fly or, if need be, worked out ahead of time. However, I think the person who was trying to correct me made a pretty good point, namely that the dissonance between a major and minor seventh intervals is really a fundamental difference, when it comes down to maj vs. dominant "tonality" -- and that it can't be left to chance. So, I, of course, replied that the clash between a maj and min 7th isn't inherently more crazy than a maj and min 3rd -- you know, Ray Charles's "Lonely Avenue" and the #9 chords. It was at that point that some apparently old business between some group members started up that I didn't know about, so the topic got dropped. Another argument in favor of either the straight-up maj7 dogma OR the "leave the sevenths up to the performers" attitude which I tried to make is that the D-minor substitution, in, say, the third bar, doesn't really work as a substitution if the home chord is a Bb7. Again, this is a spot where you may know quite a bit more theory stuff than I do -- I may not be right at all about this, I realize. Also, I was actually convinced when I went back to a few recordings of "Oleo" and really heard the dom7 quality pretty much throughout -- Miles's first recording of it (all soloists pretty much stick to this), Phineas Newborn's recording, Bill Evans first recording of "Oleo," and Miles's solo with his first quintet (on "Relaxin'") -- although on this last one, Red Garland seems to comp using Bbmaj7 VERY regularly. So, in short, I don't know what to think about the correct way is, even though it's such a well-known tune that everyone's heard a million times. The exact words (I hope I get this right) of the well-respected (and prolific contributor to various Listservs etc.) Hammond organ teacher and performer were, "This isn't even discussable...Ask any professional musician." Mind you, I'm just a blues pianist with some organ chops trying to learn Hammond-oriented jazz playing. Thanks for putting up with my confusion -- this one shouldn't be too hard to nail down, but I think it's clear there *are* some problems with putting anything down definitively as of now (for me, at least!) J.

I've always been sobered on the issue of playing any tune in any key by the interview with Bill Evans on "Piano Jazz" on this topic...."So, Bill, can you play any tune in...all keys?" His response was something like "Well, I'm not bothered by any key, but I'd have to really think about it before I started changing keys..." Chord progs are one thing, but when you're talking about a whole two-handed arrangement, it's not something I've ever felt was worth my while, unless as part of a specific arrangement or for reasons of sound/instrument range. But then again, I've never felt particularly bad about taking tunes in A or E and playing them in Ab or Eb -- so, cum grano salis, you know? But here's a question -- maybe some of you followed this discussion on the organ-ized list -- where I posted a couple of choruses of my transcription of Don Patterson's "Oleo" solo. I wanted some help in trying to figure out that rhythmic pattern Don P. uses on several of the Bridge sections, so I posted some rough attempts in standard notation to make it easier for people to see what was going on...No one had any idea, and then the thread devolved into this ridiculous "discussion" between some others about the usual "aw, your just a copycat...just do your own thing" and the predictable responses. Not too interesting, and since then, I've trimmed down my posted transcriptions to just include a couple of those bridge sections -- not the whole thing. BUT....I did post some changes above the bar, using generic rhythm changes with the Bbmaj7 on the first bar etc. It's true, I believe, that a lot of people use Bb7 to play the head and to improvise while hyping that chord, rather than Bbmaj7. (Although Don's solo, most of it, is in fact, diatonic to Bbmaj7, I believe, which is the reason I used that particular chord, in addition to the maj7 being a more generic, vanilla rhythm change thing). However, every single printed source (Real Book, etc.) I've seen, puts "Oleo" with Bb (as such -- which implies the maj7th sound, as I understand it)....why's that? Have I got something terribly wrong here? What's going on? Cheers, John