Woody Shaw

[mikelz777]

I just received Woody Shaw's In My Own Sweet Way in the mail yesterday and I'm already on my 4th listening! I think this CD is excellent! He's backed by the fine trio of Fred Henke (p), Neil Swanson (b), and Alex Deutsch (d).

This CD is right in the pocket for me. It's got fire and some adventurous playing but doesn't really go beyond a line approaching "out" playing. The trio are very complimentary to Woody's playing and provide excellent support. I haven't listened to the CDs to compare so I may be totally wrong but pianist Fred Henke seems to bring to my mind Kenny Barron playing with Stan Getz or George Cables with Art Pepper. I really enjoyed his playing. I think Woody's playing is impeccable- beautiful and lyrical but never approaching boring or routine. I'd love to have more like this.

Can anyone out there recommend other Woody Shaw CDs that compare favorably to In My Own Sweet Way? I currently only own Stepping Stones which I'd consider a different animal. I almost picked up Rosewood at one time (which I'd also consider a different animal) but changed my mind because the material and sound came off as a bit dated to me. Imagination is one title I was looking at but I'm not all that familiar with Shaw's recordings.

[sal]

Little Reds Fantasy

[Niko]

I just received Woody Shaw's In My Own Sweet Way in the mail yesterday and I'm already on my 4th listening! I think this CD is excellent! He's backed by the fine trio of Fred Henke (p), Neil Swanson (b), and Alex Deutsch (d).

This CD is right in the pocket for me. It's got fire and some adventurous playing but doesn't really go beyond a line approaching "out" playing. The trio are very complimentary to Woody's playing and provide excellent support. I haven't listened to the CDs to compare so I may be totally wrong but pianist Fred Henke seems to bring to my mind Kenny Barron playing with Stan Getz or George Cables with Art Pepper. I really enjoyed his playing. I think Woody's playing is impeccable- beautiful and lyrical but never approaching boring or routine. I'd love to have more like this.

Can anyone out there recommend other Woody Shaw CDs that compare favorably to In My Own Sweet Way? I currently only own Stepping Stones which I'd consider a different animal. I almost picked up Rosewood at one time (which I'd also consider a different animal) but changed my mind because the material and sound came off as a bit dated to me. Imagination is one title I was looking at but I'm not all that familiar with Shaw's recordings.

needless to say there are previous woody shaw threads which i am not mentioning to say that we don't need another one but because they might interest you:

www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=316

www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=34704

i don't own in my own sweet way yet, but still, i think i can safely recommend Little Red's Fantasy... it's a great record and maybe a little more lyrical and less coltrane than stepping stones (Frank Strozier's presence may have to do with that)

[JSngry]

I almost picked up Rosewood at one time (which I'd also consider a different animal) but changed my mind because the material and sound came off as a bit dated to me.

Not anything directed towards you, honest, but dammit, I'm so sick of hearing 70s music such as this described as "sounding dated" when we got teenagers & 20-somethings going gaga over 30s Swing, 40s Bebop, 50s Hard Bop, & 60s Boogaloo. You think that shit doesn't sound dated. HELL YEAH it sounds dated. ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED.

Let's just get over this "dated" shit and ask ourself a few simple questions - Are the cats playing? Are they playing at a comparable or higher level than other similars of their time? Is that similar ultimately no better or worse than any other similar from any other time? And if it is, WTF difference does it make, and other than back-story and/or self-historical edification, why do we need to look back instead of forward (or even straight ahead at now) and at the same time even think about "dated"?

Woody Shaw was a BAAAAD motherfucker, period. He spoke in his own voice as a player and composer, and it was all of a piece Never really made a sucky record, at least not that I've heard. If "dated" comes into play when listening to/evaluating his voice, I respectfully but sincerely submit that you might be missing the point of Woody Shaw and are instead looking for a "Woody Shaw Type" to play the repertoire of your desire.

Sorry if that's a bit cranky, but I'm feeling a bit cranky myself today, and what I say about "dated" and Woody Shaw is not a lie. So hey.

Much love in spite of it all.

[Eric]

yes sometimes "dated" is a nice way of saying "sucks"

[JSngry]

Or is corny.

And none of that shit sucks, or is corny.

[Niko]

Or is corny.

And none of that shit sucks, or is corny.

i thought of corny, too; listened to Kevin Ayers "That's what you get Babe" album earlier today and, as i didn't have a German word and don't like dated, i thought corny, although it does have some great songs, but they don't really come out (unlike on earlier and later Ayers records)... (besides, although i am more than willing to look for the problem on my own side, i do find that there is a certain stiffness/sweetness to the larger ensemble passages on Rosewood (or to the vocal tracks from some later album which are added on the cd reissue) that makes me prefer other records he made)

edit for flip of words

Edited October 31, 2007 by Niko

[JSngry]

Feel free to compare Woody Shaw w/Kevin Ayers, but I....can't relate to that.

Look, successfulness of execution is one thing, core validity is another. That's what I'm talking about. And if any of the material on Rosewood, or any of Woody's material, period, lacks core validity to a listener who is conversant with the jazz idiom, then that's a concept to which, again, I cannot relate. Some may come back that I'm being "judgemental" and full of shit, but...ok...so what?

Now, for larger ensemble work of his, yeah, I prefer the Berlin thing on Muse to Rosewood. And I prefer Woody III to Rosewood. But I don't think that any of it is "dated" in the sense that it was of its time and of its time only.

In the meantime, let's all play a bunch of Baby Face Willette or Art Blakey or Ornette Coleman Atlantic sides and talk about How Groovy they all are. Nothing "dated" there, is there...

[JSngry]

Can anyone out there recommend other Woody Shaw CDs that compare favorably to In My Own Sweet Way?

Now that I've gotten the vent out the way...

Try Master Of The Art if you can find it (has it made CD anywhere at any time?) or anything from the second run at Muse, although that stuff is a little...anti-climactic in some ways and makes me kinda wistful/sad.

[umum_cypher]

Lotus Flower (Enja, 1982) is a cast-iron masterpiece.

[mikelz777]

Wow, sounds like I struck an exposed nerve. I wasn't expecting such an extreme reaction. It sounds like it merely comes down to our definitions of "dated".

By dated, I certainly didn't mean to disparage the musicianship or playing of Woody or any of the others. Actually, I think the playing is very good and Woody is excellent. I also certainly didn't mean that it sucks. Corny? Corny would be too strong of a term and wouldn't be an accurate or fair descriptor and not how I would describe it but you could probably see it in the distant horizon from where some of this material stands in my opinion. For me, there may even be the slightest suggestion of a hint of cheese in the larger group arrangements. Maybe "less timeless" would be a better term than dated.

I listened to the samples for Rosewood again at Amazon and stand by my original opinion. I think Woody's playing is excellent but it's not set within a framework that I would want to listen to with any regularity. The smaller group material isn't bad but like Niko said, there's a stiffness/sweetness there in the larger ensembles which is not especially attractive to my ears. Maybe it's the flux of music/fusion of that time or the production values reflective of that time which make it somewhat unappealing to me. I didn't by any means intend to attack Woody's skill or playing on Rosewood but I just know that I'd probably listen to it, say "That was nice" and then relegate it to the shelf to gather dust while I played other Woody Shaw CDs I've acquired.

Edited October 31, 2007 by mikelz777

[felser]

Can anyone out there recommend other Woody Shaw CDs that compare favorably to In My Own Sweet Way?

Now that I've gotten the vent out the way...

Try Master Of The Art if you can find it (has it made CD anywhere at any time?) or anything from the second run at Muse, although that stuff is a little...anti-climactic in some ways and makes me kinda wistful/sad.

My favorite is 'Live at the Berliner Jazztage', but as far as I know, every album Shaw ever made as a leader/co-leader is worth having, and I believe I have them all. In case some people don't realize it, 'The Real Thing', released on Muse/32 Jazz under Louis Hayes' name, is the Shaw/Hayes group of that period (Rene McLean/Ronnie Mathews/Stafford James), and is excellent. I agree with Jim, a lot of 70's stuff sounds great to me. Art is of a time and place, and that doesn't invalidate it in the least. "Fables of Faubus" is terribly dated, but speaks every bit as powerfully now as it did when Mingus wrote and first performed it.

[JSngry]

Maybe it's the flux of music/fusion of that time or the production values reflective of that time which make it somewhat unappealing to me.

Do you listen to other musics from other eras with similar considerations in mind? Do you know enough about them to do so? And if not, how much of this "hearing" is reflective of a perhaps unconscious post-Marsailis "70s all bad, me save jazz!" revisionist attitude affecting how you hear what it is you hear.

I mean, jesus, you want to talk about "stiffness" and "sweetness", hell, there's any number of albums from the 50s & 60s that are full of that, there's any number of "classic" hard bop sides that swing by default rather than by inspiration, and let's not even get into the much-beloved (including by me) organ-group genre which if if you know what you're hearing is chock full of "stiffness" and "sweetness".

Not that it matters, but it seems that 70s music gets tabbed as being somehow unique in this regard, and I'm here to say that that's just so much falseness. Rosewood is no more "stiff" or "sweet" than any number of medium/medium large ensemble records of any other day, and the core material & playing is a lot hipper than most of those. Any time you get "charts" involved, you better get skilled section players in the mix, or else have a lot of rehearsal time. I don't think that they had either on Rosewood, and that accounts for the less than wholly relaxed/organic execution. As for the arrangements, yeah, ok, matter of taste, but if any of this stuff is "sweeter" in style or content than, say, a typical Tadd Dameron or Al Cohn arranged date, then we have fundamentally different definitions of sweet...

Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just challenging you to listen beyond what you you think you're hearing to what actually may or may not be there. In these dyas, when so many are coming to the music "after the fact", I think it's important to set aside preconceptions, especially those of the "conventional wisdom" type that have popped up over the last 25 or so years, and get a grip on what was really going on at the time, and why certain things sound like they sounded (the Joe Henderson Milestone sides are another case in point here - "forefront of jazz" none of it is, but if I hear anybody say "dated" again about it, I ain't responsible for the cleanup...). Again - ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED. If it doesn't then it's because "you" don't have enough of a frame of reference to realize it.

Again, not trying to bust your chops, just trying to get people in general to get out of this....cloud that "70s jazz" is any more (or any less) "dated" than any other era. Stuff's gonna sound like it sounds, and there's always a reason, be it from 1926, 1976, or 2056. And it is possible to understand what those reasons are, if you wanna do the homework (and if you don't, fine, but expect to get called on it by an asshole like me every once inna while ) and figure out what the deal is/was/always will be. So let's look at specifics rather than catch-phrases that really don't mean shit.

That's all I'm sayin', ok?

[JSngry]

I wasn't expecting such an extreme reaction.

Oh, you want extreme do you?

Hmmm.....

:g :g

[AndrewHill]

A strong recommendation for The Moontrane on Muse, if you can land a copy. I also like the live Woody Shaw dates on High Note. Oh and I forgot to add the Freddie Hubbard/Woody Shaw Sessions on BN too.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Holy Ghost

[felser]

I wasn't expecting such an extreme reaction.

Oh, you want extreme do you?

Hmmm.....

:g :g

1- NOOOBODY expects the Spanish inquisition! Our primary weapon is rhetoric!

2 - Don't shoot him, you'll just make him mad.

[Niko]

don't feel like buying it right now but i think for the first time since i regularly search for Woody Shaw CDs there are affordable (13$) copies of Lotus Flower at some amazon sellers...

[Niko]

i've had times where my listening preferences were more conservative than the Marsalis agenda (which didn't mean i felt an urgency to call stuff non-jazz or anything, i just didn't feel like listening to it) but these days i think i am rather open to seventiesish stuff, Fender Rhodes, percussion, whatever, and i really don't think my problem with Rosewood is that it is not a straight hard bop date...

concerning Kevin Ayers vs Woody Shaw: i gladly admit that Woody Shaw's albums are more consistent in their high quality (although in my world they are about equally important (among the 20 most important artists, i'd say))

[JSngry]

i've had times where my listening preferences were more conservative than the Marsalis agenda (which didn't mean i felt an urgency to call stuff non-jazz or anything, i just didn't feel like listening to it) but these days i think i am rather open to seventiesish stuff, Fender Rhodes, percussion, whatever...

Well, that's another thing that sticks in my craw (and again, this is nothing personal). "rather open to...", like it's some sort of controversial...moral issue or something like that. Fender Rhodes, percussion...OOOOOHHHH, DO WE DARE????? What about vamps & chants? LET"S LIVE ON THE EDGE!!!

I mean, damn, the shit happened, and it happened lots. Some of it was really really good and some of it wasn't, but saying that one is "rather open to it" in 2007 is like saying that one is "rather open to" the use of electronic keyboards on pop records...

No idea how old some y'all are, but I'm telling you for real - If you're getting into jazz these days, you're gonna hear a lot of bullshit about what it "is" or "isn't". And you're liable to end up thinking that a freakin' Fender Rhodes is something to be looked at with a combination of fear, dread, and if you got some heretic in you, something to scandalize the elders with.

Hey - this is 2007 - it's a fucking Fender Rhodes. Nothing else.

[Peter Friedman]

Perhaps the term "dated" is not the most appropriate one to use in describing music from an earlier time period.

I am not referring here to ROSEWOOD, but have no hesitancy in saying, that for my personal taste, the rough period of the late 60's and the 70's, when many jazz players put aside the acoustic piano and bass and switched to electric piano and bass, did not produce much jazz I find appealing. There are of course a few exceptions.

Let me be clear, I am not referring to all the jazz of that time period, but just those sessions where the electric piano and bass were involved. There is nothing inherently wrong with electric piano or bass, and some listeners find them highly enjoyable. But my ears greatly prefer the no-electric versions. It is interesting to me that a large percentage of those musicians who switched to electric piano and bass eventually switched back.

[JSngry]

It is interesting to me that a large percentage of those musicians who switched to electric piano and bass eventually switched back.

It's also interesting that a large percentage of musicians started making "theme" albums at about the same time.

Coincidence? I think not. Retreat is more like it.

I mean, hell, when the "conservative moderns" stop moving ahead, that's a sure sign that stuff is coming to a halt, and sure enough it did. We've been down this road many times in many places on this board, but I'm of the unshakeable opinion that "jazz" today is a foregone conclusion, and if it isn't, then people are gonna get all up in arms about it not being jazz, if they do anything at all.

Not at all my idea of a good time, but your mileage may vary.

[Peter Friedman]

It is interesting to me that a large percentage of those musicians who switched to electric piano and bass eventually switched back.

It's also interesting that a large percentage of musicians started making "theme" albums at about the same time.

Coincidence? I think not. Retreat is more like it.

I mean, hell, when the "conservative moderns" stop moving ahead, that's a sure sign that stuff is coming to a halt, and sure enough it did. We've been down this road many times in many places on this board, but I'm of the unshakeable opinion that "jazz" today is a foregone conclusion, and if it isn't, then people are gonna get all up in arms about it not being jazz, if they do anything at all.

Not at all my idea of a good time, but your mileage may vary.

Sometimes it makes sense to retreat when you find you have driven into a cul-de-sac.

There are many ways to be "modern" if that is one's goal.

[felser]

I mean, hell, when the "conservative moderns" stop moving ahead, that's a sure sign that stuff is coming to a halt, and sure enough it did. We've been down this road many times in many places on this board, but I'm of the unshakeable opinion that "jazz" today is a foregone conclusion, and if it isn't, then people are gonna get all up in arms about it not being jazz, if they do anything at all.

Not at all my idea of a good time, but your mileage may vary.

With you all the way. I actually have my jazz shelves divided into "before 1980" and "1980 and beyond" sections, then sort the artists alphabetically in each of those two sections.

[JSngry]

Sometimes it makes sense to retreat when you find you have driven into a cul-de-sac.

But all the way back to your starting point? And then staying there?

Isn't that like saying that you shouldn't have made the trip in the first place?

I mean, yeah, ok, there's no place like home, and all that, but you can't go home again either, so...

[JSngry]

Let me put it this way - if I get to choose two Cannonball albums to go into eternity with, and the choices are Waltz For Debbie, Know What I Mean?, The Price You Gotta Pay To Be Free, & The Black Messiah, I'm taking the last two, hands down, not because they're "better", but because, faults and all, they're further along Cannonball's path to finding his own true voice, whereas the first two, great as they are, also represent a level of "comfort" that, as fine as it is, and as rewarding as it is on its own terms, just doesn't "raise any questions".

Now I know that not everybody likes for their music to raise questions, but I'm a fan of it, just because that's how I've always gotten moved along in life - questions come up, things get examined, and whether or not any final answers are forthcoming, you know more than you did beforehand. And I like that, always have. On the whole, I'd rather have questions to answer (and answers to question) than not, although I defintiely reserve some room for a Zen-like acceptance of all that is good, just because.

But that's just me.