AllenLowe

yes Carl, I have bootlegged it and sold it in every schoolyard in town -

"he was no surface hipster" - this I see as something of a contradiction - as I believe the hipster to be, ultimately, lacking in depth -

Alon - you're missing my point vis a ve drugs and performance - I don't care who uses what before or after what or when; I was only pointing out that, in Dexter's case, it feels to me as though his drug use impacted his playing in a very specific way, and that the resulting impairment may have caused him to work toward a certain level of concentration. This level, for me, is not enough. Clearly other people here hear different things than I hear in his music. That's fine with me. I do, however, differ with Jim about Dexter's hipness quotient. True Hipster he may have been, but his limitations were also those of the hipster - glibness, a lot of shiny surface, hints (but only hints) of profundity and, ultimately, a wall of cliche - that, at least, is what I hear. And though I do understand why and how others may appreciate his playing, I just do not. And I have tried for about 30 years -

yeah, well, I was just doing my impression of the busy record exec - just imagining, in a somewhat non-serious way, what it must be like for some of these guys who are probably overwhelmed by suggestions, not that there's anything WRONG with suggestions -

I will add that Dexter does represent an extremely important school of tenor player - the guy who bridges the swing and bebop eras- one of quite a few significant historical figures - thinking Jacquet, Ammons, my old friend Percy France, Arnett Cobb, and many more, fascinating for their grasp of different approaches and feeling (like adding Hawk+Bird+Pres=Byas). But Dexter is for me the least compelling of all of these, though he was in the first generation. Even on those early Savoys, I listen and keep wondering when he is going to break loose, to show more than just (to paraphrase Jim) a hip grasp of key phraseology and rhythm - because Jim is essentially right and gets at what is, for me, the key to both Dexter's appeal and to his failure - he has the hip surface, and he gets beyond that surface with a deeper understanding than just hipster glibness - but never gets deep enough. And I honestly think the drugs had something to do with it, though I could not prove this in a court of law - after all it is possible that what I see as an essential shallowness and glibness may just have been Dexter. Or maybe not -

Kirkby's book is very good too - Maurice Waller's just ok, as I recall -

"The Forer Effect, identified by psychologist B.R. Forer in experiments which his undergraduate students in 1948, happens when someone accepts some general or vague description of their personality as being unique to them, even though the exact same description would apply equally well (or equally badly) to everyone." hmmmm... now, as for drug use and playing, some of my favorite musicians have been junkies, as we all know, from Bird to Bloomfield. Sometimes drug use can have a positive effect (recently reading some articles about the Beatles's comments on LSD and some of their later recordings) - in Dexter's case I don't like the effects, however - I think whatever he was taking forced him to reduce his playing to certain basic elements that I, personally, do not find interesting. Clearly resonable and open minded people (as well as KH 1958) can disagree here (sorry - could not resist cheap, nasty, rhetorical shot - that's the Fuehrer Effect)

AK: well, maybe yes, maybe no - sometimes I see it as a fall-back gimmick, as an interjection based on formula and habit - and you are absolutely right, he does seem more alert than usual on Our Man In paris - and thanks, Troyk -

are you positive?

and, as has already been pointed out, per the original question here: "Please write your opinions about him" - didn't know that this was restricted to opinions that coincided with your opinion - I will, however, remember that in the future - must be buried in the Organnissimo rule book -

I am responding, KH , to specific questions about my opinion - and I am giving substance to that opinion - so stop trolling on my posts - ironic isn't it?

Alyn Shipton's book is very good as well -

this just in from Cuscuna: "Mary Lou who? would you tell those guys at Organissimo to leave me the hell alone? If they want to reissue all this crap, let them start their own damn record company." sorry guys, but Mike's a little irritable these days -

I did meet and interview him once, around 1979, and he was exactly like his playing - pause, phrase, pause phrase, slow phrase, drawl, sudden burst and than a looooong rest...nice guy, though - just a boring saxophonist -

I hear the effects of drug use all over his playing - I see his behind-the-beat phrasing as a kind of self-compensation, adjusting to the limitations (and I do see them as limitations) and confusions enforced by his drug use - and as I matter of fact I find most of his playing, largely due to this, as dull and uninspired - though there are, as I mentioned, nice spurts of energy and he gets a nice sound out of the horn.

I just think it would be nice to hear a singer as creative and inventive as some of the better instrumentalists - I'm sure there are more than a few out there, I just rarely get to hear them. There certainly is room for a classic approach, and I like Madeline Peyroux very much. But most singers I hear seem to be merely re-treads, same songs, same phrases, same little melodic extrapolations - and I AM considering asking my congressman to introduce legislation outlawing scat singing - it's up there with terrorism and unemployment as the main issue I worry about these days -

just a question - does anybody else seem to notice, in his playing, the effect of drug use? I hear it everywhere - for better or for worse, of course, depending on your perspective -

well, if it's that good, make it $9 -

Mint, basically new but not sealed - $8 shipped, paypal best, my paypal address: alowe@maine.rr.com - email me at that same address -

I'm not exactly sure what you are indicating - I will say, however, per vocal jazz, that it is in a great rut - same old tunes, same old techniques, bad scat singing, overdone melisma - and Norah Jones and whats-her-name are not the answer (can't think of that other really bad famous jazz singer now, has dark hair and makes funny faces) - singers need a musical makeover - IMHO -

Honey Bruce Bruce Wayne Wayne's World

about 2 political prisoners and a copy of the Magna Carta?

it's ineresting to contrast his book on improv with Berlins' book about same - while Berlin's was full of academic double talk and re-statements of the obvious, Bailey's was quite illuminating, spiritual and practical at the same time - indispensible, even for non-musicians -

at the risk of appearing to be a troll - which I am not - I have to say I do not like Gordon's playing, even at its best - at that best he is a fine, average player with occasional fits of inventive energy. At its usual he is a good player clearly impaired to the point of playing well but so blocked by drugs that he plays right on the money and that's all. Just my opinion boys - feel free to ignore and move on -

funny to see that this is still going on, though I've gotten a little lost in the various suggestions, comments, etc. I won't go into detail now, but I liked Cline's Interstellar Space, probably because it's so much more focused than when I heard him in person. I'm looking back at this whole thread and Clem, though calling me a "douche," actually has a lot to say of importance as does Steve and quite a few others here, though I gotta admit I feel helpless at times as I'm not as familiar with a lot of this music as I think I should be. My problem has been over-saturation, performing and writing for years and than getting so heavily into the old stuff (and trying NOT to end up intellectually, like Greil Marcus, but that's another topic for another day)- that I've become a little worn out with new music, and sometimes that old hillbilly and country (black and white) is the perfect antidote to modernist overload. Add a day job and it gets even harder to keep up. On the other hand this thread was something of a wakeup call to me to get back on the stick and listen to more contemporary musc. Try as I might, it's a problem up here in Maine where there's a good alternative station but not a like of real new music/jazz on it. Oh well, I will probably print this whole thing out and make it my 2006 project. I think the formalism issue is real, and not just among music people; I was watching the Ovation channel on TV the other day and they have a regular contemporary arts show, and it struck me how mastubatory so much of it is - bad art with smart rationalization, great theory, mediocre practice, but than I don't suppose this is really new in the scheme of things; I do believe, thinking of publications like Signals to Noise and Wire (both of which I read and enjoy) that we have produced a post-modernist generation that talks the talk better than they walk the actual walk. This may be related, as well, to a larger problem of a post-literate generation that has really neglected history (and I ain't talking about GREAT BOOKS history but Harold Rosenberg, Richard Gilman, Beckett, Isaac Rosenfeld, Isaac Babel, Peter Handke, to name just a few of major modernist impact on me) - and that has learned the symbols but not enough of the substance. Same is true of American music - ignore Wynton's middle class crap about why you should know music history (because it's GOOD for you) and listen instead becasue there's so much amazing music that's been almost forgotten. Listen for the same reason that I should listen, as Clem Says, to Davey Graham or, as Steve says, to Keith Rowe -