AllenLowe

actually we don't say Quadrophonic any more. It's now "Sys Audio x 4". It's for listeners seeking a safe space, away from Jazz Sonic Micro Aggression.

oh; hmmmm. Maybe I read that one. I will say that there's a lot I don't remember about that time (had just finished chemo and radiation for the first time, was sleeping for about an hour at a time, lost about 40 pounds and didn't eat solid food for two months). But I have no memory of that. I wonder where I put that book.

I haven't read that one, but you can't go wrong with his stuff.

I apologize for not going into greater detail, as I am in the middle of two insanely complicated projects right now, but to your question about polyphony - it might be related to the very unified independence of African rhythms, the way in which they divert and then return to the pocket. But truthfully, African music is not an area I know enough about to speak definitively. I would refer you to the writings of Gerald Kubik, who has written spectacularly on this and other related topics. I hope to do this in my Black Country project, though I did write about that a bit (I think) in Turn Me Loose White Man,

this is very complicated, but essentially it fits the sound of rural music shared by whites....most if not all pre-War. It is complicated, yes, old timey and non-blues.

one thing I will say is that Blake recorded a piano roll of that piece in 1917, and may have written it 5-10 years earlier.

My next project (probably next spring) is on Black country, and you might be surprised at how many black string bands recorded in the 1920s and 1930s.

I understand how academia, in particular, can destroy any enthusiasm one might have on any topic; but the origins of jazz question is really one about African American cultural history, and how various pre-jazz forces - from minstrelsy to songsterism to black and white pop, racism, and various musical stages came together in a strangely comprehensive way; kind of like a slow Big Bang theory. And I won't even mention the question of 19th century white fiddlers; and early black string bands. Also, in the middle of all this we may have missed my post above, with the Eubie Blake piano piece, which is really jazz in 1921 from a Northerner.

I apologize for not having the time right now to go into detail about my opinion on this, but I will start by quoting Larry Gushee, who said "New Orleans is not where jazz started, but they have an excellent chamber of commerce." There was no better historian of early jazz than Larry. Personally I would say that perhaps early jazz was taken to its highest point of early development there, but there is no way to determine origins in an empirical way, I think. Think: James Reese Europe; Gus Haenschen; San Francisco (there is a good book on this); Eubie Blake's Charleston Rag (1921) (which really is a game changer); and the pre-history which is largely but not only Southern, and which I do cover in Devilin' Tune. I would also encourage you to read Willie the Lion Smith's autobio, which tells us what a complex musical world the North had. But listen to Charleston Rag, by a Northeasterner, from 1921; this is a Jazz Piece, as are several things by the Europe Band in 1913 (Charleston Rag had other names like Sounds of Africa and African Rag):

I don't wanna start a he said: he said, but the non-overdubbed sound is radically better (yes, in my opinion); the Mingus "fix" sounds like one of those "remastered for stereo" things.

well, you were 4 years old - close enough -

well, I think one could make the argument that he accomplished enough in his early years.

this is a really unfair way of disagreeing with me, as it implies I am lying and citing/criticizing work I have not heard. I have always been checked in, have been listening to Dylan since I was 12. He always had the weakness I describe, of confusing cleverness with intelligence; it's not the same thing. Lots of bad lyrics, "words that tear and strain to rhyme," (Paul Simon). Look, here is a guy that revolutionized popular music - sometimes I think he was more important musically than lyrically, as we hear in Highway 61 and Blonde on Blond particularly, as he changes the sound stage of this music completely in a way which no one has ever been able to duplicate. But somewhere along the line he started to believe his owb press notices and decided that since he was a genius anything he produced would be a work of genius (it's an old syndrome; happened also to Lou Reed and John Lennon). Listen to the voice as it goes from phrase mastery to the unlistenable Rolling Thunder Review; go back to 1962 and the Minnesota tapes. Here was a guy who was completely rethinking every aspect of folk, the blues, and then rock and roll. There's no shame in the fact that ge simply went fallow, lost his mojo, whatever the hell it was. It may even have to do with fame and the way it corrupts self image. But I never checked out. I was there listening, possibly even before you were born.

I honestly think Dylan ran out of ideas with John Wesley Harding. After which his singing started to sound like a parody of himself. He was a great artist who completely transformed the music - very few can say that - but I find his prose insufferable in the autobiography and his opinions on various kinds music clever rather than smart. 'tis a pity. If only he'd retired instead of doing Victoria's Secret commercials.

I too look forward to reading your reviews, which I suspect will be more enlightening than the actual music.

well, ask Larry Kart what he thinks of late Sonny. Nothing "20th century" about my observation, or oversimplified - just the opposite. I probably saw him perform 5 times in that period (always hoping he would unload that awful rhythm section) and have listened to countless live videos. This was based on observation and hours of listening. Nothing "soundbite" about it. I find Sonny to be the most frustrating performer of my lifetime.

doesn't exactly sound like Monk - I believe it's based on All God's Children.

mine works ok. I just do a search on Google. No problems yet.

probably around this time - but that sabbatical itself was probably related to post-Coltrane insecurity. And truthfully, after 1968 he was never the same. I am in a minority here, but to me he spent the rest of his musical career adrift; became very famous, but musically nothing was happening except in brief, disconnected spurts that showed the old flame, but always flickered out.

I just want to add a note about my complaint that Sonny, on some of those EBR cuts, sounds meandering. Sonny is particularly interesting in this way - most horn players, feeling uninspired, will just break through everything and do it - I mean, if I am having a bad night I will just start with what I know and see if I can add to it - and even if I don't, truthfully, audiences usually don't realize it. But I am on an entirely different level altogether. Sonny is different; if he is having trouble finding what he is looking for, he will pause as though waiting it out. One of the most interesting things about him at his best is that he - like Monk for example - always sounds like he is really working and thinking and composing in real time (as Paul Bley called improvisation). Sonny doesn't coast, he's either got it or he doesn't. And when he doesn't, you can usually tell. He doesn't put it out there unless he is really feeling it. and his greatness has to do with the fact that, at least until maybe 1966, he felt it more often than not. Jazz is a music that eats itself alive, so quickly does it consume its own ideas, new and old. So, we should be grateful that Sonny exists, but we should also be aware that he is often telling us, in his own private way, that he is figuratively on pause until something new comes to mind and allows him to move forward. I honestly think that he was not altogether comfortable playing in an "open" manner, and his hesitation in these solos shows this.

Now that's a record, a work of genius. Just as an aside, Sonny told me he played a Buescher tenor on that, and it was his absolutely favorite horn ever, but he had to give it up because he had so much trouble playing it in tune.

much as I love Sonny, I find this record unsatisfying; years ago Jamil Nasser told me that in this period he thought Sonny was desperately trying to deal with that fact that Coltrane had overtaken him in terms of influence. Jamil told me he thought this is why Sonny started resorting to attention-getting gimmicks like playing on the bridge. Now, in other contexts, this was a time of prime Sonny (hence his live stuff on youtube from Denmark and the RCA stuff.) On most of the E.B. Rundown project he seems to me to be flailing around in search of relevance, working hard to restore his place in the modernist pantheon. The result is meandering solos that never really show anything other than a desire for "relevance." Or, as Paul Bley said to me once, "we didn't need Sonny to play free; we needed him to play standards." And even on We Kiss in a Shadow he never seems to really get started. I hesitate to give my above opinion, assuming someone will tell me I am just jealous or some such other nasty irrelevance. It's just the way I hear this album, which I bought near the time it came out and never really liked. (and by the way, my opinion is born out by the fact that Sonny did not really stick with this format; even Our Man in Jazz was mostly - maybe all - standards.)

thanks - I love the format because it's so free.

my favorite format. https://www.pointofdeparture.org/PoD84/PoD84Lowe.html

this is one of those moments you know is going to come, but it still sucks.