SNWOLF

Some of these responses just serve to reaffirm my contention that a commissar-like inability to deal with critque ultimately results in evasion, and a highly reactive defensiveness aimed at the person, not the argument. Forget it. I'll see if I can confine myself to ingroup sniggering and discographical territorial pissings, if that and predigested sectarian cant is the extent of argument some are prepared to engage in.

Thanks for the avuncular digression, then.

Maren, the extrapolations are yours. Hagiographical inferences did not refer to Roach specifically - he became a springboard for a general "discussion" with regard to "liberal in theory" but not in practice tendencies, particularly pertaining to the jazz world's defensive attitude to criticism, as evidenced by your post. If you examine my texts, when they are presented generally it is for purely rhetorical effect in order to emphasis the subject(s) and provoke debate (seige mentality kills that at birth, however). Otherwise I qualify my statements. If I was on a conservative board and presented criticism of right-wing shibboleths I imagine I wouild receive the same response. It's dichotomous reasoning that get's people so tribalistic, territorial, and worked up in the first place. Forget allegiences and just think.

Another evasion. No, I'm not inclined to sit back, light my pipe and enjoy some timeless wisdom from Reader's Digest or Collier. Nevertheless, I believe liberal pieties, pretensions, and hypocrisies can be critiqued - from within. In terms of starting a storm, as Allen Lowe put it - yeah, that's a shame. Luxuriating in a mutual admiration society while taking pot shots at obvious targets (conservatives, Marsalis etc et al - no, I'm not cheerleading for them either) seems like the path of least resistance to me. Going by what I've read here, most boardmembers are of a liberal persuasion, as am I. But there's too much hagiography, and a very real fear of fronting up to uncomfortable subjects. It's a seige mentality, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a liberal response to reality embraced transparency and debate.

No excess of testosterone, but crotchetiness, certainly. However the incapacity of some members to confront a thorny issue, to sidestep it with nervous or peevish evasive drollery, is demonstrated again. Genuine respect of a form, and an artist, is predicated upon the realisation that they are good, bad, and ugly, not something untouchable you deify and defend like a guard dog for right-thinking enlightenment. Humanity is messy; great jazz musicians are often messy. That does not diminish their contribution.

Of course I was speaking in a generalised way. The tone announces that from the get-go. The "mama's boy" quip, marcello, was not any reference to sensitivity, artistic or otherwise, but to the parcticular type of emotional dependency evinced by many artists. It's a damn shame Max got dragged into this issue when he's in bad shape: I love the man's music, I own a lot of discs he plays on, and some he has led (although they're a lot scarcer to come by.) I am not derogating jazz, or artists by bringing up issues which appear to be distinctly uncomfortable for people who imagine themselves to be relatively forward thinking. Jazz is an art, a life, a love. But it is not a RELIGION, a totalistic glory box that can't be besmirched by those who point out the sores. Your remark JSngry: " Well, isn't THAT special." Come on, I thought you had more intellectual chops than that. I really enjoy reading some of your posts, and you cop out with some adolescent sarcasm. We both know you can raise your argumentation to a higher level. How 'bout it?

If Max Roach took his anger out on Abbey Lincoln, or others, that definitely should not be swept under the rug, and it is not prurient psychobabble to bring it up. It seems to me that "psychobabble" used in a dismissive sense, is a convenient copout for men who are tone-deaf to psychological territory and emotional transparency. Max was one of MANY girl/wife beaters in the jazz community, and part of it is cultural, as Miles Davis relates in his autobiography, being so impressed by Eckstein slapping about bitches etc. In addition to that, what I've seen, as I'm sure many of you have when observing musician behaviour, is, despite the abundance of expressive and/or creative ideas, many musicians are mama's boys, they have dependent personalities. They either create a barrier between themselves and the world with "The Tough Guy", "The Imperious Geek", "The Aloof Artsnob" get it? They get wasted to regulate negative, "real world" emotion, and assault their woman to assuage anger and frustration. They are just as dependent on women as they are on alcohol or smack. Their woman has POWER over them, and these little vain lords can't stand being in chains - BOOF. Violence in jazz isn't going to be readily dealt with in the near future for so many reasons. Although jazz has become more polite and genteel, it is still played and listened to primarily by men - the sort of superficially intelligent men that are often divorced from their emotions, but use the music for catharsis. Although "Jazz Male Style" has mutated from machismo to "geekchismo", that fundamental alienation from emotions prevents jazz musicians talking about all sorts of stuff.

I saw a one-off concert Prior did on VHS, and was so blown away I read his autobiography, which made for pretty tragic reading at times - though outrageously funny too. Pryor was funny - I mean really funny with that deranged sense of the absurd and perverse lilke Lenny Bruce, although I don't think Lenny Bruce's monologues translate over time so well. For funny Lenny Bruce I always go back to his book "How to Speak Dirty and Influence People", which is a format that endures. It's hard for the charisma and attitude of a comedy performance to come across on a small TV screen. Eddie Murphy did it very early in his career. His satire of how white people dance still cracks me up whenever I'm at a gig and there's the p.c. sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers engaged in stiff, jerky dancing to complement the inevitable dreadlocks. It would be great to see Robin Williams on that DVD collection too. I saw some early footage of him once, not much, and it was hard to know whether he was inspired more by the muse or by coke. At any rate, he was fucking funny. But I like his recent move to "serious" movie roles too - the guy can act, and he has the depth and inner resources to draw from.

I just hope Jenkins' exposition on "free jazz" isn't as tortured and tendentious as so many earnest attempts to nail it down politically and culturally. Worst historical example of this: Kofksy. Some modern practitioners and critics have reframed that revolutionary hyperbole in postmodern terms, so we, the listeners who enjoy this music, have to endure some dessicated post-structuralism in order to be truly edified and lifted into a pure state beyond false consciousness (I once read an egregious review in "One Final Note" where the writer had a hissy fit about someone's lapse into making some cash doing occasional Mambo gigs, and Ron Carter selling his soul for some session work. Jazz Transgression! Evil was afoot!) I love free jazz, but as a soundtrack for slumming highborn snobs who propound the virtues of collectivism and being down with the people, when they've never SPOKEN to anyone outside their postgrad, insular milieus, sorry, but that's a major turnoff for me and so many potential listeners. I prefer to listen to this music at home, away from snooty poseurs. Only occasionally will I go and see a gig if they're truly outstanding, put on mental blinkers and soak in the music. And if it's outstanding - boy, you truly ARE transported.

Which Hank?

Well you had me, cheers.

Message to those inclined towards the Universal Pedantic Jazzsnob Petulant Sandpit: With or without personal pronouns, IOUs, petty grievances, or any other forms of self-involvement, subjectivity or rampant narcissism - who gives a fuck! Get over yourself and get on with the music..

Ron, could you give me some more details on the "custom" option? And what were, and how many, were the alternative takes. Is this clutter for completists, or is Pepper's playing significantly idiosyncratic on each take to make it worthwhile> Additionally, if it means them going out of their way and thus significantly hiking up the price, would it be possible to assemble a "custom" collection of any OOP Mosaics?

I just had a quick look at CDUniverse, which often lists personnel. Cool Blues has at least three of the musicians on House Party: Lou Donaldson, Art Blakey, and Tina Brooks. I've only ever owned The Sermon, but I've heard Cool Blues at a friend's place and really enjoyed it. Never heard House Party, but with that lineup it looks great. So it looks like Cool Blues and House Party will be on the buying agenda.

There's a track from this album which made it's way onto a compilation of West Coast hard bop. The track was Frankly Speaking, and that is some of the best playing I've heard Teddy do, equal parts deep blues and subtle lyricism. And of course Leroy Vinnegar gets such a rich, resonant tone on bass, and swings so effortlessly. I love his bass playing to bits. I really wish they would reissue that record - because I don't even have the record. Just had that compilation album I heard Frankly Speaking on. And I don't even have that! It was stolen with a bunch of other LPs that went west, so to speak. But if the rest of the album is as good as Frankly Speaking, I know I'm in for a treat.

Love this album. And the other one he did with a similar lineup (same? I'm away from my CDs) I love too, "Cool Blues". I think Tina Brooks and Jimmy Smith are incredibly compatible.

I like Tommy Flanagan, but he strikes me as the ultimate sideman. He's light years ahead of journeyman status, but I just don't find the sessions he leads himself to be especially compelling, despite being well above average. He reminds me of George Cables that way, another musician who will add that special something extra needed to raise a rhythm seection and soloists up to another level - they're the ones that feed the fire and provide empathetic support. I've heard some of the work Flanagan has done with other artists and it's so beautiful and eloquent, and very deep, you'd think he would make a natural leader, but I haven't heard that, yet. I haven't heard all of his output, so I was wondering Late if you could recommend something he's lead that might nullify, or at least modify, my impression.

Jackie McLean was mentioned earlier. I would kill to read a well-researched and written book on McLean. He's lived through interesting times, seen several styles of jazz develop, known some of the major innovators, and played with them. He has a first-hand understanding of many of the extra-musical factors that both shaped and corroded jazz, such as heroin, hipster insularity and paranoia, civil rights, black power, religion and mysticism, political idealism. His interview in A.B. Spellman's book Four Lives in the Bebop Business (I might not have the title right) was intelligent and trenchant. But that was decades ago. I would love to see a biography on Sam Rivers. He's played with all sorts of people too, from blues bands to Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, to some incredibly adventurous, risk-taking outfits, his own and other people's. He possesses a vital mind, and is very eloquent. Jackie and Sam are not going to be around forever, and I just hope some enterprising writer over there in the States gets on to it. Great musicians, with great stories to tell. What more could a biographer want?

I personally agree that Shorter was more melodic, in his own idiosyncratic way. However, as you discover if you make the effort to talk to people who prefer more conventional jazz, or who can't stand jazz at all, and if you pick their brains about what they consider melodic, you discover that people "hear" very differently. For many people, it comes down to a case of "where's the melody?" Well, you cannot teach people where the melody is, they have to hear it. The people that get most offended by increasing "abstraction" are those whose identity and self-esteem rests upon the fact that they consider themselves artistically and intellectually sophisticated, yet when they have free jazz thrown at them, for example, it sounds like white noise, and they feel resentful because they feel locked out. How do people respond to these feelings? Simple. Condemnation. Now, I'll listen to my Sam Rivers, Julius Hemphill, Cecil Taylor, etc et al, and to me it's perfectly lucid and melodic and beautiful, but to a lot of folks who consider themselves highly sophisticated in musical terms, it's self-indulgent wanking. I think what people who have more advanced hearing forget is that, whatever the neurological peculiarities are that allow us to hear at a higher level, most people don't possess that faculty. I once asked a friend of mine, who is a very intellectually and artistically sophisticated individual, but with real depth of understanding, why he hated jazz. The answer? Because it sounded like they were all randomly playing abitrary, unmelodic scales, all together but in their own worlds, not listening to each other. Now, if that was quoted to the average jazzsnob, they would assume that person was a complete moron. Not so. They just could not "hear" beyond a certain level. For a lot of people, including jazz fans, Wayne Shorter is not melodic. They consider that some of his compositions are, some of his work from the seventies onwards are (though they would be pretty confused by the back-to-acoustic work he's doing now) but he's not considered primarily as a melodic player at all. I consider him melodic, because, however elliptical he gets, there's an exquisite lyrical coherence to his playing, a very logical and sublime poise. But that's how I hear him, and others with big ears (although, with their own particular interpretation). The fact is, I've spoken directly to people who thought Miles should have kept George Coleman, people who found him more generous in his lyrical ideas, although I personally find Coleman more of a harmonic player. But however you slice it, his playing invites a lot of people in, whereas they feel shut out by Wayne Shorter. Yeah I find that weird too, but I've had that feedback.

OK - Horace Tapscott. That's another guy who doesn't exactly have "monster chops", but possesses great depth of feeling and creates a highly individualistic harmonic texture that provokes and inspires the soloists working for him, and stimulates an odd, shifting and celebratory feeling in the rhythm section. Like Mal Waldron, he doesn't get in the way but nevertheless has such a strong presence he subtly transforms the musical character of those that play for him - Tapscott's singularity brings out their singularity, expressed in a powerful and democratic manner. I can't think of any better definition of what separates journeyman from artist, the way they refract musical light into its most potent creative essence, for themselves and the band. Horace Tapscott has so much great music that's out of print, and that's a crying shame, because for those young pianists looking for a role model in the less-is-more department, he's the man.

Despite a tensile sophistication, George Coleman was, and still is, a more accessible and melodically generous player than Wayne Shorter. Wayne's playing was more abstract, his tone dark and knotty, his lyricism elliptical. That can be a real turn off for some people. I agree with Guy Berger that Wayne is in another league - another universe. And like John Coltrane, in his compositions Shorter was able to distill a lyrical essence into an otherworldy beauty - like Infant Eyes. That's so melodic David Sanborn and others have covered it. And don't forget Wayne's soprano on "The Peacocks" - a truly spinetingling display of restive balladry. Miles had been after Shorter even before he knew the full extent of his compositional brilliance - he'd been after him for many years. He knew what he needed, and when he got it, his music finally started to move forward. Coleman was a brilliant player. Too conventional. Sam Rivers is a genius. Bad Fit. Wayne - perfect.

I was thinking when I started reading this thread that it seemed insane that an artist of Harriott's stature, with the renewed interest in him, didn't have a compilation album dedicated to him. But it appears there is: the "Genius" CD mentioned. I'll see if I can track it down. I've only got Abstract and Freeform, and the track from Gilles Peterson 'Impressed: Vol. 1' - it would be good the hear the full album that track came from. I love his playing, he doesn't muck around - in for the kill with this wonderful serrated lyricism. The book sounds interesting, and the way Bev has put it, he had a withdrawn personality, didn't connect. I've read in other places that he was very arrogant and hostile, and burned more than a few bridges that way. Or did the more gregarious musicians of his day just take personally his need for space and and misinterpret his lack of loquaciousness. If he was a highly abstract thinker, he might just has been so socially awkward he didn't realise the effect his behaviour was having on others, and the alienation and frustration of not connecting socially and intellectually, people not "getting" him and his music, could well have driven him to some hostile attitudes. At any rate, the slashing expressionism of his playing is one of those rare delights that help make jazz a world that's impossible to burn out on. If there was a jazz heaven I can imagine him doing some intense jamming with Booker Little - now that would be heavy front line.

Thanks lkaven, I'll do some investigation.

Ok - I'll pop another alto in. Henry Threadgill. Aside from not being visible enough in media terms (despite frequent recording and perfomance), I guess he is known to one generation as more a free player that leant towards tenor and baritone, in the ensemble Air. These days, aside from flute, he plays mainly alto, and gets an idiosyncratic, stinging, highly vocalised sound on it. In some quarters too I guess he's seen in the light of an ecumenical composer and arranger, whose alto playing is employed colouristically. His solos are often brief and elliptical, but they are frequently discursive gems of improvisational brilliance. He has a unique and generous musical mind, full of ideas, and this comes out in his improvisations. Don't expect 50 choruses, expect more terse, gnomic statements. But they're often wonderful.

I discovered Tina Brooks via Jackie McLean's Jackie's Bag, and set about quickly to get everything he did - as leader or sideman. The recording I don't have is the only recording he released as a leader: True Blue; although I've heard it, having made a tape copy off a friend's scratched-to-bits LP. True Blue is coming out soon as an RVG, which I'm happy about, and which I'll get. Back to Minor Move: I agree with Leeway in terms of its "staying power". No, it doesn't luxuriate in an obvious soulfulness, like some of his material. When I bought it, and listened to it, it initially sounded kind of flat and workmanlike. Circumstantially, it probably was a fairly superficial journeyman effort in terms of the quick-money rushjob sessions that sometimes predominated at BlueNote, for whatever reason. Nevertheless, after repeated listening it has become my favourite from all his output. There's a sustained emotional focus and maturity that some of his other performances lack. And, while it's the yearning poignancy and troubled romantic search in his playing that has always attracted me, his tone and approach doesn't have the overweening self-absorption that sometimes undermine his attempts at lyrical coherence. Tina is fundamentally out of the Lester Young school in his linear melodicism and introverted contemplation. Unlike Lester Young, there is a stronger emphasis on an earthy, exultant bluesiness. Although, on this recording like others, when Brooks gets too declamatory he quickly retreats, as if frightened by his own capacity for self-assertion. Aside from this recording, one of my other favourite Tina Brooks' recordings is a sideman date: it's his stint playing The Connection, with Howard McGhee as leader. It's hard to track down, it's too damn short, but Tina plays with a pithy intensity that is all too rare on most of his dates.