ep1str0phy

I was a fan (casual fan, but enough to enjoy). RIP.

From a Chicago Tribune article: "The dried flower is a dogwood bloom," Waggener explained in an e-mail. "It is said that the cross Jesus was crucified on was made of a dogwood tree. The legend goes that after the crucifixion, dogwood trees would no longer grow strong enough to crucify a person on. Dogwood blooms thereafter grew stained with blood in the center and with holes punched into the ends of their petals to symbolize the nail holes in the cross." The flower, like the box's title, underscores the deeply spiritual nature of Ayler's music. The box is "deep" like Ayler. Get a little bit in, and you're solid gone. I spent a whole week hearing nothing but...

Have fun--it's a great one.

Condolences to Late, and hell yes for Kenny Cox.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure this thing is OOP (but still 'locatable' here and there).

It's a wonderful date--potent, but not overpowering. I often get a vibe of "soft play" from this one--which isn't to say that it's soft, let alone quite music. It's just--especially with this personnel--the album doesn't strive for anything too bombastic or inflated. What we're left with is one of the finer in/out dates of the era. Charles Davis, in particular, smokes (not to take anything away from his mates--this is just some of my favorite bari).

OR...

Kenny Clarke Kenny Dorham Kenneth Terroade

I dunno. Rolf and Joachim have always managed to get away with (if not from) lackluster rhythm men. Can't speak for this session, but most of their albums (that I've heard) have been extremely directed.

Banyana and Good News From Africa are awesome. Ibrahim is always at his best with hefty bassists...

I don't think it's a matter of 'right' or 'wrong' per se. I think the zealousness of listenership is sort of a non-issue, anyway--personally, I love Bird when I hear him, but it can be like staring the sun in the face (short bursts... maybe I can't hear Bird 24/7, that is). I'm of the mind that tastes do differ, but I'd prefer to speak along the lines of appreciation. I won't speak for others, but I would doubt the cred of any 'in deep' jazz man on the street who couldn't look past the scratches, blips, and audio din of a Bird recording.

Being a late-20th century youth and most assuredly a child of your so-called "avant" stuff far, far more than anything else, I've probably seen both angles--the dabbler thing and the in deep thing. I can't count how many times I've forced my ass down to the record shop to buy something I knew was beyond my (then-present?) means or interests--The Hot Fives/Sevens, the Blanton/Webster Ellington, some Bird--perhaps out of some stubborn desire to force-expand my horizons. And I can say this much--Coltrane, Ornette, Ayler, Dolphy, and Rahsaan are and always will be my gospel, but Bird scares the shit out of me. I may have developed some sort of appreciation for Messrs. Armstrong, Ellington (etc.)--and I sure as hell enjoy the music on the bluntest of levels--but Parker has the capacity to incite visceral reaction from the listener. And as I've slogged through the different roles--casual listener, connoisseur, scholar, disciple, musician--the music has reached me in different ways. For people who know more than a piece about what jazz is about, I (emotionally) can't understand the disconnect with Bird. This hews more toward what JS was talking about--the strong dualism among the listening community (again, dabblers and the in deep). In short, if you can't listen to it, there are probably a whirlwind of reasons, but if you can't feel it, there's something missing there. I think it is a hard line.

Fair enough. If the demand isn't there, then there isn't a point (and I guess it's worth holding out for that one kid who will go nuts after hearing Dogon for the first time...).

Well, the real issue is that there's an Mbari issue of Dogon A.D. sitting around one of the organizations at the local university--from what I can gather, no one is listening to it, let alone any of the other records in the listening room. Despite the off chance that someone in the jazz org. suddenly "discovers" Hemphill from the stack of similar records just collecting dust on the shelf--and this seems like a fairly conservative organization, no doubt--it may be more practical for both the org. and the record community that some of these items get out on the market--where people can appreciate them, and earnings might be made that could update the university "listening station". I just thought of this a few hours ago, so there's a strong possibility that no one will go for it (I'm on the out in the org., anyhow--graduation + desire for more adventurous pursuits has driven me elsewhere). It's a thought, though (and no one seems to have a better idea).

We all know the music is priceless. I'm asking this for a friend (it's an accounting thing)--how much would an Mbari issue of Dogon A.D. run you for these days?

Some contemporary material: -Anthony Braxton w/the Creative Jazz Orchestra: Composition No. 175/Composition No. 126 -Dudek/Niebergall/Vesala: Open -Bailey/Lewis/Zorn: Yankees -Frank Wright: Unity ...listening to the Braxton right now, and it's pretty dense. Fascinating, but packed.

RIP.

I think the copies that are circulating (of the Redman date) list it as a rejected BN session, but the discography authorities have said (I'm pretty sure) that that's apocryphal. Good stuff, regardless.

Clifford--how would you "rate" the Dixonia book (not in any quantifiable sense, but rather--what do you think of it?). I'd get it on the merits of my enthusiasm for Dixon alone, but it's a hefty price tag and I just shelled out for Holy Ghost a few weeks back...

Not that I doubt NH's sincerity/honesty, but this makes for some problems in someone's discography. On what Chalupa said--does NH know that all his stuff may be easily located (wink, wink) at present? (not saying where...)

You know, I can't help but think that we had something to do with it (it's certainly come up enough times).

(Thanks, B.) What we do know is that "Prophet John" came first, and that Donald continued to play it into the later stages of his career. Anyone got anything else?

Um, you would have to say that. Anything with McBee has got to be at least worth hearing once. Uh-oh ... I feel some caps-lock coming on. Must -- hold -- back -- no -- don't: MUST NOW HEAR THE LEVIN! And it's got Calo Scott! I enjoy Zwerin's contribution to Magic of Ju-Ju, although the personal relationship between the two artists (Shepp and Zwerin) has always been a little confusing to me. Of course, there was a point at which Shepp just let everyone into the door with the Impulses! (which was perhaps one of his great missionary works in the way of playing the major label system), but that Zwerin took the coveted trumpet chair--especially on an album that is, for the most part, a saxophone concerto (and hence requires some serious weight from the brassmen, when they do come in)--is remarkable to me... he's a rare figure, to be sure.

Yeah, thanks for that. Futhermore: "Queen Anne" (Black Ark) = "Aurora Borealis" (Uhuru) For posterity's sake, they're different versions of the same compositions (named differently). Almost as confusing as Ayler. Now, even crazier: "Being" (Uhuru) = "Prophet John" (Albert Ayler: Holy Ghost Boxed Set, Disc 7--Don Ayler Sextet at Town Hall). -I don't know if anyone has pointed this out before, but on Uhuru the composition is credited to Noah Howard; on HG, it's credited to Donald Ayler. There was certainly a cross-pollination between the groups--Wright played with Ayler, and Muhammad Ali played in both the Wright and Ayler groups (Muhammad appears w/Albert and the Don Ayler group on the HG boxed set--he was also in one of Ayler's later bands). What I want to know is how the origins of the composition got so (seemingly) mangled. Discographers, start your engines...

With little to add (agree with the enthusiasm for the Bley and Moffett in particular, as I've really lived with those records...), I'll just say that the Dixon/NYC5 session is totally of its own piece. None of it is exactly unheralded, but all the music on that record is fascinating historically and contextually. It's some of Dixon's "prettiest" work, for one, and it's astonishing how quickly he'd move into abstraction after the later Savoy record got waxed. Also, the rhythm section makes a HUGE difference for the NYC5; those sides--tho they burn slow--cook well, and without the bombast of the Moore/Moses underpinning.