Rooster_Ties

Different strokes... I bought "Think" as much for my interest in Lee Morgan as any other reason, and was relatively disappointed by it. It's fairly good at times, but Lee sounds like he's half-asleep on the date (at leat as I recall - but I haven't listened to it in 10-12 months - which is about when I first got it). But I got the TOCJ of "Turning Point" about a month ago (my first time ever hearing it) --- and Lee's playing, and 'overall' too - I think I much prefer "Turning Point" over "Think". But I'll have to dig "Think" back out and see if I missed something.

Only had time to list to "Passing Ship" today, so here goes... from "Passing Ships" (1969): "Plantation Bag" has a great groove to it, and the head is pretty darn cool too - especially in the way that it mostly has straight eighth notes (and not swung) [much like the title track off "Grass Roots"] -- and I think "Plantation Bag" has a very 'made in 1969' feel to it, with those backbeats from Lenny White. Everybody seems to like "The Brown Queen" as their favorite on the disc, and I'll admit to really liking the tune too. But I think "Cascade" is really great too - with the most 'big band'-ish writing on the whole disc (perhaps) -- and it sounds the most like a 17-piece band (when it's really only nine). The whole disc is amazing, but those are probably the three strongest tunes, IMHO. I'll get to the other 1967-70 material in short order, sometime tomorrow or Monday.

I liked "Pulp Fiction" quite a bit, and loved "Jackie Brown"!!! I too will probably go see this, perhaps with the same mindset that I went to "Natural Born Killers" with. (I mention "NBK" because I've heard "Kill Bill" is incredibly violent, as was "NBK".) "NBK" gave me a huge headache when I saw it (in a theater), but I kind of thought that was part of it's aim, so I didn't hold that against the film. On many levels, I thought "NBK" was an incredible film, and although I haven't seen it again since - I do hold the film in fairly high reguard. Not entirely sure if I'll go see "Kill Bill", but I suspect I will, if my wife shows any interest (which she might, surprisingly). Or maybe not - hard to tell.

and/or

PS: Those of you who probably think I'm half as crazy as Aric (and probably think that with some justification, at times ), might be surprised to know that the other half the time I'm actually a pretty thoughtful sort of guy, as evidenced by my letter above. (I think the anonymity of being on-line brings out a more extroverted side of me that doesn't manifest itself in my 'off-line' world. Or maybe it's just Andrew Hill’s fault.. )

My letter (the one down below) is in response to this letter (see quote) that appeared in yesterday's "Dear Prudence" column on MSNBC/Slate. Source: the last letter (4th one down) at this link. Dear Prudence, In regards to the letter reproduced above, I would like to politely but strongly suggest that your answer could have been more sympathetic to the range of possible issues within the husband in this relationship. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He meets his future wife, they get married quickly, and then BAM - as a result of (possibly) their very first sexual encounter (or maybe even his very first sexual encounter ever - though that's probably less likely)... ...suddenly "they" get pregnant. Now maybe he wanted to start a family "someday", or maybe he wanted to wait (and somehow he didn't think it would happen so quickly), or maybe he just had mixed feelings about being a father (probably) for the first time. For many men (myself included) the idea of being a parent is pretty darn intimidating. (I'm married to a wonderful woman, and neither one of us wants to have kids.) In his case, being a parent may have been more than he really was ready for (though he may be otherwise coping reasonably well with the challenges of fatherhood - if indeed they chose that path). In any case, it sounds like the husband has some personal issues with sex (possibly as a result of the pregnancy that occurred so very early in their relationship) that might well be helped by some counseling (at the very least), and also an attempt by the wife to understand where the husband might be coming from about his "no sex" policy. To me, his statement that "[he said] he should have told [her]" seems like an excuse from him to cover for the fact that he's now gun-shy about having more kids (even if they would now "take precautions"). At the very least, you could have suggested some serious marital counseling, before suggesting that the wife might have grounds for not only divorce, but maybe even an annulment. And your statement: "In any case, there is every likelihood that your life will be much improved without him." seems to suggest that he has no other redeeming values (or frankly, no other role in the relationship than his role "in bed"). The wife's letter makes no claim as to any other egregious character flaws on his part, and your suggestion to "dump him now", without any attempt to figure out what's really going on here - is pretty darn cold, in my opinion. (And, perhaps they are now the parents of a 3-year old child - so shouldn't that play into her decision-making process?) This is my very first letter to you on any subject. But I was so moved by reading this particular exchange in your column, that I felt obliged to speak up on behalf of the husband in this letter, who may be going through any number of personal issues that are preventing him from wanting to have sex. Please rethink your position, and issue a more reasoned (and helpful) response - one that might be more helpful to both partners in this relationship, rather than just to the one partner who wrote to you. (And my opinions on this subject would have very likely been identical if the genders of the couple were switched. In fact, I challenge you to consider if your response would have been the same if it were a husband writing to you, to complain that his wife refused to have sex for three years after they became pregnant immediately after they got married. I have a hard time imagining you writing that "he should have filed for divorce, or even annulment - and in any case, surely he'll be better off without her.") Respectfully, --Things aren't always what they seem, especially if you're only getting half the story.

OK, the next batch of Hill material (67-70) is going to be more difficult for me to figure out, for a couple reasons... 1.) Nearly all of it is more 'accessible' - so way more of the tunes are 'in play' - so to speak. (As opposed to the 63-66 material, where every tune is more difficult, so the 'tuneful' ones really stick out more obviously. 2.) I knew exactly where my Hill Mosaic discs were. I'm not so sure I can immediately put my hands on all my other Hill discs (and burns of the two that have only been released on LP) --- cuz so many of my discs are strewn all over the place, in piles here in the computer room, and many in boxes in the spare bedroom, and some in the main bedroom, and some downstairs, and a few in a small pile in the kitchen...

Interesting how "Passing Ships" seems (at least to me) to be such a great place for people to start with (if they're new to Hill's music). It's both 'accessable' in one sense, but it retains more of Hill's imprint than "Grass Roots" (which I would call 'even more accessable', perhaps). The writing on "Passing Ships" is both complex, subtle, and 'groovy'. It's that most elusive mix of 'inside' and 'outside' --- all at the same time!!!! --- that I love so much about the best of Hill's music.

OK, here are my thoughts on the rest of the Mosaic set... from "Andrew!!!" (1964): Probably "The Groits" (which doesn't have Gilmore on it), and "Black Monday" (which does have Gimore on it). The rest are a bit on the 'out' side and/or not quite 'tuneful' enough (IMHO). from the first LP of "One For One" (1965): Difficult to know what to choose from this session. "Pax" was 'mainstream' enough to be included on the 4-CD Joe Henderson box that BN put out a few years ago, so perhaps it would be good to include. "Calliope" is a pretty strong tune too. Oh man, we gotta include "Erato" - since that's the tune that Jason Moran based his series of "Gangsterism" variations on. B) (FYI, "Erato" is a trio-only tune, omit horns.) I'll have to listen to all of this session again, to get a better idea of what tunes really would work best on a comp. In one sense, they're all good tunes - but they're all also a fairly complicated too. from "Compulsion" (1965): Just like "Point Of Departure", this one is really a great album made up of great performances -- but the tunes are perhaps less important than the overall effect. I would suggest that "Limbo" is probably the only tune that could survive without the rest of the album. From "Involution" (1966): "Pain" is very Monkish (and omits Rivers), but also has a nearly 90-second bass solo (just bass and drums) and it starts barely 30 seconds into the tune. So, I guess I'm on the fence about "Pain" - but the tune itself is quite strong, and it is barely 4 minutes long, so that's probably an OK thing to have on a compilation, maybe. "Desire" isn't the most accessible tune ever, but is probably as approachable as any of the tunes that include Rivers (from this session). "Lust" omits Rivers (and feels like a solo-piano piece nearly), but is simply a drop-dead gorgeous tune - as pretty as anything Hill's ever written. [A rubato ballad like "Lust" would normally kill the typical 'up' mood of most compilations like this, but maybe it could serve well as the last tune on one of the CD's, meaning as the closer for one of the discs.] Man, this is fun!!!

I took my Mosaic booklet, and had him sign on the inside cover -- above where the 'set number' info is. (I left the box and CD's at home.) Also had him sign the covers of my "Dusk" and "Hommage" discs.

Yes, I did get to meet Andrew and talk with him very briefly (and got the picture taken, shown below). There were about 10-12 of us Hill "fanatics" who he graciously signed autoraphs for, after his set at the Iowa City Jazz Festival this past July. He spent about 10 minutes (total) with all of us, and then said his thanks and goodbyes, and that was it. I got the impression that he seemed like a shy and/or introverted sort of guy, who didn't want to chat at great length about anything. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) ( I only mention it as a contrast to someone like Herbie Hancock, who I believe would (time permitting) be glad to chat with fans for 30 minutes or more after a concert (as he did when I saw Herbie and Wayne about 7 years ago, on their 'duo' tour). ) Do take things for Andrew to autograph, and he will probably be very glad to sign them for you. He was glad to answer questions, but his answers were on the short side (or at least they were the day I saw him). He was very nice, but didn't seem like a natural "people" people -- if you know what I mean. In any case, it was an honor to get to meet him, since I personally hold him in nearly as high a reguard as Miles, or Ornette, or even Ellington.

They're difficult to use at book-signing events, that's for sure.

Perhaps. But my memory is that Hill's two later BN dates (from '89 and '90) are somewhat different (or at least different enough) that they might stick out - compared to his classic 1963-70 material. But if people want to suggest specific tunes, by all means give them a mention.

"Chained" was supposed to be released in Japan in the early 80's some time. It they went as least as far as giving it a catalog number and everything. I've often wondered if they ever created any cover art for the release. Some of those early Japanese "King" releases were pretty cool looking!!

Thought about this some more as I was waking up this morning -- and we definitely need 2 CD's worth of material. When considering Hill's entire BN output (only between 1963 and 1970) there are a total of 16 sessions, and about 15 albums worth of material -- that have been released to date. Thats a TON of music (probably 13 or 14 hours of music), so I now think we're totally justified in probably doing a 2 CD "Best of..." set. Gotta run. Can't wait to do some more listening, and suggest some more tunes!!!!

OK, here's the start of my take on what possibly to include. Here are some suggestions from Hill's first four albums (and fully half of the Mosaic box): from "Black Fire" (1963): "Pumpkin" and "Back Fire" (both with Joe), and possibly also "Subterfuge" (which is trio-only, omit Joe). (I had forgotten how funky "Subterfuge" was!!! --> in it's own weird way. B) ) from "Smokestack" (1963): definitely "Not So" - which I think is the strongest tune on the disc. And maybe "Wailing Wall", but I'm not totally convinced. I like the performance, but it's the 'performance' that really makes it what it is, and not really the tune itself as much -- as least that's my take. (Honorable mention to the title track "Smokestack" - although I think it may not be strong enough to suggest for the compilation.) [Full disclosure: I've never gotten very deeply into this album all that much. I 'like' it, but don't 'love' it -- if you know what I mean.] from "Judgement!" (1964): "Siete Ocho" and "Yokada, Yokada" for sure (IMHO). Possibly also "Judgment" maybe? - (but I'm not as sure). from "Point of Departure" (1964): possibly "Refuge" and/or "Flight 19" and/or "Spectrum". (Probably not all three.) I'll have to listen to them some more to really pick out the best tune (or tunes). [Note: This is one of those albums that really works best as a full album experience, so perhaps only one tune would be appropriate to pick?] Also, realize, I was mostly paying attention to the first 60 seconds of each tune -- in terms of quickly identifying the head (and remembering/recognizing the tune, if possible). There may well be a few of these tracks that go a little too far 'out' to include. (I'll certainly listen to them all-the-way-through at sometime in the near future.) And an overall reaction: 1) God damn this is some pretty amazing music!!!!!... ...and 2) I sure don't know this music nearly as well as I should!!!!!

OK, I thought about the "one disc" vs. "two discs" idea some more, and also about the earlier 1963-66 material (meaning everything that was on the Mosaic) vs. the later 67-70 material (meaning "Grass Roots", "Dance With Death", "Passing Ships", "Lift Every Voice", and the 2nd LP of "One For One"). Part of me wants to mix it all up, with the earlier, more challenging material side-by-side with the later, more accessable material. OR, I suppose we could do two Hill compilations --- one of the 1963-66 material, and a 2nd volume of only the 1967-70 material. (And as much as I might like to argue otherwise, that would probably make more sense.) I guess more importantly --- just keep suggesting tunes, and maybe we'll let the number of tunes that are suggested (and the total time needed for them) help suggest if there should be two volumes, or just one.

The stereo mix-down tape of the Hill session (Passing Ships) did sound like crap, but the original (milti-track?) masters turned out to be OK. The error was in assuming that the stereo mix-down tape was totally representive of the session, which it wasn't. Given the hundereds and hundereds of of tapes in the vaults (including masters and mix-downs of masters), I'm not surprised that something like this Hill date slipped thought the cracks. Shit happens. Thankfully something like this hasn't happened very often. But it does happen, now and then. And Mother Ship isn't just coming out now for the very first time -- it's been out for at least 20 years now (or is it closer to 25??). At the time when Mother Ship first came out on LP, there were still dozens and dozens of sessions that hadn't yet been released. It was just one of those sessions. I think Blue Note's done a pretty good job, all in all, in getting previously unreleased material finally released. (Now if we can only get that unreleased Tyrone Washington session with Herbie and Jack Dejohnette released someday!!!!)

Oh, and let's keep it to one disc (heck, we've got 79 minutes to fill). I'm afraid that if we go to two discs, we'll have to include quite a bit of material that would be even less accessable for people to get their ears around. The point of this comp is to hone in on the best tunes that Hill wrote, looking at them slightly from a more 'conventional' jazz standpoint. In other words, let's keep it to the tunes that people might have half a chance of learning to hum the head to in relatively short order. ( Not that I don't like the more 'out' Hill, cuz I do. Lordy, lordy, do I ever love that kind of Hill. But I want to focus on the tunes that in a more perfect world, might have had 1/4 of a chance of getting in The Real Book. )

I don't know about including "The Rumproller". I'll have to give it another listen. If Hill were on the date, I'd probably say yes, it's open for consideration. But he's not. And to my ears (although I haven't heard it in 6 months), there's little to the tune that has much of Hill's imprint on it. But I'll listen again, and see what I think...

I always thought this series was pretty good, as one or two CD introduction(s) to each artist. They were how I first heard many of the tunes represented on these discs. And there are some others (like the recent one of Bobby Hutcherson's material) which have different looking covers, but the idea is the same. So, let's propose a track-listing for a 65-70 minute long compilation of Andrew Hill's best and most 'accessable' tunes on Blue Note. (Well, 'accessable' for Andrew Hill anyway.) Here are the rules... Not more than 2 tunes (or 3 tops) from any one date/session/album, and the tunes should be the ones that people have a decent chance of being able to hum the head to - after a couple dozen listens. Not every session needs to be represented, but the compilation should provide a good overview and introduction to Hill's work on BN. I know, I know... ...the idea of an Andrew Hill compilation is very counter-intuitive, probably on at least a couple different levels. 1) Most of Hill's BN albums are more like concept-albums than most other Blue Note artists (i.e. more similar to "All Seeing Eye" than a random Horace Silver album); and 2) much of Hill's output just doesn't lend itself to being all mixed around, with different cuts from different albums. Still, I think this could be fun - because it will force us to identify which of Hill's tunes are the strongest (in the compositional sense) in terms of the tunes themselves, and not as much based on the individual performance of Hill's tunes (based pimarily on the quality of the solos). To the best of my knowledge, no Andrew Hill tunes are typically considered being anything close to being "standards", not even in the sense that most of the tunes on "The Best of Joe Henderson: The Blue Note Years" are arguably many of Joe's strongest compositions, many bordering on 'standard' status (at least in 'modern' terms). I really think we can do justice to a Hill compilation, and in the process, argue for a fair number of Hill tunes as being worthy of being played by others. What tunes would you include??? (And please identify which album they come from - to save us all from having to look them up ourselves) Once we have a good list of tunes, then we can pick a final track listing, and sequence the thing. Then AfricaBrass or Couw (or anybody, really) can whip-up a Hill CD cover (similar to the series above), and those of us that want a Hill comp of our own can burn one. ( I'd like to do this, because I have a hunch that mixing up the Hill catalog, and playing the best of it, back to back - out of context - might reveal some interesting things about Hill's concepts and about his playing, that we/I might not otherwise notice. Seriously. Well, and also it'd be good to have for the car. ) Again, no Hill BN session is off limits (so even the two from the 80's are fair game, I suppose), but then again, not every date needs to be represented either. (For instance, Wayne Shorter's last three BN albums are not represented on his "Best of..." CD, nor is "All Seeing Eye".) For instance, I for one will be hard-pressed to suggest anything from the Hill date with Sam Rivers (it's on the last CD on the Mosaic). But who knows, perhaps I'm forgetting a tune from it that just might fit (though I doubt it.) I guess the easiest question in all this is this: What are your favorite Andrew Hill tunes???

If there had been something that I'd overlooked, I was gonna guess a Jimmy Smith date from the late 50's. (Sorta like how I sometimes forget that Tina Brooks is on one or two Jimmy Smith dates.)

I think what makes these Hill sessions from 67-70 so much fun, and so interesting (especially "Passing Ships"), is that they groove, and yet they still have that "Andrew Hill"-ness to them ----> all at the same time. And, these 67-70 Hill dates seem to result in some of the most interesting and unique playing of Lee Morgan's, Woody Shaw's, Charles Tolliver's, and (now) Dizzy Reece's entire careers. Makes me wonder if any more of those unreleased Hill dates from this time period are possibly worth releasing. Could it be that "Passing Ships" isn't the last new Hill material from this era?? One can only hope!!

If he did, I should probably know about it - but I don't. But I don't feel too bad -- Free For All and I were discussing this the other day, and he didn't know the answer either. I'm guessing he didn't, or else I might have heard about it by now. ( Then again, I could be completely forgetting some super-obvious date that I should be remembering, but clearly have forgotten. )