Alexander Hawkins

Don't imagine he'd get away with much of that under Guillen! And apologies for mangling AJ's name..!

Oh yeah!!! Just waiting to combine it to make shipping overseas more efficient

Larry - thanks very much for those answers! I'm getting there with baseball - it's pretty gripping when it's like this! Mind you, it had to be gripping last night - here in the UK, the game finished at around 8.30 am. I really like the White Sox - I think I'm going to adopt them. My one time in the States so far was in Chicago, and I looked out for their results all season, so that'll do for me. I don't really understand all the animosity towards them (although Pierszcinski (sp.?) could get on my nerves, especially if I wasn't particularly predisposed to the Sox anyway!) It was intriguing watching Oswalt pitch to Pierszcinski at the start of the game. Looked to me like he was trying to hit him in his first couple of at bats?

On the European feed, we got some great stats during game 2. My favourite of which by a mile was that Mr Lamb was the first player in WS history to homer who shared his name with an animal. Apparently a chap called Foxx also did, but having that extra 'x' as he did... We get hardly any baseball on TV over here, and I don't really understand the game, but still love to watch and pick up what I can. 2 questions for the benefit of a novice, then, please(!): 1) what is the 'clutch'/'clutch-hitting' etc. 2) does homefield advantage count for that much? Can we expect the Astros to comeback tonight? Will NL over AL rules favour them? Cheers!

Really great track. I'm an absolute sucker - those little solo interjections around the 5'20" moment KILL...and the tune coming back? That's the champagne moment! Jim - love what you do with the registrations here.

Not sure - sorry! But a piece of trivia: I believe Dave O'Higgins used to own one of Joe Henderson's tenors.

I saw her over here in Europe last year with Kenny Barron - I hadn't picked up her name at the time, but yes, that['s her, and SHE CAN PLAY. One of the best drummers I've seen recently, without a doubt.

Nicely put!

Listening again just now... A few more random thoughts: 1) I'm enjoying Nelson more than previously. I find his tone quite classical, for sure, but it's also got a certain fragility which makes you listen. 2) The tempo for Stolen Moments is spot on. This tune should be put on an 'endangered list', with the amount it's played at jam sessions etc. - but usually MUCH slower than this. This almost bounces at times! 3) Roy Haynes has had two great AOTW showings in as many weeks. The CRACK! he delivers at the start of Hubbard's solo on the lead-off track..! 4) Further to my comments above about preferring Evans with 'harder' drummers - I really do believe this. What's more, I think Haynes really gives it some extra during Evans' solos, as though himself mindful of the need to nail it down rhythmically when Evans plays.

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but the bonus CD-Rom on 'Back Together Again' is wonderful. Really made me appreciate Hamid Drake - his playing on 'Black Women' is stunning. And in the interviews, they both give the impression of being genuinely nice people.

Objectively, I agree with this. Subjectively, though, I have a different impression. I listen to Nelson's playing here and ask myself why, of all the things that he could have played, why did he play this? And, of all the ways that he could have played it, why did he play it this way? What's the message here? Of course, that's what we all do, at one level or another, with all music. That's the essence of communication - hearing a message and deciding whether or not we hear it, and then, if we do, figuring out what it means to us. Usually, it happens instantaneously, without any consciousness involved. We either get it or we don't, and that's that. But Nelson's playing here (and elsewhere) is so "layered" with implications beyond the immediate settings of the music that such an "easy" response has not been possible for me. What I've come to hear in it, finally, is an embodiment of the fundamental American conflicts - "Black" vs "White", "trained" vs "street", "spontaneous" over "planned", "commercial" vs "art", on and on and on. These are the conflicts that have created the friction within American jazz once it became "more" than a "folk music", and they are conflicts that exist to this day. I'd even go so far to say that they are conflicts that exist in all levels of American society, as is witnessed by fascination of so many White people with Black culture, a fascination that often enough leads to ghettoization and unfortunate stereotypes based on a shallow comprehension of the depths of what is being experienced, but also a fascination that exists precisely because there is a contrasting, for lack of a better term, "ethos", a different take between cultures on processing the information provided by the same stimuli and situations. This "cross-pollination" has been at the root of jazz, even when it was a "folk music", and it's also been the "story of America" in a lot of ways. The thing about Nelson is that, unlike so may others, he doesn't take sides. He's as likely to play a solo on a blues, such as the one on "Stolen Moments", that is more rooted in a European "classical" sensibility than it is in anything else. And he does it without a sense of irony, parody, or any other "signifier" that tells us what we "should" feel/think. Conversely, when he plays in a more overtly "jazz" fashion, his playing is also, usually, devoid of the obvious emotional shortcuts. He obviously has mastered the language, and he obviously understands its deepest meanings, but he doesn't in any way embrace them as being the defining elements of "who he is". So who is he? That's the question, and its one that Nelson often appears to answer by not even considering the question valid, as it seems to have had no real answer. He could, and very often did, write extremely commercial arrangements that often bordered on generic, yet. paradoxically, they always sounded like Oliver Nelson. Conversely, he could write deeply personal, moody in the extreme pieces, and they too always sounded like Oliver Nelson. The same applies to his playing as well. In Oliver Nelson's work, I inevitably hear the question of "Who am I?" answered as "I am everything and I am nothing. I can be anything at any time." I also hear the inevitable follow-up question of "What does this mean to me?" answered with "It means everything and it means nothing. It is what it is." Inevitability and ambiguity exist in equal measure and resolution to the fundamental conflict is never sought, perhaps because none is to be found, at least not for/inside Oliver Nelson. "Everything" & "nothing" is all there is to be found, and in the end, there's really no difference between the two. Not for/in Oliver Nelson. That is "The Blues", and that is "The Abstract Truth". So ← Jim, that's certainly made me think a lot. I agree that those relationships you talk of are useful ways of thinking about lots of music, and about (aspects of) society in general. If I understand you correctly, I also agree with your general conclusion 'nevitability and ambiguity exist in equal measure and resolution to the fundamental conflict is never sought, perhaps because none is to be found'. 'Because none is to be found' is perhaps the key bit here: your pairings (e.g. art/commercialisation) don't all exist in truly dialectical relationships. We might even agree that a lot of the time, the 'artistic' and the 'commercial' do exist as polar opposites, but it seems clear that this is not necessarily the case. Hence Nelson's output is coherently understood simply by asserting his sincerity - there is no logical inconsistency in his variegated output; what we're remarking on is the empirical rarity of musicians who move as successfully between various genres as he does. I think the 'family resemblances' concept is also useful for understanding musicians like Nelson. Certainly, there are different contextual forces at play in his various big band/progressive small group/bop/blues blowing session (etc.) settings - but there remains a recognisable core which is him. In a sense, the sincere musician doesn't consciously have to negotiate those of your pairings which are not necessarily discrete since in fact they throw-up no logical inconsistencies (although I readily concede that this argument probably plays out better in theory than in practice). If this is the case, then Nelson sounds like he does not because he consciously grapples with the issues represented by those pairings, but for simpler (and less mystical) reasons such as that he 'plays it as he hears it' (i.e. reasons that we would associate with many improvisers). This thesis has good explanatory force, I think, because it doesn't suggest that Nelson is somehow different to almost every other improviser. Of course, none of this denies that the tensions you identify are crucial background features in the improviser's decision-making environment. FWIW, I think the tension between the individual and the collective is also another one pertinent to understanding jazz. I suppose the obvious substantiation of this is in the solo/collective improvisation relationship; but also it maybe provides one way of understanding the complaint directed towards a soloist that they play 'arranger's' alto/tenor/whatever. One implication of your comments I was particularly interested in was that jazz had moved beyond being a folk music...I'm not sure I agree or disagree (and in any case, am not sure how relevant my curiosity is), but in what way is jazz no longer a folk music?

I find that for some players, Peterson could really get in the way - e.g. Benny Carter. The trio seemed to lock-down slightly oblivious to their context. But with Webster, I think their really tight groove works quite well as a foil. Wasn't there some remark made about Webster likening his to Clark Gable - 'at once a brute and a hero'? The Tatum album? One of the few things I could sincerely call 'perfect'.

I think this is a great choice. For me, this album is a real test of critical faculty. I love it, but not in the unconditional, instinctive way that I do some albums. For instance, whilst I 'connect' with Dolphy in such a way that I find it difficult coherently to criticise him, I couldn't say the same about Nelson. I agree to an extent that there's something pent-up about Nelson's playing - and that should he have let go, there may have been 'scorched earth'. But more of what I hear is 'composer's' playing. Architectural (not in any grandiose sense) and ordered; but also perhaps slightly formulaic and rehearsed. The playing on 'Stolen Moments' illustrates this for me: I find his easily the weakest solo. I wonder how much of my criticism is more of Nelson in more progressive settings (e.g. alongside Dolphy - see also 'Straight Ahead' etc.))? I say this because listening to 'Soul Battle' with King Curtis and Jimmy Forrest the other day, I really enjoyed his playing. I am for sure more sympathetic to Nelson the composer/arranger than Nelson the soloist. However, just occasionally, the sense of order and architecture seem to me to be too obvious in his compositions/arrangements. For example, 'Cascade' might me something I would practice for dexterity (doesn't he comment somewhere - the liners, perhaps? - that it grew from a technical exercise), but I don't know that it's much as a musical composition... Interesting point about Dolphy on flute vs. alto on 'Stolen Moments'. I tend to agree. I wonder also how much more 'palatable' Dolphy is made by the sound on this album, which I think is beautiful, but reverb-heavy! Now - the rhythm section. I am by no means a fan of Evans-school piano playing. But Evans himself, I MUCH prefer playing with these 'harder' rhythm sections. Whereas, for example, there's a little too much 'mush' for my taste with rhythmically more fluid players such as Motian alongside him, with Roy Haynes (as here) or e.g. Philly Joe ('Everybody Digs...'), Evans sounds more coherent, and far less saccharine. I do enjoy Hubbard's playing on this date. I think playing alongside Dolphy was good for him, whereas I enjoy him less when with a (relatively-speaking) more conservative partner (such as on the various BN appearances). Dolphy - well...

Just listening to 'Trio (Oh Susanna)'. Half an hour's potentially a VERY long time for lesser musicians, I would have thought, but this is awesome.

Wow. Wish a recording did exist, though!

Off topic... BTW - nice playing on that blues!!! Was sitting listening to it on my Itunes just now. I thought it somewhat bizarrely ended with a beautiful malletted cymbal...turns out John Arpin comes just before John Coltrane on my playlist, and somehow there is no daylight between my tracks at the moment!

Oh yeah! Ascension works nicely too! On the opposite tack - Teddy Wilson is another guy who just makes me feel happy. Mind you, Bud Powell playing 'I want to be happy' is simply going to make me cry!

Fats Waller. Slim Gaillard. Unless I'm really stressed, and catharsis is in order. Then it'd be something like 'Fuck De Boere'. And LOUD.

Of those, the only one I have (or indeed, have heard!) is the Sun Ra, and I like it a lot! I think the former album is stronger than the latter, FWIW.

John - whereabouts was this gig? I remember seeing an ad in the paper and thinking I might come along, but was playing myself that night IIRC!

The Scriabin were what first occurred to me on reading this thread. 'Vers La Flamme' could be included alongside the sonatas. A couple of others: Bartok - 'Bluebeard's Castle' Rachmaninov's 'Isle of the Dead' And a bit of a wildcard: Marcel Dupre - the 'Crucifixus' from the 'Symphonie-Passion'

Excellent book. I loved it!

I agree with much of what has been said. Larkin's writing, for me, is a good example of something I can enjoy reading, whilst disagreeing with, and getting annoyed by, most of what's said. He does have a wonderful turn of phrase though. A few more examples used to make exactly this point in the preface of the edition I have to 'Jazz Writings': ...he is aware of the opportunities for the charlatan that a revolution in any art provides, and thinks he can distinguish, so to speak, the Shepps from the goats. ...we are left in the end with an impression of brilliant superficiality. Perhaps this is editorial policy: the New Yorker was always strong on polish. But the only thing you can polish is a surface. [bop] has been ... called development. But there are different kinds of development: a hot bath can develop into a cold one.

Also depends on how much studio time you've got. Lots of commercial demos are only 3/4 or so songs long. You could put down a few 'pretty' things to pull in the gigs, then play your own music for your own satisfaction: treat it like two sessions, if you like...

Thanks!