Larry Kart

Picked up a copy of this at a yard sale today; for some inexplicable reason I'd never heard it before. What a damn fine record! Dexter is in great form, Slide Hampton's charts are inspired, and the ensemble plays its collective and individual asses off. Special kudos to Frank Wess; the way he handles his exposed role behind Dexter on "Laura" (what a chart!) is something else.

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo. Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway. But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither). MG I don't see present day jazz bands with a large number of catchy originals. Some of the present day jazz bands have a distinctive sound and quality execution, but not catchy originals. Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"? Apparently you think that writing 'something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"' is essentially a matter of will or intent. I think there are plenty of people who would like to write pieces that had that kind of effect on audiences if they could, but it ain't easy -- in particular, it's not a matter of simply putting aside one's supposedly snotty-complex "high art" habits of music-making.

Aside from Chu Berry's solos, I'd much rather listen to a swatch of T. Dorsey recordings than a swatch of C. Calloway recordings. Though there are exceptions, by and large Calloway's band -- both in terms of material and execution -- could be rather scrappy/woeful at times. Now if we're talking about Hines, or Basie, or Lunceford, or Ellington or Chick Webb, not to mention Goodman, Shaw or Bob Crosby....

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo.

Actually, that points to our "salvation." Another movie like "The Sting" and all will be well. Well, you're wrong. Yes -- I always find that Ernie Henry puts a smile on my face. Just to be clear, because irony tends not to translate, Henry makes wants me to weep and/or put a bullet through my brain. He's a favorite of mine, to be sure.

Actually, that points to our "salvation." Another movie like "The Sting" and all will be well. Well, you're wrong. Yes -- I always find that Ernie Henry puts a smile on my face.

Because the old folks will be dead folks fairly soon?

He plays very well on Tom Talbert’s excellent “Bix, Duke Fats,” which also includes much superb Joe Wilder: http://www.amazon.com/Bix-Duke-Fats-Tom-Talbert/dp/B003C8CB1S/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1402405498&sr=1-1&keywords=bix+duke+fats http://www.amazon.com/Bix-Duke-Fats-Interpretations-Talbert/dp/B00000186H/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1402405529&sr=1-4&keywords=bix+duke+fats IIRC, Sachs solos on all three off these tracks from “Bix Duke Fats”:

Best movie I know on the general subject was "Margin Call": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

A passage from my book, FWIW: 'At one time, so the argument goes, jazz musicians were content to think of themselves as entertainers, not self-conscious artists. If the practitioner of modern jazz wants to please himself and his peers first and the audience second, if at all, he must endure the consequences of this unrealistic, willful act. 'The problem with that argument, though, as British saxophonist Bruce Turner says in his whimsically titled autobiography Hot Air, Cool Music, “is that scarcely any jazz musicians are able to recognize this picture of themselves. There are some jazzmen who are great entertainers. Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and Lionel Hampton come immediately to mind. But they are the exception, not the rule. For the most part those of us who play jazz for a living do not know any way of entertaining an audience other than by making the best music we are capable of…. The ‘jazz is entertainment’ theory is only about money, when you boil it down. Jazz finds itself sponsored by the entertainment industry, and in return the latter feels entitled to demand its pound of flesh. Fair enough, but why in heaven's name confuse the issue? The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one.”

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that? Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point. ​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34. I agree that jazz should not be watered down to try to appeal to a mass audience. However, even in my lifetime I can remember Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra emphasizing an entertainment aspect in their shows, or at least a lively, friendly interaction with the audience. Charles Mingus, Dexter Gordon and Carla Bley had large personalities and some people went to see them partly to hear their between song comments and just to see them. I am not aware of anything like that today. I can't name any jazz artist who presents an entertaining, engaging or compelling onstage personality, or who makes their shows entertaining. There are no jazz artists that I can think of who would generate a comment like "oh, he or she is really cool" from a member of the general public. 2) I also think that jazz, at a certain point, became too introverted, too shy. Not just in disdaining the entertainment aspect, but even in the way musicians played. As an example, consider the David Sanborn sound: thin, even notes with no vibrato. Contrast that with a Coleman Hawkins or Dexter Gordon - a big meaty sound that can easily fill a room. It's as if men shrank in the last few decades. But Sanborn, whatever his jazz content might be, has been a very popular figure for a long time now -- probably more so, in terms of record sales, than Dexter Gordon ever was.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that? Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point. ​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34.

In post #14 above, I referred to the music of Stoltzel; I meant Stolzel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Heinrich_Stölzel What I've heard so far is terrific. I'd particularly recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Oratorio-Cantatas-G-H-Stolzel/dp/B00003Q083/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1402278913&sr=1-4&keywords=stolzel

Two things about getting older and my appreciation/taste for music: in jazz, I'm drawn in part to stuff from my youth (i.e. West Coast and non-hard bop East Coast things from '50s that I liked for a while back then and soon came to dismiss, a dismissal that lasted for a long time) and in part to avant-gardish stuff from today that I think works -- in both cases, a craving for "the new" applies, either stuff that's new in that I haven't encountered it in years or stuff that's new in the sense that new valid musical principles might be involved. In classical, likewise with my curiosity for what's up in the avant-garde or avant-gardes, and also in my curiosity about unfamiliar to me figures from the Baroque, pre-classical, and classical eras, and peripheral figures from the early modern era, like Egon Wellesz and Karl Weigl -- that's hit and miss, but I've found some real winners, e.g. Stoltzel and Graupner (superb harpsichord suites, superbly performed by Genevieve Joly), and some things, like the symphonies of J. Vanhal, that aren't genius-level music but have quality and individuality and throw interesting historical/contextual light on Mozart and Haydn, making it much more clear what in Mozart and Haydn was unique to each them, what was contextual, and what other interesting ways there were to work with that material and within those contexts. To use a jazz analogy, one of the reasons I find, say, tenor saxophonist Seldon Powell to be of interest, aside from the intrinsic quality of his music, is the light that it casts on that of other more major players of his era -- e.g. Rollins.

Yes -- Fred Below, Otis Spann, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Rogers, Willie Dixon, and Williamson, quite a lineup. Aug. 12, 1955.

What harp playing! And everything else, too.

I mentioned on another thread recently that Leonard Feather's liner notes for Don Menza's excellent "Hip Pocket" (PAJ) state that what is in fact a tenor saxophone solo by Sal Nistico on "Quasimodo" is an alto solo by Menza. Menza doesn't solo on that track.

My late friend Bob Wright: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-11-05/features/8603230269_1_bob-wright-dixieland-history-of-jazz-piano

Billy Wallace:

Happy Birthday, Scott!!

IMO, Morgan often sounded like a musical con man after he stopped functioning as one in the world at large. I also saw some personal behavior on his part toward talented fellow musicians that was so outrageous that it led the normally benign Wilbur Campbell to tell him off. Willie Pickens, also part of the rhythm section on that gig, knew Morgan from their youthful days together in Milwaukee and explained (not an exact quote, but the gist of what he said): "Frank was an insecure punk back then, and he still is."

We didn't get into his attitude toward women when I interviewed him for Down Beat back in 1968 or '69. But he was on a personal level as mean as a snake, even rather cruel (though I admit that in my still callow relative youthfulness and anxiety to please I left him an opening or two that I shouldn't have). The interview took place by a motel swimming pool with most of the Mothers within earshot, and they (Don Shelton, especially) were more or less appalled at the way Zappa had behaved and gathered around after he'd left to say a good many insightful things about the band that helped to make the experience a success after all, at least journalistically.

Frank Zappa -- no, forget that.

I don't know anyone crazy enough to collaborate in the behind-the-sheet experiment, at least not without laughing so hard that they might knock things down. As for whether I hear a difference, one of my standard "test" CDs is the title track of Louis Smith's "Smithville" -- because it's such a vividly great RVG recording job (albeit great of his style) and because it proceeds in layers: first, solo Paul Chambers walking, then only Chambers and Smith, then with Sonny Clark and Art Taylor and finally Charlie Rouse added. My key tests here (or if you will "tests") are the entry of Taylor's ride cymbal (its relative prominence and crispness in relation to the rest) and the relationship (spatially and in relative prominence) of Clark's comping to the rest. I swear that with the cables on the lowest level (as described in my initial post) Taylor's ride cymbal is barely distinguishable, while with the speaker cables one level up it is just about where it should be in relation to everything else; likewise with Clark's comping (which I feel should be somewhat, but only somewhat, spatially separable from what it supports), though Clark's comping doesn't virtually disappear with the cables at the lowest level the way Taylor's ride cymbal does. I'm pretty sure that unless I'm imagining all this, it has something to do -- as you suggest -- with something in my rack interacting with something else. The simplest way to test this, with or without the sheet, would be to leave everything else as is and, say, switch the positions of the amp and the CD player and see if I hear any difference. But that's annoyingly hard to do physically by myself -- the space between the rack and the back wall of the basement is awkwardly tight and both those units weigh a ton -- so I think I'll just live with things as they are. Besides, there are practical reasons for keeping the CD player at the second level from the top; I don't want to have to kneel down on the floor every time I put in or take out a CD. Or I could run those speaker cables through my rectum.

Well, at least I haven't spent a dime on cable elevation, unless you count the cost of some sticky tape.