Larry Kart

More "Morris Grants Presents J.U.N.K." info: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/mferguson/Grants.html http://cgi.ebay.com/MORRIS-GRANT-Junk-ARGO...803071032a14196 http://www.organissimo.org/forum/lofiversi...php/t16520.html http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=363765

Yes, that one rings a bell! Tell me a bit more about it. The album comes up midway through this thread on rec.music.bluenote: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.b...d24ef4b39113a2a

Ed Sherman.

I believe George Crater killed himself. That is, the guy who wrote those columns -- Ed Somebody? -- committed suicide.

Complete lyric to "I Should Care": I should care, I should go around weeping I should care, I should go without sleeping Strangely enough, I sleep well 'cept for a dream or two But then I count my sheep well Funny how sheep can lull you to sleep So I should care, I should let it upset me I should care but it just doesn't get me Maybe I won't find someone as lovely as you But I should care and I do Complete lyric to "I'm Through With Love": I'm through with love I'll never fall again Said adieu to love Don't ever call again For I must have you or no one That's why I'm through with love I've locked my heart I keep my feelings there I have stocked my heart Like an icy Frigadere For I need to care for no one That's why I'm through with love Why did you lead me To think that you cared You didn't need me For you have your share Of slaves around you To hound you and swear Their deep devotion ...Emotion Goodbye to spring And all it meant to me It could never bring The things that used to be For I must have you or no one That's why I'm through with love Don't see how there would be much trouble finding where in an instrumental recording of these songs those passages fall, especially because SH sticks fairly close to given melodies on theme statements.

Sorry to have been so long to respond here, but it's been a hectic time at my place, what with the aftermath of basement flooding, targeted (I hope) steriod shots in my hip and back (second time for that for me -- scarier this time for some reason, though it does seem to be bringing relief as before, and I will be taking the mound this season as planned). Dan Gould burned me a CD of what he feels are representative SH ballad performances, plus a few swingers, and I've listened as carefully as I can, this side of burn out. Won't go on a whole lot about every track (Dan sent me the personnel, so if I refer to someone else's playing, it's not because I have X-ray ears) but the earliest, (track 1) "Body and Soul," reminds of what I bridled at the first time I heard SH -- not the aforementioned (in a previous post) use of what sound to me like jump-tenor phrases slowed down (though there are bits of that on other tracks) but what strikes me as an essentially cosmetic application of the swoons and slides that one associates with Ben Webster and such Webster-touched players as Flip Phillips and Paul Gonsalves. I know, some are thinking, "If Flip and Paul can be touched by BW, why not SH?" No reason why, not on paper; it's just that those gestures here sound so external to the actual melodic flow, which is in itself close to hotel-tenor bland IMO. Also, and related to this (and this will come up again, con and pro), while SH doesn't make mistakes harmonically, he also doesn't seem to "engage" the harmonies that much -- this on a song where doing so is fairly crucial. That is, there's almost no sense at any point IMO of harmonic resistances being met and overcome. That same trait is even more to the fore on "I Should Care" from 1979 (track 2), where I'd go so far as to say that SH hardly seems to respond to the song's key harmonic "hook," the change that goes along with the couplet "funny how sheep/can lull you to sleep." Weird. (Also, I hear a bit of that slowed-down "jump" phrasing at the 1:22 mark; no big deal in this case, though.) By contrast, on "I'm Through With Love" (1986, track 3), SH does respond prettily and inventively to what's going on harmonically on the first part of the bridge ("Why did you lead me/To think that you cared/You didn't need me/For you have your share" but then kind of runs out of gas on "Of slaves around you/To hound you and swear/Their deep devotion ... Emotion." The two swingers, both from 2000, are "Move" and "Our Delight." I like the way on both heads SH injects some 1944 jumpish Flip-like backward "leans." "Move" is nicely "in there" rhythmically and in terms of melodic flow, but SH gets a little too auotpilot riffy-cheesy for my taste at the 2:00 minute mark. "Our Delight" also has those "in there" virtues, and here is the first time on this disc that I hear SH really engaging with the changes of a piece all the way through instead of more or less skating over them. Nice track. The same is true of "I Fall In Love Too Easily" (track 6) from 1990. There's a burst of real invention at the 2:00 minute mark, and Dan, I must admit that Gene Harris (here and on the next track) is by a good margin SH's most simpatico accompanist on this CD -- more so than T. Flanagan, D. McKenna, J. Bunch, or E. Higgins; though DM does take a brief but tasty solo spot of "I'm Through With Love." On the other hand, GH does get somewhat automatically bluesy for my taste on his solo here. Track 7, "Tenderly," from 1993, a duo between SH and GH, is the best of all here IMO. Finally, the sound itself (reaching much farther into the upper register now, and all the better for that) and all its accompanying romantic gestures are what I think this approach more or less requires -- an equivalence between these musically metaphorical "caresses" and some sense that the player is himself is to some degree in the grip of them and/or that mood, semi-intoxicated by the passion of it all, if you will. It's one thing to put on some perfume, another thing to really inhale and be affected by it. Again, for my taste, GH gets a bit florid in his solo, but he is really locked-in rhythmically throughout. Tracks 8 and 9 are from 2002-3, with an Eddie Higgins-led rhythm section. I usually like EH, but I think he gets in SH's way a lot here, as GH so nicely does not. Behind SH, EH sounds too trebly to me and almost like he's playing a solo in parallel to SH, which is not something that I think SH can handle. At the 4:22 mark on "My Foolish Heat" it sounds to me like SH has had enough of that and usefully begins to asset himself, but it's not a situation that works in his favor overall. To summarize, there are three performances here that are a good deal better than what I thought, based on previous mostly early experience, I could ever expect to hear from SH -- "Our Delight," "I Fall in Love Too Easily," and "Tenderly." Is it "enough" that SH could reach that level by 1990, after a bit more than a decade of making so many records and of receiving so much praise? I don't know. Am I glad to have heard those tracks? Yes, especially "Tenderly." And if I knew that there were more SH performances at the level of that one out there, I'd look for them. But are there?

I though Solomons' Haydn came close to killing the HIP movemnt all by itself. I bought tons of them used, could hardly get through a single moment without dropping off, eventually dumped them all when Ivan Fisher's complete set came out. Most Bernstein Haydn was a gas, think I've kept all I had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttJZbzrjndA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2TZztPLZE...feature=related The Rogers band (first three videos) includes Shank (some of the best Shank I know from his late "Hey, I'm Phil Woods now" phase), Giuffre, Bill Perkins, Bob Cooper (in fine form), Pete Jolly, Monty Budwig, and Shelly Manne. How sad that Shelly would be dead just a year from this '83 concert in Japan. Next three titles (two pieces on the first of them) are from the same Japanese festival in '82, with Clark Terry, Dexter, J&K, K. Burrell, T. Flanagan, R, Haynes, and I think Buster Williams. Everybody's in pretty serious form (you can be sure of that when CT gets away from his favorite licks) just J&K plus rhythm on the last one. Kai could play too. And don't miss the final video from an early '60s European tour, with J.J., Stitt, H. McGhee (who somehow for once sounds damn close to his old fiery self, with the band modulating behind him), T. Flanagan, Tommy Potter (who get a rare, tasty solo spot, after which J.J. comes in by mistake for a while and then gives way to Stitt, who gives J.J. a priceless "look"), and Kenny Clarke. Pianist, I believe, is Walter Bishop, Jr.

This reissue of a vividly recorded live Pell album from the mid-1980s is nice (good price too): http://www.amazon.com/Live-at-Alfonses-Dav...0832&sr=1-4 Charts (many by Marty Paich) are played very well, and there's more blowing room than on the '50s Pell albums. No Don Fagerquist though, of course -- he said sadly. Pell is a funny cat; some his lines have a peculiarly "indelible" quality -- check out "Love Me or Leave Me" -- yet almost by the same token they can seem oddly predetermined/fixed in place; compare his "Love Me of Leave Me" to Bill Perkins's otherwise not dissimilar work on the same piece on "Two Degrees East, Three Degrees West."

Fauré (12 May 1845 – 4 November 1924) was born well before Debussy (August 22, 1862 – March 25, 1918), though their careers overlapped. Berkshire has a nice Duparc songs disc for a song: Duparc, The Songs. (Sarah Walker, mezzo-soprano & Thomas Allen, baritone w.Roger Vignoles, piano) Add to cart | Price: $ 6.99 | Country: ENGLAND | D/A code: Digital | Code: CDA 66323 | BRO Code: 125634 | Label: HYPERION

as usual, I agree with you............when chuck sees a post from mrjazzman, he goes ape shit no matter what i'm saying, I NEVER start out with negative writings, but I will always respond in kind........ I'll chill out and take my dump later, but the tone of your initial "sounds like your saying something negative about Trane" post struck me right then and there as negative, as in "How dare you?" Never occurred to me that it was a civil request for further information. Also, no one's going to get anywhere asking Chuck to explain himself most of the time; he's gnomic by temperament and enjoys that. One of my wife's dear friends, a woman named Outi Kurkijaarvi, a fellow potter who actually lives in the Far North (Finland), makes fantastic, gnarled ceramic gnomes. I have one; they're supposed to bring good luck.

Don't forget Morton Gould: http://www.marklevine.com/saywhat2.html

I have and like the Ciccolini but think that this collection by Jean-Joel Barbier is better: http://cgi.ebay.com/Deodat-de-Severac-Oeuv...8QQcmdZViewItem Ciccolini by comparison is a bit too all-purpose sec. Don't know the Jordi Maso because between Barbier and Ciccolini I think I have all the De Severac piano works of note covered.

As the great Debby Boone put it: "Yoooou light up my life."

sounds like you're saying something negative about trane.................... How the hell could you get this impression? when you don't elaborate, how the hell could I NOT get that impression......... By reading more carefully or thinking more clearly? If, say, Peewee Russell had been influenced by Trane and the resulting mix didn't quite work, to point that out wouldn't reflect negatively on Coltrane but merely indicate that Peewee's pre-existing virtues were not that compatible with Coltrane's. That's all that was meant. BTW, I did know a marvelous Peewee Russell-steeped clarinetist, the recently deceased Frank Chace, who also greatly admired Coltrane and beautifully integrated some aspects of Trane into his own highly individual style.

De Severac is a terrific composer -- somewhat narrow in scope perhaps but unique and focused like a laser beam.

I'm the kid in the middle.

My take is roughly that there are some things that the right musicians know that I'll probably never know and/or be able to spell out adequately (not that these are the same thing, but you probably know what I mean), while some times there are some fairly important things that a non-musican like me is going to discover or grasp more readily than a lot of musicians will because I'm not as wrapped up in the doing/don't have my nose as close to the grindstone as they often have to be. Also, just by following my un-ground nose for 53 of my 65 years, I've heard a whole lot of jazz (and lot of other kinds of music) of many styles and eras; a lot of very fine jazz musicians either don't have the inclination or just don't find it practical to do that, though of course some do. BTW, when I wrote "be able to spell out adequately," I almost wrote "properly." There's a potentially important difference there: for instance, all (or almost all) of us have lived through times in the music where the existing "proper" (and commonly used) technical vocabularies could not adequately spell out what, say, Ornette, or late Coltrane, or Roscoe Mitchell et al. were doing.

I agree and this is why (further explanation at the end, if it's necessary): Excerpts from Terry Martin's great two-part essay about Pepper, from Jazz Monthly, Feb. and March 1964 (previously posted on a Paul Desmond thread): "The white aesthetic of self-exploration dominates, but here is no self-indulgence ... each nuance of feeling is tested for strength; sometimes it gives and both listener and player feel the pain, and against this the sheer pleasure of blowing.... 'I Surrrender Dear' is not the brilliant 'Old Croix' but a deeper exploration: the inevitability of the restless theme statement rises in a reiterated and modulated motive variant that merges with the final theme paraphrase, which in turn is decorated with a brief recapitulation of this shape. The movement passes naturally to the beautifully spaced break that sets his solo lines stalking freely over the harmonies. There are marvelous ascensions from a crushed lower register and countless rhythmic shifts, suspensions, reiterations. Indeed expressive formations abound in the solo (each has the solidity of a theme), and one wonders how he has been thought to be merely another altoist.... "'Besame Mucho," alto all the way, is for me possibly the greatest solo he has ever recorded; although I often turn to it for pure enjoyment I nevertheless end by being moved by its fusion of invention, elan, and passion. It is full of mastery -- the staggering doubletime near the end of the even meter section; passion -- the gleaming tone and lyrical paraphrase; and tragic insight, the whole nervous fabric pierced with desire for a transcendent serenity, ascensions that soar above the kaleidoscopic rhythms and spaces of his underworld, analogous to the bold and equally tragic gestures on 'Parker's Mood,' 'Billie's Bounce, ' and 'Chi Chi,' reflecting back to 'West End, 'Potato Head' and beyond; almost 'style beyond style.'" And this from earlier on in the essay: '[M]elodic fragments dealt out with a sharp sense of time require reassembly if a coherent expressive end is to be served. Again Pepper seems to delved back into the middle era [i.e. the Swing era] independent of Parker; despite the fragmentation there is a constant sense of formal resolution, a tendency to symmetry... It should be stressed that total asymmetry is not essential to the modern style, but its imprint must remain. Pepper in his own way attempts to regain a classical order from the chaos revealed by the bop greats... It seems that his stint with Benny Carter may have been critical in molding his sense of form, since Carter is a master of construction.... Certainly [Pepper] relies strongly on similarities of melodic shapes, these stemming from the choice and direction of intervals, not from resemblances of melody as such.... The altoist builds not on the original melodic figure laid down at the beginning of the solo but on its shape; thus the melodies developed later need have no close relation to the germ cell in melodic terms. Here is a reason for the absence [in Pepper] of note distortions which are often used, e.g. by Parker and Rollins, to create the required ambiguity. The shapes themselves must be kept clean and unambiguous if they are to form the main constructive element; the ambiguity undeniably present springs from Pepper's individual use of rests. Carter's melodic figures, which are placed symmetrically, result in symmetry. Pepper ... places his asymmetrically and thus only tends toward overall symmetry. This is one source of his lyrical tension. "Pepper has never sought beautiful melodies for their own sake.... Rather his melody is completely absorbed in the expressive fabric of the music.... Rarely does he strive for a melodic paraphrase of the theme, being generally more interested in the emotive possibilities of interlocking fragments arising from germ cells of the theme and the effect of altered dynamics. Melody suffers change under constant redistribution of the pattern of rests; in this respect we may note the the mastery of Monk, another who is more concerned in reading meaning into the melody rather than extending further the melodic limits during his improvisations...." Me again. Not to be tedious, but note in particular these passages about the pre-Trane-affected Pepper: "...despite the fragmentation there is a constant sense of formal resolution, a tendency to symmetry.... Here is a reason for the absence [in Pepper] of note distortions which are often used, e.g. by Parker and Rollins, to create the required ambiguity. The shapes themselves must be kept clean and unambiguous if they are to form the main constructive element; the ambiguity undeniably present springs from Pepper's individual use of rests. Carter's melodic figures, which are placed symmetrically, result in symmetry. Pepper ... places his asymmetrically and thus only tends toward overall symmetry. This is one source of his lyrical tension...." Hearing Trane as Pepper did meant that he changed a whole lot of the above, in ways that I'm sure don't need to be spelled out. Not that he couldn't/shouldn't have changed, but the results IMO often didn't work that well. The air of Sturm und Drang felt somewhat external emotionally and arguably was somewhat external to the actual inner musical workings of Art's music even then, though of course the frequent air of Sturm und Drang in Trane's music was clearly inseparable from its inner musical principles. Finally, there are fair number of later Pepper recordings where he pretty much returns to and recaptures (though not at all in a revivalistic manner) the sorts of things that Terry talks about above.

Allen -- If that's the way you feel, this remarkable video will drive you up and over the wall: http://www.richsamuels.com/nbcmm/garroway/johnny_hodges.html

He's more acidic, but you might try some Roussel to see if he's for you.

Maria Butyrskaya! And what a perfect name, too.

Renee Richards?

One of Gunther's problems, which cropped up in both books at times but especially in the second one, is that he brought to bear his own experience as a somewhat professionally iconoclastic figure in the classical world and in his own personal experience/tastes as a young man listening to and playing the music in an arguably rather reckless, unobjective manner. First, his transcriptions in both books are notoriously inaccurate, and when those errors have been pointed out, GS's response, I believe, has been very high-handed, along "I know better than anyone because I'm me" lines. Second, his treatment of Tatum is not only wrong-headed and uncomprehending IMO but seems to spring directly from GS's own deep and understandable distaste for "jazzing the classics." I'm not saying that Tatum is a god whose music can't be questioned but that GS's dislike of Tatum is not IMO primarily based on musical considerations but on socio-musical ones, and are skewed even from that point of view. "Jazzing the classics" is not, except in a few instances or maybe even ever, what Tatum was about. Finally, there's GS's treatment of such figures as vocalist-accordianist Joe Mooney and his group, whose music GS fell in love with at the time. JM is certainly a charming figure, but in the totality of all that needs to be dealt with in that era, what GS says about JM and the length at which he says it almost absurd. I'm not saying that GS on anyone like him should discount his youthful musical loves; what I am saying is that you can't fall in love with them all over again essentially because, or so it seems to me in GS's case, they were the loves of your youth. And even that would be bearable if GS didn't deliver such judgments in his typical ex cathedra tone.

Sent you a PM just before you posted the above. Let me know if you don't get it, and I'll send it again, though stupidly I forgot to save it. I can remember the gist of it, though -- I'm not that far gone yet.