JSngry

Never hurts to take a bath.

Quatuor Ebène - ok, I'm hearing people in the men's room on intermission taken aback by the Haydn, saying they didn't recognize it, etc. Me, I don't know enough one way or the other, but it sure spoke to me, as did the entire evening. I must get familiar with Dutilleux, that quartet was a breathtaking piece, the way these guys played it, it sounded almost like a drum solo played on 16 strings (c.f. Cecil's "88 tuned drums", I felt a connection to that mindset in both composition and performance). The Beethoven was epic, "know" it by records, first time hearing it live, and the slow movement was an exquisite torture, really, really fine-tuned dynamics and pocket (as was true all evening), the insanity of it "ending" but no, NOT ending was a trip. I don't know if you can convey just how radical/crazy this guy really was by giving things like this one more "old school" interpretation, all I know is that they had me on the edge of my seat, a mix of ecstasy and confusion and almost desperate trust, oooh, let's get high on Beethoven, yeah, hit me with that, please. Best non-played thing heard all evening was on the way out, some pretty jovial (I love going to calssical concerts where there are jovial people in the mix, life is meant to be jovial whenever that's a viable option, no?) old bearded guy says, "well, if you take old music, then take it apart and make it completely your own, then you have new music". Object of the game, pretty jovial old bearded guy, object of the game. And not just in this music/world. As far as Dallas goes, these are good times right now, a damn good orchestra and a dedicated local organization solely dedicated to bringing in top-shelf but not "superstar" chamber groups, and to be honest, all things being equal, if forced to choose between a 16-17 symphony season and a 5 concert chamber series, hmmm...tough call right now. A really together string quartet/piano trio/etc. heard up close and personal is a pretty heavy thing. Most definitely music worth leaving the house for.

Yusef is SO right, good!

It does not, how do they say, displease me. Nor does this.

Oh, almost forgot about this tonight: They look like they're not above taking it out to the alley on break, let's see. "wild" and "unbuttoned", hmmm...that could go either way. But that program definitely appeals.

Certainly seems that way. And I like Scott a fair bit, actually, especially the later things. I get the qualms, really, I do (especially from the time of this record/review) but I feel he justified himself over time. But you tell me:

Ah, I think I get what Hungry was going for now...the "Philly Joe" beat, rim-click on four. What throws it off so much is that the band, especially Toussaint, is not phrasing/playing with a similar pocket. Not even. It's very much a When Worlds Collide thing in terms of pocket. I can see why it remained unreleased, but I'm glad it was. It's a fascinating glimpse into something we might not really see otherwise.

That is a great collection indeed!

Lots of musicians writing about their own world in here, some are more "natural" at it than others, but they all give perspectives still too-often under-heard. Encouraged consumption!

Not really "good", just know enough about different rhythmic bags (and even then, just some, not all) to get that this one was coming from someplace "unusual". There was just enough of the 1-2-3-4 to the drum beat to kick it back to the 4-1-2-3 4-1-2-3 of "Let The Good Times Roll" to get me to open the New Orleans door. Once you confirmed that, hey, start looking for dots to connect. Tenor player did not sound like Red Tyler, Lee Allen, or any of the usual suspects, definitely sounded like a hard-bop-first guy, and that was either gonna be Perrilliat or else a HUGE surprise. As for the drums, hey - Hungry was a MONSTER, but he really doesn't sound like he knows quite what to do here...which seems really weird to me, because that cat could make an anesthesia-free appendectomy feel good, but...maybe Toussaint wasn't quite sure either, maybe he wasn't sure about that either...maybe "boogaloo" as such had not been invented yet, 1958? We had Gospel-Jazz, which involved eighth notes, but in a shuffle kind of way, not the straight-eighths of boogaloo...were we there yet? The title, too, that seems reflective of Monk...so they knew what they where responding to, no doubt. But maybe not sure about the how, though? And to give Hungry the fullest love, this is him on here, and this is just about my favorite NO R&B record ever. There is definitely none that I love more!

Don't recall what it was called, but back in the old days of print, there was a book that collected the most "important" essays from that magazine. Made for involving reading then and now. Having the whole shebang available on line like this is such a wonderful resource!

Ah, well, that makes a little more sense then...is it from around the Adderley/NO axis, Nat Perrilliat on tenor? Maybe Ellis M. on piano? The whole thing is definitely post-Miles/Trane informed, that tenor solo is too full of Trane-isms for it to not be, the whole "Well, You Needn't" solo. And the pianist had certainly heard Horace to get that combination of ingredients to come out that way. If that's not the case, then there's a whole 'nother level of curiosity to it for me. What's "weird" about it is how everything is "boogaloo" excpet the drummer. He(?) is playing in straight 4/4 while everybody else is playing with an eight-note feel. If it's Ed Blackwell on drums (don't even think that James Black would have done that, but who knows?), then I can almost get it, but even at that, it seems like the two feels are at odds with each other. Wildest guess of all - Allan Toussaint, early, RCA days? That would be too weird!

I dunno man, that drum part is weird...it puts me in mind of "Let The Good Times Roll" the way he hits on four all the time, but the band is playing double over that, so...I dunno, maybe it's some crazy New Orleans thing. It doesn't really settle in except in a way which I don't know is what is intended, it doesn't really lock into a groove...but maybe that's the point? Or if it is a groove, it's a really esoteric groove, some reference to some "roots-y" thing that is too far removed from time to have any viscerality left in it, so the players play "modern" over it to attempt to hide/counter that. If it's not that or some South African thing, I'm out of impressions, and if it's some modern thing, I'm a little pissed, because who's going to play like that today on purpose? And if it really is somebody "significant", well, ok, they did that, and I'm sure they had their reasons for doing it. But...program notes please, because that drum part just throws everything out of whack for me, just what is being attempted here by that?

South African?

#1 is weird, not until the trumpet solo does the drummer go to eights, and then only for a bit...the bridge plays meter-games that coupled with the piano style could get me guessing Brubeck from the days with Bergonzi (that tenor is SO Trane-referential), but then who's the trumpeter? Or wait, is this Horace? Later Horace. Yeah, that seems a little more likely. Either way, it's weird, in, I believe, an intentional way. Is it "good"? Sure, I guess. Yeah, that "High Society" quote on the first piano solo, sure sounds like Horace to me.

Gilmore is one of those guys who has his own voice, no matter what he plays, he sounds like John Gilmore, distinctively and, once you know it, unmistakably.

Yeah, thought so. The mixing of the voices was a dead giveaway that it was something not "of it's time". Wouldn't sound like that if it was. As for Gilmore, hey, voices, right?

And Kamasi on #13?

Is that John Gilmore on #9? And Kamasi on #13?

Sounds like the Rules Comittee will have its hands full!

Life imitates life! http://mic.com/articles/135699/don-cheadle-needed-a-white-co-star-to-get-funders-to-pay-for-his-miles-davis-movie#.LrQ1TWlWu

Personnel: Ravi Coltrane / saxophone Pharaoh Sanders / saxophone Reggie Workman / bass Geri Allen / piano Andrew Cyrille / drums Brandee Younger / harp I would go back in time to hear that band, even as far back as 2013!

Unfortunately had to leave at intermission, as Mrs. JSngry took ill (she's ok, thanks). Bummed about missing the Bach. Liked what I heard, though, Sepia Bach much more than Telemann. Some really nifty harmonic games, C.P.E had, Telemann, not so much, but...not his fault, I'm sure. Crazy to think about how wrong the "wrong notes" once really were, and all that it took to get to the point where there are no wrong notes, just bad ideas...that's a trip, really. Koopman was there, and conducted with neither podium nor baton, and was a lot like van Zweden in terms of body investment in his conducting, albeit to totally different ends. That was an interesting thing to see in terms of traditions being continued in some ways while being abandoned in others. He had a really zany crooked smile and these crazy old-school glasses, and the lack of a podium did make an impact as far as total "presentation" went, I think. Lack of baton, too, but small orchestra with a guy standing just in front of it, not in front of and above it, that was...interesting. Significantly smaller orchestra on stage, no idea if this is customary or part of the HIP thing. Also struck (again) by how "objective" this period of music is. Not lacking in passion, but the music is - or seems today to be - almost entirely in the math, and the less "ego" is present in the performance, the more clearly the math, and therefore the music, is allowed to speak for itself. Of course, I'd be lying if I said that a steady diet of Baroque music wouldn't drive me crazy, especially knowing all that came/comes after, that's the irony about the objectivity of it, it's impossible to be objective about hearing it, but oh well, life is like that, right? But I can imagine how truly crazy Beethoven must have begun to sound in real time as he kept on moving into all the things he moved into. And for that same reason, I think that's why most of Mozart tends to "offend" me, it's all the math AND all the ego, same equation just amped up on Mountain Dewroids or something, no reformulation. Anyway, nights like this, when my ability to form an even halfway "informed" opinion based on too much of anything other than my immediate reaction, are both thrilling and disgusting.

Remember when Lennie Tristano's problem was that he was too intellectual?

I enjoy unfamiliar music, and then figuring out why I may or may not like it without being able to "project" established feeling onto easily recognizable players. For example, if I hear Lockjaw on a cut, whoa, it's gonna be a variant on my Reflexive Lockjaw Response, because hey, Lockjaw, right? But I hear some shit on these things that I have no earthly idea who it might be, and then...well, ok, how am I feeling about this, hmmm? True objectivity can be a real bitch sometimes, ya' know? Also, I like those cuts where you hear a seemingly familiar voice in an unfamiliar setting, those are fun too, becuase you think you know the voice, but are you really, really sure? What sucks is when you get a bunch of totally unfamiliar stuff that doesn't engage you at all, what soars is where you get a bunch of totally unfamiliar stuff that you really dig. New doors opened! Point just being, the tricky/scorecard/Guess Who? thing is not where the fun in these things is for me. YMMV, etc.