JSngry

I've never heard of Harriet Choice, but now feel as if I need to. Please tell more, maybe in the Jazz In Print forum. Sounds like there might be some stories there!

Well, if it really is "irrational", why is it "rational" to quietly accept it & appear to offer implicit concurrance?

In James Lester's "Too Marvelous For Words", his biography of Art Tatum, Tatum's respect and love of Peterson's playing is described several times. Lester wrote that when Art Tatum knew he was dying, he asked for Oscar Peterson. Maybe Tatum wanted one more pizza? No, seriously, that seems perfectly likely. Peterson was one of the few pianists who could even be considered as having Tatum's level of facility, and facility such as that don't come easy, to put it mildly. I think you'll find that musicians are perfectly able to separate deep (and I do mean deep) respect for craft from "esthetic" judgement, although sometimes when there's a toss-up, they'll give the benefit of the doubt to the craft. But sometimes not. That one's a crapshoot, really. But the point is that there's a "foxhole mentality" among musicians when it comes to recognizing the difficulty of playing any instrument with an extremely high level of facility. You know, the whole "if you ain't been there, you can't understand" thing. And that's legit, I believe. Besides, Peterson's playing at the time of Tatum's impending death related to the "whole" of jazz in a totally different way than he did at the time of his own, wouldn't you say? In a hypothetical role-reversal of the deathbed scenario, what current pianists would Peterson want by his side? Or to twist it even more, which pianists of today would want Peterson at their's? Look at the possibilities, and then look at the stae of jazz as a whole, and that's where this "dominant influence" thing breaks down in a big hurry...

Indeed it does, but I now better understand what you mean, so, ok. The thing about "popularizers", though, get tricky, because some many different people have done it in so many different ways. Cannonball was a baaad mf, period, and it's become a cliche of mine to point out that up until the end of his life, no matter how "comercial" the settings he placed himself in were, he himself found a way to insert some ongoingly evolutionistic adventurous playing. His was in some ways a "stealth" approach, and there were others like him, who got over and still put something else inthe mix, somewhere, somehow. Then you got the folks like Ramsey Lewis (for whom to this day I still have a less than full appreciation) who brought it straight on, no tricks, no gimmicks, what you heard was what you got, a lot of people heard it, a lot of people got it, and hey, it felt good, so people did it, and ya'know, I got no problem with that either. To me, Peterson belonged to the latter camp. I've ehar plenty of his work over the years, and I've heard nothing that isn't immediately accessible, nothing that shows an ongoing evolution of creativity, nothing except Oscar Peterson Playing What He Plays The Way He Plays It. Some of it is "less obvious" than the rest, but that's it. Again, what you heard was what you got, etc etc etc. And that really doesn't bother me, since once the Original Heroes Of Norman Granz That I Really Loved died, the jazz world of Oscar Peterson and the jazz world that I lived in very seldom intersected. When it did, it was usually on Pablo (the encounter with Bags on MPS is one that I've very nearly bought countless #s of times over the years, but I consistently & inevitably end up passing), and you knew what it was going to be before it happened, and that was part of the appeal anyway, that whole Neo-Verve-dom. Again, what you saw was what you got, etc etc etc. So the years go by, and neither I nor a helluva lot of people I know think too much about Oscar Peterson other than that he's one helluva piano picker & he's there if you want him, and you don't have to try too hard to avoid him if you don't. Fair for all, win-win, and life is good. Now all of a sudden, the cat dies, and it's like he's become The Pianist That All Jazz Has Genuflected To And Sprung From, and I'm sorry, that's just so much bullshit. Apparently he's been a gateway for a lot of people, and that's cool, I can relate to that. He wasn't for me (I never really felt him, not even when discovering the music), but cats like Brubeck & Mulligan were, so I appreciate how your "first kiss" is one that lingers forever, even if the perons you did it with might be somebody you'd rather not remeber. But dammit, look around the jazz world today and tell me that the only real "impact" that OP has had as an artist is within a very narrow circle. That's just reality. And really, so what? Peterson did whathe did, al ot of people dug it, a lot of people didn't, and to not dig it in no way means that you automatically disrespect him or have any other "motivations". It's no secret that on the whole, I don't really dig Bill Evans that much either, but I got no problem calling him Arguably The Most Influential Jazz Pianist Of The Second Half Of The 20th Century, simply because there's evidence to back it up. I bristle at similar accolades being bestowed upon Peterson simply because there isn't similar evidence, unless one has a really narrow vision of what jazz "is", "should be" , or something like that. That's going to get my goat no matter what the context.

Ditto, except that the news is better than good!

Oh, so people who don't dig OP are now the "jazz elite"? Wht does that make people who are in agreement with the sentiment that he "dominated" jazz piano for the second half of the 20th century, when merely doing the math can look at how many people are playing in what way and come to the conclusion that that distinction probably belongs to Bill Evans (directly and/or filtered through Herbie Hancock and/or Chick Corea), with honorable mentions going to McCoy Tyner & Cecil Taylor? Peterson's "towering" pianistic influence is limited to a really narrow group of players, but it's interesting that the inference is that these players (and therefore Peterson himself) represent the "real" jazz, and that everybody else mustt be on the outside looking in, suffering from some neurotic affliction like incurable jealousy or something like that. Once again, the Marsaillisian need to define by exclusion rears its ugly, proto-Fascistic head. I've tried to be sincerely respectful of a man whose work I do not personally care for but whose abilities and acomplishments I have the highest & most genuine respect for. Holding such superficially conflicting opionons is easily possible, and I can only think (and not for the first time) that people who find it to be impossible and feel the need to take a small, self-contained kingdom and insist that it is the world where we all surely must live have no concept of reality in more than two dimiensions, and are therefore a big part of the reason why society is becoming as dangerously dysfunctional as it is today. So out of disrepect for nothing except vainglorious illusions of self-centered and wholly manufactured "superiority", here's some "reality" for y'all's Anti-Elite Asses: With Art Tatum, God truly was in the house. With Oscar Peterson, the pizza was at the door. And people sure be lovin' their pizzas, don't they be...

Otoh, the zombie thing is still immenently do-able.

But let me say again that a differnet guitarist, one less eager to let Chick "showcase his skills" or whatever, might be cause for interest here. But if that ws gonna happen, it would have ahppened a looong time ago, eh? Chick apparently likes writing all this crazyass wonky bombasticism.

Yeah, Chick's fusion writing lost any real appeal to me pretty early on. Too much...of everything except soulful substance, and really emblematic of so much of what went wrong with "fusion" in general.

Lanny - I edited out your phone # out of concern for your privacy. If you want to restore it, feel free, but if it really is your personal phone #, please consider sending Rod a PM with this information instead of posting it publicly. Apologies if this offends, just trying to keep the "bad guys" of the internet at bay here as much as possible. Hope you understand.

Really, Where Have I Known You Before is where it would have been nice for it to have ended, or at least for it to have not gone any further down that particular road. That's a nice record, actually, one might even call it "definitive" and/or the high-water mark of that style of Corea's writing, being still lyrical with the wonkiness used as accent rather than basis. But it didn't stop there, did it....

Yeah, when he talked about a label being now-owned by Seagrams, I was pretty sure he was referring to Peacock, but then he starts talking about no, it was probably some local Seagram's distributor who had his own label, and then I'm all like UH-oh, and then he gives the date of the Little Richard thing as early-50s and, oops, there I went again, but still it seems like an well-intentioned project and yeah, there are undoubtedly tones of "local" type material that is in danger of being lost, so here's wishing him well as well as wishing him - and me - an ongoing education.

The only "resentment" is from having to hear him on so many records that are otherwise totally to my liking. Other than that,the man was loved and immensely successful. I have no resentment about any of that. Why would I resent anybody having a good life? That's just sick and/or childish to suggest that. It's like the Wynton-ites who will go to their death insisting that people who don't like his playing do so for extra-musical reasons. Well, I for one don't like him (Wynton) for extra-musical reasons, but I don't like his playing simply because it does nothing for me. With Peterson, I really have no extra-musical reasons to dislike him. Didn't like Monk's playing? Oh well, that speaks for itself, and he's far from alone that way. A bit of an ego? Hey, whatever. Hardly the first one you could say that about. Canadian? Geez, I dig Joni Mitchell & Fred Stone, and that's just for starters. Hardly an issue. General Popularity? Hey, Brubeck's probably sold more records, and I got no axe to grind with him, even though I'm not too much of fan there either. The fat thing? Me in the mirror, 'nuff said. The grunting thing? Me working on a spreadsheet, 'nuff said, again. Is it because he's Black, like Syl Austin? Hey, some of my best friends... Please, get a grip and recognize that some people, incredible as it might seem to you, just did not like Oscar Peterson's playing. Period, end of story, show's over, move on, ok?

Perhaps you are correct, sir! As far as "how bad can it be?", the answer is, "not very bad at all, actually". If memory serves, the main issues seemed to be a squeaky reed on Hank's part, Blakey's insistence on keeping the tempos asa up as they can be, & some ongoing just-a-tad-sloppier-than-is-comfortable execution of the heads. Nothing sucks, but nothing really hits on all cylinders for a complete take either, and with all the other Blakey sessions in the can, I caa see why this one's just sorta sat there. Freaks like us would dig hearing it, but really, it's not one you'd want to revist with any frequency, and "general listener" appeal is gonna be very, very low, even if it gets edited into a usable album. I would really enjoy hearing that Africane session as well!

Probably wasn't the guests that tipped her over as much as it was the panel discussions...

Oh, now, the Duets stuff, that's another story altogether... This was from the time when his mind was slipping, remember, and his voice...well, sometime the spirit was willing, but etc. Still there were times when he could still put it all together. For the Duets album, they assembled the band in the studio, gave Frank a mike, let his stand in front of the band, and they just did it live, like a gig. And supposedly, he hit his zone, at least in terms of phrasing (and really, isn't Sinatra pretty much all about phrasing?) Pitch correction was allegedly needed in sometimes...large doses, but the phrasing was left as is. And that's what I'd like to hear - the Duets sessions w/o the duets, just Old Raggedy Frank in front of a band, more than a little senile, but finding that zone for one of the last times and just riding the hell out of it like it might be the last time he'd be able to. I can really hear it on "Come Rain Or Come Shine" too, sounds like it could be a deeply moving performance. But everytime Sinatra starts giving goosebumps, here comes...who is it...Gloria Estefan? Not quite the same thing, is it now....

Well, thoise are Riddle's charts, and Riddle usually conducted his own date. But Riddle was known as a not particularly..."forceful" conductor. So I've no doubt that Sinatra could well have been doing something besides being a figurehead. Stories abound of him noticing something in some deeply inner part of an arrangement that needed fixing, something that nobody but the most "inner circle" would even hear, much less notice the need for change. Now, it would be easy to think that some of this was maybe hype, seizing upon a random incident or two and turning it into "institutionalized" lore. But besides that one full album's session tapes, there's also been a few other collections of such candid outtakes of less-than-complete sessions, and in every one of them, Sinatra emerges as a musician of extremely high awareness & sensitivity. So yeah, love him, hate him, or anywhere in between, that's one thing. But skills? Hell yeah, the man definitely had skills, and waaaay above average ones at that.

It's really interesting to hear Sinatra's takes evolve. Myself, I've always felt that his truest artistry lay in his ballads, and that his "swing" singing, although much more defining of his persona, was a lesser of his gifts. Maybe, maybe not, but you can really hear him on these sessions pinpointing exactly what he needs to do on each arrangement. Yeah, he makes a few suggestions to the band along the way (which are always sound, and which they always take), but it's fascinating to hear how hew takes a few takes to sus out just where the pocket of each arrangement is, where he does and doesn't need to be singing (at one point he miscalculates, and says to himself "get outta there..." and then keeps singing) until he gets an idea of where his "zone" is gonna be for each chart. And then, once he's got it figured out, in 1 or 2 takes, he hits that zone, hits it hard (the difference that his vocals make in "tightening up" the rhythm section by hitting that zone can be heard to full effect in a situatiion like this - direct A-B comparisons are readily made with next to no effort, and yes, comparisons to Miles in this regard have been made, and, yes, they are appropriate), and then it's over, on to the next one, lather, rinse, repeat. Now, this kind of session may, by the nature of the music being made (i.e. - working to perfect a "known quantity") might hold more intrinsic interest than a jazz session, where it's basically don't screw up the heads, get the best solos, and on we go (exceptions abound, I know, but the Blakey session mentioned early is pretty much like that. Then again, it was rejected & has never been issued. Then again again, it could be, and most folk would say "Hey! Not bad!", which would be correct. but "not bad" and "good" are not quite the same thing... All I'm saying is that the notion of listening to an entire session tape is certainly an intriguing one, but the results will no doubt vary widely and wildly. And trust me when I say that "studio chatter" is highly overrated, coming as it usually does off-mike and in the middle of long-ish streches of nothing in particular. The music, though, well, yeah, that can be pretty interesting to listen to as it evolves.

Actually, the session tapes I've heard (for the Ring-A-Ding-Ding album) confirm everything-you've-heard-but-might-have-regarded-as-hype regarding Sinatra's innate musicianship and his ability to pinpoint the finer points of an arrangement in terms of both what the band needed to do to make it sound better and, more impressively to my mind, what he needed to do to best fit into the arrangement. The cat was very self-critical (moreso than anything about the band)and self-analytical in this regard, and more than one "Sinatra Skeptic" I've played these sessions for walk away more or less amazed at just how serious a musician this guy was. If anybody tells me that Sinatra, not matter how obnoxious, dangerous, or just plain misanthropic he might have been otherwise, left all that stuff behind to focus entirely on the music, at least when it came to recording, I would not even begin to question that. You can gget a sense of that on the video of the L.A. Is My Lady sessions (underrated album btw, & of more than a little "jazz interest" in terms of personnel & arrangements), but then again, that's "posed" to a certain extent. These session tapes are, one would think, fully "candid", and they do indeed present a portrait of a serious singer going about serious business at a very high level of skill & awareness. Ring-A-Ding-Ding might sound like a "groovy baby!" party album, but....

Checked that one out again last night. Very nice!

Surely there's still a market for that somewhere!

Hell, Joe Farrell was sometimes a zombie while he was alive...

I've heard that too, as well as some complete Sinatra sessions, and the thing that sinks in real fast is that it's in a lot of ways it's like going to somebody's office to watch them work. Lots of mundane things going on as well as some good-to-great music getting made. hich is not to say that it's not fun, or otherwise useful. But.

BEfore discographies became seni-"common". getting an old Schwann was a great way to see what albums had been made that you might not know about today. I had one from just before the pre-Liberty "purge" of the BN & PJ catalogs (sorry, I know this is the Classical Forum) that were invaluable in learning what might be out there in those dusty bins...

A Mainstream album w/o discographical information. "Pretty bad all-around" says it for me, and there's a solo version of "'Round Midnight" that is downright chilling in that regard.