JSngry

who said it was? cuz Neshui put Pollack on the cover of Ornette? Ok, here's some sloppy writing on Cuscuna's part. Where does he say that he equated it with that? He doesn't, and I don't think that he did/does. What goes without question though is that there was that perception in the years folowing Trane's death (really dark days as I understand it), and I'm man enough to say that it's a perception that wasn't completely unfounded , based on the recorded evidence. The "anger" part goes without saying (and nowhere does/has Cuscuna deny its validity). Now, as for "lack of musicianship", hell if all you do is get up there and vent for a whole set/night/week/year/whatever, you're not going to (usually) use anything resembling a "refined" technique (and Ayler had a very refined technique, but Ayler was about more than just venting). Hell yeah you're going to honk and squeal, and hell yeah, that's not particularly hard to do (although there's definitely a way to do it that does require study and refinement, it's certainly not a prerequisite). Now if that's all that "people" hear you doing, why the hell shouldn't this "perception" of "anger" & "lack of musicianship" take root? You're going the Nationalist route, thus the "anger" & you're standing up there venting all night long. Why should anybody think "Hey, this guy's probably a real mutherfuker, he's just caught up in the times" if they don't ever hear anything to suggest that, yes, this cat just might be a real mutherfuker? Remember the key word here is perception, that "freedom" was "equated" with these things, not necessarily by Cuscuna, but by a sizeable segment of the "jazz public", at least part of which greeted the "Loft" players' introduction of "variety" as a welcome advance. Me myself, I welcomed it as a necessary advance, and I suspect that Cuscuna did too. His track record as producer certainly indicates that he did. Pity he couldn't elucidate it better.

I agree. except that the opening theme statement to "Out Of Nowhere" is startling in the extreme, especially in the context of that album.

Oh jeez, let me hasten to add some to that, lest it be "misunderstood.

You think so? I don't hear it that way at all. I hear it as a typical "practicing" jam session, the kind that's different from the staged public kind. I hear Pharoah ebbing and flowing in terms of inspiration, playing through it all. It's the way real jam sessions sound. As for the band, Jane Getz is no slouch, even if she's no Titan either. The rest of the band is jam-session caliber, I think. The difference for me is that everybody was more or less on the same page. Pharoah in 1964 was not the Pharoah of a year later. Ayler, otoh, was aready someplace else, far removed from his what his accompaniment could even begin to think about. I understand what you are saying, and agreed, Ayler was way ahead of Pharoah, but I see these two sessions as being identical in terms of circumstance only. With Ayler, NHOP was on bass, who I don't consider to be a slouch, but he in fact played pretty much inside on that date. And on the ESP date, Jane Getz may be a key player, but she was pretty much playing inside too (as I think she was on the Mingus live date as well). My only point was that there are two players that were pushing ahead, and they were stuck with forward-thinking bands. The only difference is that Ayler and Pharoah recorded about two years apart. Ayler though, as you indicated, is in another bag, and that bag I respect tremondously. Pharoah had his work cut for him and he too was trying to push out, but he was stuck in a similar circumstance as Ayler, it just happen that Ayler was stuck with a similar band just two years prior. Well see, I don't think that Pharoah thinking at the time of this date (Sept. 1964, right?) was as fully formed as Ayler's was. The guy's plaing changes and he sounds like he's into playing changes. You can hear him working on shit as he goes along. You wouldn't be doing it like that if you were totally convinced that it was going to be a dead end. Sure, he no doubt had some other stuff going on at the time, but his approach here tells me that he had not ruled out playing changes as something that he was going to continue to do (and in fact hasn't done, although that's only obvious now). Ayler, otoh, was fully convinced that his way was going to be it for him. You can tell right away that playing chages is something that he is so not going to be thinking about, much less actually doing. He's fully gone from that way and has made a full committment to his way. To me, that's the difference. Another way to look at it is this - if Pharoah hadn't have gotten the gig w/Trane, how would he have been playing in 1966? Of course there's no way to really know, but the depth of his commitment on the ESP side leads me to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the platform of the Coltrane gig, and all that it entailed, forced the issue for him in a way that it might not have otherwise been forced. Pure speculation, that is, but...

Ok, this is really starting to get funny (in both senses of the word). "Jazz people" are really fucked up sometimes... Let's look at the original quote: The cat's saying this in praise of 70s "Loft Jazz", which was in no way "safe" or "traditional". It was very much the "avant-garde" of its time, and very much the type of music that the Marsailisupial Reactionaries were dead-set against. So - explain to me how pointing out that the "avant-garde" evolved (that's a good thing, right?) equates straight-up with a condemnation of the revolution of the 60s. It doesn't, unless anybody feels that pointing out that that particular bit of history had perhaps ran its course as a useful general movement & that it was now time to build upon it (and I can tell you from first-hand experience that the 60s-style "blow-out" method of playing does not sustain itself over time as anything other than a vent of the moment. If that's what you need at the time, it's beautiful, but if that's all you ever need as player or fan, then you've probably got "issues" that might be legitimate, but geez, life's about more than just venting 24/7...). Yes, the language is sloppy, and yes, there's a broad-brushness to it that I'm sure Cuscuna would refine/elaborate on if pressed, but geez, we're taking a positive comment about the "avant-garde" and turning it into a perceived condemnation. WTF is that all about? The cave sure is getting musty.

Close indeed! But no cigar.

Anybody got the MJQ's appearance on The Helen Reddy Show, on which BB King was also a guest, & which concluded with Reddy, King, & the MJQ jamming on "Everyday I Have The Blues"? I kid you not.

Red Clay is the archetype/icon/conventional-wisdom-favorite, and probably hangs together better as a "presentation", but in all honesty, I think that everybody involved plays better (i.e. - looser & more inventive) on Straight Life.

I kinda look at it all like this - the Big Bang was no doubt in all ways a very intense & sloppy affair that was in all ways equally inevitable & necessary, and that a lot of the elements therein were also intense, sloppy, inevitable, & necessary. But after the Big Bang, what? What was going to stick around once it was over & continue to grow/evolve? No "value judgements" intended, just a hopefully objective look at the process of creation & evolution. Not everything that is necessary for birth is necessary for survival afterwards.

No disagreement with any of that, from all I can see, Mike Love is a truly odious individual. But to give credit where credit is due (if only to make the charges of odiousness more defense-proof), let's consider this and then move on: A) Love's contribution to those songs has been pretty much established as lyrical, which I can buy, since Brian was not at all the gregarious social animal that the protagonists of his songs were. B) It's Love singing the bass parts on all those layered vocal tracks, which is not that big of a deal early on, but becomes more of one when the parts start getting more involved. Other than that, I look at Mike Love and realize that things like TM, etc. can make you a better person, do nothing at all for you one way or the other, or else turn you into a really mellow, self-centered, self-absorbed prick, especially if you were inclined that way to begin with.

Damn, that clip still rocks my world!

Right, at the time it was definitely the right thing to do, and yeah, Cuscuna's verbiage seems to deny, or at least downplay that aspect of it. Sloppy writing indeed. But I gotta ask myself - if he didn't get at least the validity of the initial impulse, what might have driven him towards the BAG/Braxton axis? (His deep love of Ayler is a matter of record, btw). I don't think you'd find too many, if any, people who would have found that shit repulsive who would have suddenly heard Braxton/Hemphill/Bowie(s)/etc & suddenly said, "Hey, THIS makes sense!", know what I mean? I really think it's just sloppy/careless writing, "shorthand" from somebody who was there (although maybe after the "decline" had began to set in) that doesn't take into account (and whether or not it should is another matter altogether, since "looking back" ends up being a game of Russian Roulette more often than not) how it might be interpreted by the many who weren't.

As somebody who at one point put a lot of time & emotional investment into what's now known by may as the "Fire Music", I certainly see the validity in this. I mean, ok, let's take Giuseppie Logan. In his time & on his few recorded appearances, yeah, you hear some interesting shit. But beyond that, what? Did this cat seem, for lack of a better term, "equipped" to do anything beyoind that? Not that I could hear. Now, it's a very "romantic" notion, that of spilling your guts out with fire & passion taking precedence over anything/everything else, and yes, there's definitely a time/place in societal evolution when that sort of cathartic compulsion is not only welcomed, but is essential. And that time and that place did exist, and the players of that music who were into it mainly/totally for that reason were doing what had to be done - at that place and that time. Much eternal love and respect for them for doing that. But... The purpose of a cathartic experience is to "clear the air" in order to begin anew & build something. And for that you need skills beyond the ability to blow it all out. And the AACM/BAG cats definitely had these skills. Not that some of the NYC cats didn't, but the nature of that original scene was such that any number of "fringe" players such as Logan could get heard and romanticised in a way that the influx of most of the best players from "out of town" soon rendered obsolete. I mean, Jospeh Orange, what was he all about? Compare him to Joseph Bowie and tell me who's gonna be able to hang over the long haul. By not naming names, Cuscuna may be being disingenuous & may well be playing into an over-simplification that's sort of become "conventional wisdom". We can all name more names that defy that than we can names that confirm it. But - even the best of the NYC bunch (and I'm leaving out the Shepps/Pharoahs/Anybody who came to the "New Thing" with a solid (enough) background in "traditional" style(s)) didn't show much of an interest in moving beyond the "blow it all out" stage, whereas the AACM/BAG bunch was bringing in concepts/compositions/etc. You know, stuff that actually was building on the revolution. And that was essential. Which is what I think Cuscuna is actually getting at, sloppy/irresponsible as his language might appear (or actually be). But I'll cut him some slack. Jesus christ, before he turned into Mister BlueNoteMosaicGuardianOfTheGreatLegacy, look at his track record and be impressed. But one thing remains consistent in that track record - no hellbent balls out venting sessions where "emotion" at the expense/in place of "musicianship" was the order of the day. So I think he's being consistent in intent no matter what the language implies.

You think so? I don't hear it that way at all. I hear it as a typical "practicing" jam session, the kind that's different from the staged public kind. I hear Pharoah ebbing and flowing in terms of inspiration, playing through it all. It's the way real jam sessions sound. As for the band, Jane Getz is no slouch, even if she's no Titan either. The rest of the band is jam-session caliber, I think. The difference for me is that everybody was more or less on the same page. Pharoah in 1964 was not the Pharoah of a year later. Ayler, otoh, was aready someplace else, far removed from his what his accompaniment could even begin to think about.

I was going to attend, but talk about bad timing--coinciding with torrential rains, hail and high winds bearing down on the city. I'm afraid I just went straight home. Same here. We had trees in our street and shit. Not a night for leaving the burbs and going into where the weather was really bad. But I saw Shelley last night, and he said that the gig went well and that he really dug it.

Indeed!

Well yeah. The individual episodes have been quite strong, but I'm asking myself how (or even if) it's all going to end. Only what, 5 more episodes? Maybe it's not all going to end. Maybe nothing gets resolved or comes to a head. That would be very "life-like", but it sure would make for disappointing television.

Oh, I blame Dallas plenty. Not for getting beat, but for getting beat like the pussies that some of us hoped they weren't but kinda had a sneaking suspicion they were. A lot of people had forgotten about the choke in last year's finals, or were at least convinced that the regular season proved that a Corner Of Character had been turned. But some of us (and I'm not the only one) wanted to see if the Good Boys of the regular season would become the Real Men of the playoffs. We had our doubts, and they were confirmed. Fullest props to the Warriors, though. The better, not just the "hottest", team won, no doubt, and I'd not be truthful if I didn't say that against any other team, watching that bunch play like that would be a gas-and-three-quarters. Right now, I might even be pulling for them to go all the way, although much residual love for Nash The Circus Boy resides in this heart. Dirk is a good player. Hell, he's a great player doing what it is that he does. But what he is not is a leader. Never has been. I don't think he really wants to be, and I don't think he has what it takes mentally or physically to ever be one. Ok, every championship team needs a Scottie Pippen. We've got ours in Dirk. So where's our Jordan?

And hopefully will be for quite some time...

That whole confidence/execution mental/physical dynamic/interaction is what makes watching playoff sports so interesting to me. Say what you want to about "athletics" and all that (pro or con), but the whole thing about being able to do what you think you know you can do when you need to do it, hell, that's life in a nutshell right there.

.o.k...my 'coltrane-linked' saxophonist is George Braith... Braith is far more than one of "those" cats. I think he's overstating the case about Murray, but that might be a generational thing. I've heard from an impeccable source that Lou Donaldson said that Wayne Shorter "never could play changes". We all know that's bullshit of the highest degree, but oh well. Guys like Braith & Donaldson come from a time when the "rules" were black & white, the parameters were pretty narrow based on what the collective ""world view" was, and so were the accepted deviations. It ain't like that now, and hasn't been for quite a while. Love'em both (especially George), but for what they do, not for their dogmas, even if it's those dogmas that makes them do what they do how they do it.

They mean that his note choice is not grounded in conventional theory. And sometimes they're right, and sometimes I really do think that Murray skates (or has skated in the past) in that regard. It's one thing to go outside the changes with direction, it's another thing entirely to flat out play wrong notes. They also mean that he's worked up a set of easily-contrived "devices" that he uses in lieu of conventional saxophone technique. And again, sometimes they've been right. But he's refined and expanded a lot of those devices to the point where I think that they can now be considered a legitimate personal vocabulary. They also mean that his swing is funny. And that's something that still bugs me about him. He can swing his rapid-fire shit like a mofo, but his eighth notes still sound funny to me. And I don't know if he's yet to discover that between the eight & thirty-second notes lie the sixteenth note... But still, he does what he does and I have to think that his sense of swing is his own. If he really wanted it to be otherwise, it would be by now. They also mean that his time is funny sometimes. And sometimes it is. Sometimes there's a sense of rushing (both within the line & in terms of the structure) in his playing that I find pretty distasteful. But only sometimes. So yeah, the guy has not been without flaws. And as Larry Kart somewhat noted a while back, if you want to hear this style tenor really played really right, check out Ed Wilkerson & get on with it. But to say that Murray just flat out can't play is so much inbred anality, as is the "white critic's darling" which almost always translates as "Gee, I put in hours learning to play this instrument correctly and nobody cares." Well hey there, Mister Phil Woods In Waiting, big fucking shit. Try using that "skill" for an end other than itself and we'll share a tear. Until then, go get a gig where people who don't know any different think you're a hero who's gotten screwed over by the world. Opportunities abound!

List price in the early-mid 80s was generally $8.99-$9.99. In the dieing days, $10.98 list was not uncommon. I saw the 70s start at $3.99-$4.99 list price and gradually go up from there. I also remember "label sales" at the Denton Sound Town ca. 1974 where they'd bring in an entire label's currentcatalog, but it in big bins in the middle of the floor for about a month, and sell 'em for $2.98-$3.99 a pop. They did this with Blue Note, Impulse!, &, iirc, Prestige.

Whenever I hear a "Coltrane-linked saxophonist" say that somebody can't "play at all", it inevitably means one of two things - that the player really can't play at all, or that the player is not somebody who plays with/from a conventional theoretical basis that has been more or less "mastered". "Coltrane-linked saxophonists" far too often have this view of music as something that there's only one way to approach, that way being an exhaustive study/interenalization of chords, scales, progressions, etc. In short, theory. To them, the theory is the gateway to the music, and if you don't know all that stuff inside & out before moving on (or not), then you can't "play at all". That's a notion with which I fundamentally disagree as much as I fundamentally agree. If your worldview is such that you want to make music that "needs" those things in order to speak, then yeah, you better learn it and learn it well. But that's not the only worldview in which valid, absorbing, even "essential" music can be made. Far from it. Even then, though, there needs to be a sense of self-possession relative to the music, that you are doing whatever it is you're doing with some sense of control at some level. And Murray has always had that, even when the results were pretty frantic. To say that Murray can't "play at all" is absurd. To say that he began as a player with much "homework" left undone isn't. But he's done a great deal of that work, and now his "shortcomings" and/or "strengths" are more better evaluated subjectively than objectively. The most humorous reaction to Murray's playing I've hever heard was from a "Coltrane-linked saxophonist" who said that Murray "couldn't play" because his shit "didn't make any sense". When I pointed out to him the technical intricacy of Murray's "nonsense", and that you couldn't execute like that w/o a lot of practicing, this cat just went off about how it doesn't matter at all if he'd practiced or not, he just couldn't play, period. Meaning, of course, that the possibility of personal choice as to how music "should" be played doesn't exist, that there's only one set of "rules", and that you either follow them or else you ain't "playing". That is utter and total bullshit. Murray used to be "funny" about changes sometimes, but he was never like that about the saxophone. To me, that matters. 95% (guestimated) of the "Coltrane-linked saxophonists" (hell, let's not limit it to just saxophonists...) that I know/know of are masterful "players" with next to nothing really personal to say. I think they get into this "if you can't do this, then you can't play" trip as a hedge (subconscious or otherwise) against having to confront that. I'm anything but a big "David Murray Fan", but if I have to choose between him & some guy really "exploring" the possibilities inherent in the ChromoMixiaLydiPhononic Multi-Diminugmented scale, hey, if I don't leave both of 'em behind (which these days I most likely will), I'll take Murray. Because at least Murray's music is going to have some conveyance of life outside the practice rooms.