JSngry

Details, please?!?!?!?!?!?!

LPs don't count, eh? Age discrimination!

Whatever is is that you're not getting, I'm not getting it either. How these guys get lumped together with MMW is beyond me. Then again, some people lump Count Basie and Harry James together, so I guess it just goes to show ya'...

The early "east coast" recordings were very "unwhite". You can't be talking about those. Then he moved to California............................................. ← Not having heard those, I can't comment on the music, but in terms of personnel, the inclusion of Jaki Byard on the Candid & the New Jazz is telling, I think. They were associates in Maynard's band, right? And they both had this thing of openly/specifically referencing older styles, as opposed to Ornette's referencing of the feel of them, Cecil's abstraction of them, and Trane's remodeling of them (I'm basing this on what I've heard of Ellis from this time outside of these recordings). This was pretty much at odds with the prevailing trends of the East Coast "avant-garde" jazz scene of the time, Mingus notwithstanding. Byard, of course, could do what he did without his "authenticity" being questioned. Ellis, for obvious reasons, could not. Not that such questions shouldn't be asked, mind you. None of this is as neat as I'm making it out to be, obviously, but a guy like Ellis was highly unlikely to find a lot of black players who were into exactly what he was into at that particular time. Factor in the extra-musical social circumstances of the time, and it's kind of an "against the odds" thing that he got to make those records with the players he did, I think, and definitely understandable why his NYC band that Mike refers to was mostly (all?) white. Then, as you say, he moved to California.............................................

I doubt it was preference, nor do I think it was coincidental. I'd bet that it was more or less a "social" thing, players of like interests and backgrounds coming together and feeling a rapport. The jazz world back then was very "cliquish", and not necessarily maliciously. Guys like Ellis were totally outside the mainstream in terms of industry "support systems". This is the pre-big band period I'm talking about. Lots of different "avant-garde" movements were afoot then. It was hardly a monolithic movement. So you find some guys to play your music that you feel comfortable working with, and you stick together in order to stay together with your own thing. This isn't segregation or racism, there's no malevolent intent. It's simple survival skills. And it was practiced by blacks and whites alike. Now, if you're talking the big-band days, well, those charts were so wack that, yeah, some pretty heavy duty reading chops were required, and L.A., being home to all the studio stuff, had its own network of such players, most of whom were white. When you're putting a big band together, networking is how it gets done. And remember - Ellis' was a touring band, or at least was attempting to be one. So a certain level of committment was most likely expected out of the players. Once you got the gig, I'm sure you were expected to hang. Plus - look at the black L.A. avant-garde of the time - Tapscott, Bradford, etc. Totally different music in terms of both style and "intent". I doubt there was much of an intersection of either musical or personal interests, at least not enough to make for a fruitful professional, ongoing musical interaction. That's perhaps even more relevant - who can you get to play your music who wants to play it? Sometimes "divisions" happen for totally natural reasons. Sometimes.

Well, they're not recording any less either... Ok, point well-taken. Btw - I've got about half of the Hi-Los Spotlite stuff on CD. The other half has remained elusive, maybe not even on CD at all. Whatcha' got? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to sidetrack this thread.

I hear ya', Chuck. Coming of age in jazz when, where, and how I did, those Ellis big-band sides were some hot shit. But then the shit cooled once I got into other things. Still, I've re-warmed to the best of them. Nothing like re-warmed shit. Comfort food for the Stage Band Generation!

And speaking of Don Heckman (yes, the L.A. critic), does his playing appear on record anywhere besides the excerpts heard on John Benson Brooks' Avant-Slant? I'm not counting BS&T 4, of course(?).

That NYC band really sounds interesting. I confess to not being familiar w/Ellis' Prestige (New Jazz?) & Candid albums. I am familiar with his work w/Mingus, Russell, & Ferguson, but viewed it as "interesting", and not too much more. If those other albums are along the lines of Essence, then it's been my loss. "Johnny come Lately" by itself was a shock, with Ellsi using harmonic concepts that just weren't in the air at the time (or more accurately, were just beginning to come into the air). Imagine a Dizzy-like tone with a Woody Shaw-esque harmonic sense, sorta. WHOA! Everything else that followed was an equally pleasant surprise. Definitely a most pleasant surprise.

Thanks!

Cuscuna's liner notes refer to that set as if it has already been issued! They also refer to as Essence as Ellis' "last recording as a leader". Surely he means last small-group recording. What has he been smoking?

And then? The cat PLAYS!

If the info on the Don Ellis release is any indication, Mighty Quinn is directly connected to/with EMI.

No, I repeat, no "gimmickry" at all (and only a little "self-consciousness" in the "experiments"), Paul Bley & Gary Peacock in outstanding early-60s form, a drummer named Gene Stone who I'd never heard of, but who sounds like one playin' motherfukker, a version of "Johnny Come Lately" that is damn near revelatory (and which cooks like a big dog), all of it recorded hard, loud, and clear, and all of it from 1962 (even though everything on here would still sound "modern" in 1972, or even 1982. Most of it even in 1992). My interest in getting this disc was mostly to check out Bley & Gary Peacock. I wasn't really sure what to expect out of Ellis, but it sure wasn't this. Those with conservative/purely "traditional" tastes will not be at all interested (but those whose tastes begin w/AACM-ish and beyond type material will be). Everybody else, check it out. Recommended, and enthusiastically.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Hi-Los' Spotlite sides kick the Freshman's ass all the way to town, back again, and around the corner out into the alley. ATTENTION MUST BE PAID!!!

But what about the Proper Box of Quartet Out? ← That would be highly Im-Proper, and in more ways than one!

You should get the Mosaic because it's legit and because it's a treasure.

Or if you must, avoid the fat parts.

Yep. It's fine. "Mendacity" continues to ring true...

No, it's just that dress.

Hey - start your won thread!

Good grits is like that.

Truthfully, I think that anybody who can't relate to any kind of vocal music has intimacy issues. Men are famous for that, btw. Just my opinion, nothing personal, and I could be wrong. But there it is.

Perhaps the true answer... ← I certainly thought so.

I don't know about that. To varying degrees, you could say the same about Max & Dizzy. But they didn't have the Status Of Cultural Icon that Miles did. Let's face it - Miles had a personal and musical charisma that bred cult status, which was/is ably (and when he was alive, willingly) exploited for commercial ends. He knew the effect he had on people, and he put it to work. and the work continues posthumously. "Bye Bye Backbird"? That quality of combined yearning, disdain, vulnerability, and invincibilty conveyed through an unnaturally intimately recorded, Harmon-muted trumpet is something that very few artists in any genre produce. Competent jazz musicians abounded in that era, and truly great ones produced truly great art. But few projected as "complex" a personality in their music as did Miles. Now, there are those who find little, if any, appeal to Miles' playing. Fair enough. But many more do, and probably many more find themselves being attracted to more than "just" the music. And I don't think you can easily discount this, because hype only goes so far. It'll get'em in the door, but it won't keep'em there. People who don't buy the hype often seek to discount its object, but the fact remains - people respond to it on an ongoing basis. Whether they "understand" or not is not the point. They respond, which is. If they don't continue to respond over time, you have a fad. If they do, you have an Icon. Miles, like him/it or not, is an Icon. If you want to know/understand why, you have to look beyond "just" the music. Yes, the Columbia machinery sold/sells it. And yes, Miles himself greatly contributed to its creation. But it definitely exists. What is "it"? That's the qustion originally asked, whether or not the poster realizes it. And "it" is only partially concerned with the technical specifics of the music. If you really want to know the answer, be prepared to do a lot of psychoanalyzing and such, both of "the masses" and of yourself. Enjoy THAT trip... And if you don't like singers, FUGGIDABOUTIT!