JSngry

Makes sense to me, but not everybody responds positively to this type of "impressionistic" anaylsis. There was a similar (and heated) discussion along the same lines about Larry Kart's book here recently. I share most of Mr. Kart's & Mr. Litweiller's reactions to the music they discuss, so it's not a problem for me personally to "get" what they mean. But everybody's different, and not even everybody who digs the stuff is going to her/feel it the way they do. And so it goes. All I can say is listen to the music in question long enough to get really familiar with it, and then see if your impressions/reactions match up in any way, shape, or form, to Mr. Litweiller's. If they do, great. If they don't, hey, that's great too. At least he got you to listen to, and to seriously think about and feel something about, the music!

Just discovering Wiley myself, and haven't heard any of the studio sides yet. But there's an Uptown cd of braodcasts from 1951-52 that is certainly fine, and has whet the appetite for more. As for Connor, I'm not a fan myself, so maybe my affection for the Atlantic album she did w/Maynard's band (NOT the Roulette one!) is not shared by those who are. But I think it's a wonderful album - great charts (two of Willie Maiden's finest ever are included), everybody swings freely and exuberantly, and Maynard's high notes are in service to the music. It's the one Connor album I've found entirely to my liking, and not just because the charts and band are so good - I like her singing here, too. Reissued by Collector's Choice, and should be easily available though mail-order/online outlets: Haven't yet heard the CD, but the original LP was splendidly recorded.

Oh -maybe I got that wrong.. I thought it didn't sell as well (certainly not as well as Innvervisions)... was Boogie On Reggae Woman one of the hits? Can't think what the other hit would be... Yes. The other was "You Haven't Done Nothin'", fall of 1974. A perfectly timed anthem. "Creepin'" is one of my favorites as well (as well as a lot of my cohorts who bought the album at the time, and remains a "jazz favorite" amongst those of us who cover Wonder's songs from time to time). but was never, to my knowledge released as a single. Luther Vandross, of course did have a huge hit R&B single with it, although I don;t know if it "crossed over" into the pop charts or not.

He did have one (or more?) out on Verve back then, though, didn't he?

There was a self-produced/issued Wilkerson 45 of unspecified date that may pre- or post-date the BB session.

Examples, perhaps?

I'm thinking that the ass-kicking was of the musical type only.

Dude, you're beginning to sound like you're Clem & Sonny's Francis Davis!

Oh god, no, NOT more "projects". I HATE "projects". You create "special" music for a "special" occasion/event/session, whatever, and then what? Back to whatever you were doing beforehand. It's about as non-organic a concept of music as there is, I think, no matter how spectacular some of the results have been. Cecil & Max? GREAT freakin' project, and great music as a result. But other than an helluva great album, what's left of it? I'd hardly call leading a working band, no matter the whos and whats, for over 30 years now squandering one's opportunities, nor would I say that of placing one's self in the position to pretty much call one's own shots in terms of work scheduling and recording. If anything, given the realities of the jazz economy over that period, I'd call that capitalizing on one's opportunities, at least in terms of having control over your own life, which I truly suspect goes quite a ways towards the root of many of thee "questionable" decisions. Bandleading is a pain in the ass, period. Doesn't matter who you got working for you. I'd think that if I was Rollins, I'd reach a point in my life where what I'd be looking for in a road unit is cats who just don't get in my way, period, personally or musically. You've reached the point where you can play waht you want to play with or without assistance of anything other than internal inspiration, right? So why get tangles up in all the non-musical bandleading hassles when you can do what you want to do without them? Besides, you make a spectacular record or two with a bunch of heavyweights, then you can't get them out on the road for any length of time, and then what? A lot of energy, hype, and, probably, personal aggrevation for what? Fame? Glory? Personal accomplishment? Hell, you already GOT that. Besides, what's any of that got to do with playing the tenor? And as far as records go, this is a guy, remember, who more than once caused a great deal of stir because of his records, and apparently, the stir was not to his liking. So, look at it like this - you're Sonny Rollins, you've got a reputation of mythical proportions to live up to, you love playing but not necessarily bandleading, and you're spooked as hell about recording, both the process itself and the public/critical reaction afterwards. Whatcha' gonna do to keep your life where you want it to be? I'd say you do pretty much what he's done - get a band that doesn't get in his way, and make records that keep the name in the public but don't cause any kind of a stir, and save the real shit for where it really counts - playing in the moment of a gig, where you're playing for (and in) the moment, nothing else matters, and you only have to live with the triumphs (and failures) until the next downbeat. I could be wrong, but it makes perfect sense to me. It only doesn't make sense if you think in "typical" terms of "career", "legacy" and shit like that, which ultimately, in some form or fashion, means relenquishing control of your life to forces that may or may not be what you really want out of your life. That Rollins has found a way to have it his way in this most personal of regards is no small triumph, I should think. Very few people in any walk of life have been able to do this. I'd say that Sonny's found a way to stay on the bridge (and all that implies) w/o having to retire from public life. More power to him.

On the other hand,

He did an album w/Roy Hargrove.

Really?? Nothing wrong with show-biz?? So if a guy – or rather a band - plays three sets in one night... Excuse me - I mean three "shows" ...then one shouldn't be surprised if all three "shows" have identical set-lists?? (Or I guess they should be called "show-lists" then. ) Or even the same for just two "shows" in one night?? I can understand repeating a tune or two across "shows" (especially if a couple of them are signature tunes). That's to be expected. But to repeat the same set show again, with all of the exact same tunes (and in the same order ) -- seems pretty darn lazy if you ask me. Do these musicians not know any standards?? Also begs the question, do they play the exact same show, every night, in every town, night after night?? Is the order of the solos identical every night?? Are the solos particularly similar from "show" to "show"??? Doesn't seem to be what jazz is all about. The idea of a "show" somehow seems more appropriate for a cabaret act or something -- not jazz. I mean, it's not like there's some elaborate light show that has to be synched to the music. Nope, nothing at all wrong with show business, not if you do it right. Not my bag personally, and lord knows it's a concept that's been whored out as much as anything can be, but the washed out whore was once a beautiful lady of immeasurable style and grace, and those who can remember/respect that still walk amongst us. As for what jazz is "supposed" to be, the notion that every night is supposed to be different every time out is a wondeful one, but, in the words of the song, it ain't necessarily so, nor has it ever been universally so. And we're talking about some great players, too. Here's the question - if you had only seen the one Lou Donaldson set/show, would you have left feeling entertained, uplifted, and, at some level, enriched? If the answer is "yes", then hey - mission accomplished, and ain't nobody's business what he do otherwise. That's between him and himself.

Did GREAT with Grimes & Ware. But that was Grimes & Ware...

Same reason that the Hodges/Carter alto tone "thinned out" - the detail of the older tone wouldn't necessarily be there when the line moved faster and/or with the more "bobbing & weaving" accents of bebop. Same thing happened with pretty much all the instruments. Really, I don't hear it so much as "thinning out" (lots of bop & hard bop players on all instruments had nice fat tones) as much as morphing or shape-shifting.. If you think of music in "physics" terms, then a musical expression can be seen as potential energy turned kinetic, and like all kinetic energy, the tendency is to eventually find the most efficient form of release. Tone is one part of that, a big part, so a tone that best allows the energy to emerge in its most effecient shape is desireable. Energy spent on a tone that is "too big" for the other parts of the expression is energy that comes at the expense of the other factors at play within that expression . Sorry, words are failing me now, but I hope that I'm communicating the gist of the idea.

I think there's a 1972(?) interview in Down Beat where Rollins expresses much the same feelings about bandleading, and he backdates his feelings to the mid-1960s.

Yep.

That's easy for you professional tenor players to say! Wanna bet?

That is correct. Sorry we won't see you on the 18th, but if you can make it out to hear Flipside, by all means do so!

That's genial!

Shows. Remember, it's shows, not sets.

Ok, but is he a genius?

Well, that would give you the Sonny Rollins that you want to hear, but would it give Sonny Rollins the Sonny Rollins that he wants to hear? Not that that resolves anything, mind you. But the cat can still play, hey, so whatever makes him feel like playing is what he should go for, imo. If "we" don't like it, we can get our own band and play what we wish he would play the way we wish he would play it.

Nah. It's show-biz. Cat doesn't do sets, he does "shows". Nothing wrong with that, either.

Dannie Richmond?

The shape of a good clarinet tone is at odds with the shape of a good bebop line. One of'em's gonna get clipped, no matter how good the player or the line is. If it don't fit, don't force it. But some people did anyways. Just my opinion.