JSngry

There was an early 70s Groove Merchant side w/a big band arranged by Manny Albam that is at least as good as any of the Capitol sides I've heard. It's been reissued on various labels over the years.

Again, this is not solid information, but I really don't recall any Trip albums being issued as early as 1974. 1975 or 76 would be the earliest, Again, that's just my memeory.

Interesting that none of the discographies make mention of the added horn section, which suggest to me that they're just reprinting whatever info was on the LP w/o ever actually listening to it. I suppose that's how it's done, right? Almost has to be, with so much stuff out there. No other mention of other Canyon releases in the discographies?

Ok, this leads to another question that may or may not be suitable for a thread of its own - during the post Lion/pre-Butler years, BN released a lot of albums that used "third party" producers (that is to say, people besided Wolff & Duke Pearson), of which Monk Higgins was but one. Does anybody know if these albums & producers were contracted by BN in advance, or did these producers do "spec" work which they then sold/leased/whatever to BN for release? Also, in doing web research, I see that Canyon 27 is a 45 of "My Cherie Amour" b/w "Flipped" http://www.vepo-music.com/v-recs/v-45/t-45.html [EDIT: Mike got there before me, and w/more!] Various web sites give the release date of the Canyon LP as 1970, 1971, or 1974. but the catalog # of 7701 suggests 1977, which would jibe w/my memories of when I started seeing it in the stores. But that's pretty shaky grounds for any sort of conclusion, I'll tell you that right now.

So the Trip album (which I don't remember ever seeing) has 6 different cuts? Do they seem to be similar in orientation? Any info on what they are, and how long they might be? 1974 would seem to be when the album might have been released. but 69-70 definitely seems a more likely recording period. That this might be a "bootleg" of an aborted/unused/whatever Turrentine/Higgins BN collaboration is becoming an increasingly attractive notion to my perhaps overactive imagination. It's difficult for me to imagine that Turrentine had a stretch where he was w/o a contract. Monk Higgins was doing production work for BN during this time, so it seems possible that he might've done a project w/Turrentine. How it would've slippied through the cracks and either not been finished or released and/or ended up being booted on Canyon is a different matter though. No other info on the Canyon label?

Used to see this album in the stores back inthe 70s, never could make sense of it. Odd label, odd tunes (or so it seemed then, this was before I knew about some of the late BN stuff), funky L.A. session cats like Paul Humphrey, Freddie Robinson, King Ericcson, Wilton Felder (on bass) etc., seem to remember Monk Higgins name on there too, I dunno, it just seemed "unofficial" or something, and not really something of interest to a "jazz purist" as I was then pretending to be. So I skipped over it many times. Fast-forward 25 or so years. I find a copy of the Drive Archives reissue of this side for $4.99, figure "what the hell", picked it up, and it ain't bad. Nothing even remotely "essential", lots of, ahem, "unlikely" tunes ("Wedding Bell Blues"!), and everything around the 3:00 range, but the grooves are pretty solid, and Turrentine's playing the shit with full conviction and plenty of vigah. Priced right, I'd say, and a fin well spent. all things considered. My question is this - how did this set come to be. Seems to have been from 1969(?), and from between T's BN & CTI contracts. My guess is that he was in L.A. for a spell, hooked up w/Monk Higgins (sure sounds like his trip) and laid some tracks. What I'm wondering is if this was a "real" album, or something released after Turrentine became more popular. Maybe it's some rough tracks for a Higgins-produced BN (or other label) session that never got off the ground? A cut or two has slicker sound, and at least one has a horn section added. Maybe it was a "spec" production that fell by the wayside after T hooked up w/CTI? Just guessing here. What kind of label was Canyon, anyway. Did they release anything else? Also, the sound on the Drive Archives CD is pretty rough, as if these were cuts that had not been fully mixed and mastered. On one cut, "I'll Take You All The Way There" (a really gritty tune & performance, btw, stone cold Southern Soul down-tempo thing all the way), there's a significant loss of high frequencies, a quality I instinctively identify with a tape that's been dubbed and redubbed so many times that the question of "generation" enters the over-20 range. Not having heard the original(?) Canyon LP, I don't know if this cut is on there, or if Drive Archives added it/found it/stole it/whatever, but on an already rough sounding collection of tunes making up a release I've always suspected of being "shady", it stands out as being even more "questionable" than the rest. Too bad, because it's a fine little slice of Soul. The rest of the album, while not being a lost classic or anything, certainly doesn't suck by any stretch of the imagination, at least not within the parameters it sets up for itself. But it just doesn't sound "legit", if you know what I mean. Any facts/rumors/whatever about either this album or the Canyon label would be appreciated. As always. thanks in advance.

Thanks, Marty. As far as Moody, all I have is what is mentioned in the liner esssay, augmented by second-hand info from a quite reliable source. Since Moody is still alive, and since I personally dig the shit out of his playing on the date in question, forgive me if I don't "spill any beans" that I have no real right to spill. I will say that it's nothing "scandalous" or anything like that, just a "real life" scenario that I'd have not even thought twice about had the liner essay not hinted at it in the first place.

It was a great idea that Chuck had, which is why I stole it. As for the "convetnional wisdon", that was based on my experience among "general" jazz fans, those who for whatever reason "hit the highlights" of name artists (and truthfully, by that standard, the Savoy material could have been left out, but thee's enough of those fans who have checked out at least some og the Savoy material - when it's been available - that I left it in for "flow" purposes). Those type fans don't really know about the Steeplechase/Black Lion albums, at lleast not in any depth. For that, you can blame "importism" for the former and "budgetlabelphobia" for the latter, I think. Again, that's just based on my experience. As for the Columbia material - that is, after all, where/when all the big hype happened (remember "Bebop is the music of the future"? Yeah, of course it is... ), and the after-effect of that hype lingers on today. Not to say that the hype wasn't justified (god knows it was a beautiful thing to see unfold in real time), jsut that Dexter was actually receiving "star treatment", and that time defintiely made an impact on peole who wouldn't ordinarily ahve bothered with finding out who Dexter Gordon was, much less delving into his catalog. Actually, I think that the first three Columbia albums are none too bad - Homecoming is a mixed bag, to be sure, but when it's good, which is fairly often, it's damn good (and IIRC, it played a part in the signing of Woody Shaw to Columbia, but I'm not totally sure about that); Sophisticated Giant is solid, if nothing spectacular; and Manhattan Symphonie is a stone classic in my book, one of Dexter's very best records, period. After that, things began to go downhill, but, also, after that is when the hype began to subside - not too many people remember Gotham City today, but not too many people paid attention to it then, either, at least not in comparison to the action of a few years earlier. So its those first three Columbia sides that seem to come into play in the "conventional wisdom". and overall, I think the conventional wisom is sound, if by no means complete. So sure, the Black Lion & Steeplechase material is primo stuff, but I think you're more likely to find it known amongst the "deeper" fans than the "general ones> Thus my specific laying out of the conventional wisdom, as well as the recognition of the wisdom of Chuck's suggestion and its subsequent utilization.

Thanks. You can thank Chuck Nessa for suggesting a mention of the Black Lion & Steeplchase stuff. A damn good idea, and one that I was going to overlook for no good reason. So give credit where credit's due.

To Kat - Bob James did a lot of very good stuff in the 70s. It was clever, extremely well produced, the arranging paid a lot of attention to color and shading, and he used some of the best players in the business, who gave everything an undeniable groove. I like a whole lot of that stuff even today. But hey - it ain't "jazz" as most of us here know and love it. It's something else with different goals, socialy as well as musically, and when I say that I like it, that's all I need to say. I don't need to try to call it something that it ain't. I've got the courage of my convictions to say that I like a whole lot of shit that, objectively, is pretty damn insignificant relative to the future of humanity and all that. I know that, and don't pretend otherwise. I like it (and admit to liking it) because something in it brings me a certain type of pleasure (not for nothin' was the phrase "ear candy" invented...), I know why I like it, I know it's relative "importance" in the grand scheme of things, and at the end of the day, I still know what's waht and who's who. No illusions and/or delusions. Spyro Gyra was a staple of people and places who also favored Michael Franks (who I have no use for), and in their time of peak popularity, they certainly would have been labeled a "smooth jazz" band, except that the term hadn't been invented yet. But I can tell you that their records were staples of fern bars, otganic grocery stores, chi-chi restaurants, unisex hair salons, and all sorts of places where their type of music enhanced the atmosphere. Not that that proves anything, but it's the case nevertheless. Like what you like, but geez, if ever a band could ne cakked a "prototypical smmoth jazz band", it' s Spyro Gyra. That only presents a problem is you're unwilling to admit to yourself that you like certain smooth jazz, in which case, the problem is with you, not with those who (rightly, imo) are pointing out to you that yeah, the players have all got chops, yeah thier material often incorporates lots of different influences, and that, yeah, they'reprobably one of the better smooth jazz bands. Why don't you just admit it 0 you like certain smooth jazz/pop jazz, and be done with it. Hell, I've said as much before in these fora, and will do so again. Don't like much of it, but there's some of it that's good. No big deal. Now, if you go off and start claiming that Jay Beckenstein is the most powerful saxophone voice of his generation, or something wack like that, then yeah, the punishment will be brutal. But dude - it's ok to like stuff that's not considered "hip". Just know why you like it, keep the shit in perspectivem and don't get so hung up on it that you lose sight of the bigger picture.

You left off the exclamation points. Don Schlitten is gonna getcha for that.

But.....reservations are expressed, so you do have a choice!

Not necessarily...

Well, shit. I never did meet Benny Bailey, but I dug him nevertheless.

Them sunglasses is the wrong shape for her head, her elbows is dented, and tan does not compliment her skin tone. The chick's got no sense of style. Give me Nicole Kidman any day, hairdo-to-face-shape schizoidial madness notwithstanding.

Happy Birthda y!

They do what they do really well. I just don't care for what they do.

As good a guess as any!

Archie Shepp - For Losers (Impulse). After close to 30 years, still quite possibly my favorite Shepp record. Discraceful that it's never been on CD anywhere, at least not that I know of.

You dog!

Has to be.

Used to be that a good light bulb would last and last and last. Now it seems like they burn out if you so much as look at them funny (and I do...). What gives? The three leading brands suck. Phillips, the best of the batch, offers what what once would have been considered average life span. Plus, thier bulbs are not as widely carried as other brands in the usual outlets like grocery stores and harware emporiums. GE, well, let's just say they bring good things to life and then leave 'em there for somebody else to take home. Yuck. Sylvania? Might as well use candles and kerosene lanterns. The light may be dimmer, but it'll last longer. I know that there's genuine "long life" bulbs that really do provide a long and illuminatory life, but geez - all major brand light bulbs used to do that. Plus, these good bulbs are only available at specialty lighting stores (in this neck of the woods, anyway), and that means a "special trip" just to buy some freakin' light bulbs. Please, my time is too expensive, and I'm not your little boy. Anybody else fed up with the decline of the consumer light bulb in America? I tell you, I've just about had it up to here with this crap. Can't cost that much more to make a decent consumer-level light bulb. It just can't. Into the socket is not the only way that these sorry muthophukkin cheapass lightbulbs are participating in the screwing of the American consumer. Thank you for your time.

Thanks for the kind words. Not to appear obsessive or anything, but I did some fixing/rewriting of some portions of the review, and think it's now better. Thanks to Joe Milazzo for facilitating a second chance. It's still here: http://www.bagatellen.com/archives/reviews/000887.html and that, as they say, is that.

82 is a good run for anybody, and Percy HEath's run was a damn good one. So, although I will miss his presence as a still-great living link to a day gone by, I can't curse the inevitable, and will instead celebrate his legacy, which is indeed immense. R.I.P., Percy Heath, and much thanks!