JSngry

I've always wondered waht an electric guitar "should" sound like. Or what any instrument "should" sound like for that matter... But when you get into something with as many options for tonal modification as an electric guitar, it seems like whatever tone the individual player gets IS what "it sounds like", and that from there on out, it's just a matter of personally connecting (or not) with the choices that said player has made. The instruments of both Johnny Smith and Chuck Berry "sound like" an electric guitar to my ears, if you know what I mean...

Nothing else need be said!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Scott

Definitely one of the all-time greats, although all-time great whats, I haven't a clue.

Of the two options originally proposed, I'd give the nod to the VV stuff.

Back in the 70s, Peaches Records (remember them?) opened up a store in Dallas, and their "jazz guy" was a transplant from St. Louis, who told stories of a younger Sanborn practicing w/Oliver Lake, showing up at BAG shows, etc. I took those stories w/a grain ofsalt, neither accepting nor dismissing them out of hand. Later "stories" from people I can trust more than some guy in a record store, though, give credence to the portrait of a young Mr. Sanborn having a significantly more varied musical pallate than that of the Smooth/Studio one with which he is commonly associated, and to my mind, goes a long way towards explaining the whys & hows of the finer points of the art that he brings to music which often makes no demands for any.

I wish! But tell you what - take a Sanborn performance like "Try A Little Tenderness" off of PEARLS, listen to it not as "creative music", or as "great jazz", or anything like that, just listen to it as an interpretation of a melody, and then listen to the sheer detail that Sanborn gives to his reading of it, the colorizations, nuances, and "vocal" qualities he gives to a fairly straight reading of the melody, just listen to it like that (because that's all it is, really). Then, if you don't like it, no big deal. but if you can't hear the musicianship (and I'll go so far as to call it artistry) involved in doing something like that, well, you'll still be my friend, , but I would respectfully suggest that you keep listening until you hear it. Sanborn gets no significant props from me as an improvisor (although he's no slouch in that department), but as a pure conveyor of instrumental melody, I think he's one of the outstanding proponents of that art playing today, although more often than not, he doesn't tackle material worthy of his abilities. PEARLS is a good example, though, and although about a quarter of it sheer dreck, the rest of it is excellent for what it is - a lush album of "standards w/strings" that ordinarily would be the province of a vocalist. Sanborn's such a gifted interpreter of melody in this setting that I'd be hard pressed to name a living singer whou could to the job as well as he does. Although, there's a cameo by Jimmy Scott on "For All We Know" that puts that theory to the test!

I'd be down with that as well.

Mister Nessa (or Mr. Litweiler himself) can fill in all these details quite nicely when they get a chance. But I've been telling anybody who'd listen (although not too aggressively...) that Dave Sanborn can freakin' PLAY. Never mind the "production" that too often surrounds him, listen to HIM. The cat can play his instrument QUITE well, and not just technically! Amongst living players, his command of tonal nuance alone is damn near as good as you can get. I could go on, but I've got to protect whatever jazz cred I might still retain...

Perhaps a joint contribution in the name of the Organissimo community can be made to this foundation? Or not. Just throwing out ideas here...

The funny thing is, the Mystery Envelope is totally useless unless one also has the Mystery Stamp that goes with it. Batteries not included.

At least one that's playable...

Good point, Lon. Sometimes, depending on the individual, the beginning is the best place to start. I would, however, advise that if the stuff in this box doesn't "connect" right away, for whatever reason(s), to at least give SPIRITUAL UNTIY and/or some of the currently available Impulse! material a shot before coming to any hard and fast conclusions.

It's the envelope that Mingus sent Knepper.

Look it it this way - once you've covered/digested/etc the stuff that is the best place to start, you'll be ready for this stuff, and you will have it at your ready disposal (and for a sweet price, no less!). "Planning ahead", that is, anticipating where one's tastes may likely go and buying things like this for "future use" is not a bad strategy at all, especially when it comes to music and items such as this, neither of which are exactly "well tended too" in the mainstream marketplace over time.

I'd fully support a "cause of the month" type thing, providing that credible(enough) evidence was offered that these were indeed hard times that the individual in question was suffering, and not just "bad habits" run amock. Not that I'd not like to assist in help in those cases either, but I hope you all know what I mean when I say that trying to help somebody who doesn't want to get better is an exercise in futility, etc...

A lifetime in cheese!

Who IS You?

A little bit sleepy overall, but in a not bad way. Don't know how the cd sounds, but the original lp was one of the best sounding CTIs I've ever heard. In fact, that's the main reason I still pull the thing out every once in a while, to revel in that narcotic sound. Muiscally, it's ok, nothing horrible or anything, but everybody involved has done what is to me more compelling work elsewhere.

Mr. Dolphy makes a good point.

Any reservations about O.P. on the Eldridge (and I, too, had them) will be quickly dispelled upon first listen. That's a great set!

Personally, I think that all the pre-WORKTIME material is just dandy, and worthy of inclusion in any collection.

Isn't she related to the guy who played bass on all the old Motown records? That would make it ok, I'd think.

The love continues to grow, due to the respect doing likewise.

Most of the stuff I hear on the radio today (on "The Oasis") is mass-produced crap with nothing left to chance. Every bit as formulaic as the worst Top 40. But I'm not one to dis instrumental music with strong R&B underpinnings and slick production values out of hand. There was a time when you could have that and still produce interesting music if you had players and producers who were so inclined. It CAN be done, I just don't hear it being done much today. Not that I'm actively looking for examples, mind you. But you take something like Grover's WINELIGHT album, and hey...Is it "heavy"? No, of course not. But it's enteratining, and it's not dumb music. Nive changes, good production, a great deal of textural/instrumental variety in the percussion and in the arranging, just a "nice listen", period. And there have been a fair number of other examples over the years. I have no problems whatsoever with a "nice listen" as part of a well-rounded musical diet. Although, I DO wish they would change the word "Smooth" to a noun instead of an adjective. You know, call it "Smoothjazz" instead of "Smooth Jazz".