JSngry

I don't visit the rat thread too often just because it's so...long. And "self-contained". Love the music though (lots of it anyway), and would personally prefer that it come out of the rat closet and into the rest of the board. Anybody who's not inclined will probably stay away from any thread about something they don't like, and a curious type or two just might pick up some hints. Now, if it's a "social" thing, hey, cool. But if it's mostly about the music, treat it like what it is - music of today by musicians of today. No need to hide it as far as I'm concerned. Which of the pre-existing forums, by definition, would newer music of this type NOT be appropraite in? None that I can see.

It's not a lip thing as much as it is a throat thing.

You got liner notes? COOL! I only have an old Apple LP "from the times". No liners, nothing. By "Beatles influence" though, I didn't mean hands on, just that "reflection of the times" that your liners refer too. A "general" influence.

Whatever band Henry Threadgill's got together now. I saw the "world premere" (I think) of the original Sextet at the Chicago Underground Festival in 1981, but that was a looooooooooooong time ago. I'd like to see Von Freeman too. And Steve Coleman's band. I'd like to see lots of people, actually. Maybe I should move. We don't get to see shit here anymore except ourselves, and we already know that.

El Rey & Senor Clemente speak for me as well.

I never saw him live, but several locals did (notably Shelley Carroll & Roger Boykin), and they both commented on how he had some keys corked shut. Shelley said that he tried to get an "up close" look but wasn't able to, although he did think that he saw the right-hand side-C key altered in some way. I've tried to figure out how that alone could make any real difference, but with no luck. So I'm thinking there's more to it than that, has to be. Then there's the Johnny Griffin interview on the Mel Martin site where Griff talks about this. Again, though, no specifics. I've got the Storyville video that I haven't looked at yet. Maybe that will yield some insight. But yeah, fascinating stuff indeed, and still a "mystery" of sorts. Maybe James Carter's got it scoped, but he's about the only one I can think of who would.

It all depends oin the context/environment ad how you want to play to/in that. Sometimes it's best to wait and begin fresh, sometimes it's best to jump right on in and bump the whole thing up a notch. It all depends. Again, that's the beauty of this music - when it's being done "right", it's part of a living, breathing organism that involves more, a LOT more, than just some players playing. It involves the audience, the collective vibe of the room and everybody in it, the unspoken message that the musicians are conveying (and the similarly but often less unspoken message about what the audience is wanting/needing to recieve), just all kinds of things other than the music itself, which is really just a tool. Read the situation right, and the audience becomes as much a part of the music as the players do, and that's a beautiful thing. Every, EVERY move has a consequence for everybody involved (and that includes the audience, definitely), and the more attuned the players (and audience) to what those consequences are, the more "living" the music is. And the more "living" the music is, the more appealing it is for everybody concerned.

Another type of false-fingering involves using an open fingering (one that leaves a lot of keys unclosed) to produce a note that is ordinarily produced with a closed one, and vice versa. You can also use a standard fingering and open/close other keys (or just one key) that keeps the pitch just about the same but alters the timbre. A good example would be Yusef Lateef's using of the open left-hand palm keys (keys which are "supposed" to be used for the upper octave) w/o the octave key to get the same pitch an octave lower, whch produces a timbre that is marvelously suited for that "moaning" quality that he exploits to such a distinctive advantage. These might best be considered as "alternate fingerings", though, since there's no real "tricking" of the instrument going on per se. Also, as far as I know, the first person to really use them on a tenor (or maybe even a saxophone, period) in jazz was Lester Young. That alternating "oooh-aaah" sound he got from the same note is an example of alternating open and closed fingerings of the same note, or of keeping a standard fingering and adding/removing a key (or keys) that keeps the pitch but alters the timbre. But he did a lot of other things as well, not all of them immediately obvious. Getting the notes of his solos is just the beginning - he used so many different fingerings that in order to figure out what he really played, you gotta deal with the fingerings as well. And don't even open up the fingering can of worms that is Lockjaw Davis. This guy actually corked some of his key shut so they wouldn't/couldn't work, and then he took it from there. I don't have the specifics (yet), but it's obvious that he kinda had his own "homemade" fingering system. That's the only way that you can get some of the sounds he got - "non-traditional" fingerings.

And maybe the little tape speed manipulation thing that opens the album.

I have both of those (Jazz) Crusaders albums on Chisa (one was their last as the Jazz Crusaders, the secong their first as just The Crusaders), as well as what I'm guessing is a first pressing (but a well-worn used one) of SAN FRANCISO, and am going with Mike all the way on this one. The two Sample tunes on the two Crusaders albums correspond with their respective titles (although, I haven't pulled out, much less listened to, PASS THE PLATE in over 30 years, until just now, because it's really not very good at all, at least as I remember it) on the LP label. Consider this a confirmation, if you need one. LP running order as given on the label (and posted earlier by B Frank) must be considered correct (they fucked it up on the LP jacket as well): SIDE ONE: 1 - Goin' Down South 2 - Prints Tie 3 - Jazz SIDE TWO: 1 - Ummh 2 - Procession 3- A Night In Barcelona

I think I have every Air album (as well as every Threadgill album). If not all, then darn close to it. Henry's a modern giant. Air was one of the greatest bands of its time. I think you'd have to consider them for the "all time" list, that's how strong (and significant) they were. The two Black Saint New Air albums get high props from me, as do AIR TIME, the aforementioned Antilles album and the Arista/Novus OPEN AIR SUITE. The last one in particular is "above and beyond". Really, though, if you dig Air/Threadgill at all, I think it wuld be safe to adopt a "buy on sight" rule. I have, and have yet to be disappointed.

It's all music/ Why make it easier to ignore by segregating it?

Well, if by "band" you mean instrumentalists, no. The original session players were more than sympathetic to Brian (check out "George Fell Into His French Horn"). But if you mean the vocalists, well, yeah I'm sure that not having to do battle with all that mess was one less nut to crack. But really, I think it's just that this Darian Sahanaja cat came up with the brilliant strategy of asking Brian to put the songs into suitable shape for public performance rather than to "finish SMILE", and Brian got into it from there. Then when Parks got involved, the deal was probably sealed. From what I read, everything w/Brian is a mind game. He's rudimentally sane and functional, apparently, but definitely not "easy" or "predictable". I really don't think he could have finished this thing before now. WAAAY too much going on back then, and too much darkness since. I'd be the last person to try and figure out what mental permutaions went on inside his mind to let him allow himself to do this now. I'm just thankful that it happened. Now, if only a joint tour of SMILE and Parks' SONG CYCLE could be put together, well, then we'd have world peace.

I'm very slowly but very surely checking Parker out, and haven't heard anything yet that has been less than superb.

At the risk of appearing obsessed, I'd like to say that I listened to this another times last night and twice again this morning. The more I listen to it, the more the various interconnections (musically AND lyrically) reveal themselves, and the more I marvel in/at them. "Masterpiece" is a too-easily used word for pop records that offer deep and immediate gratification. The immediate part is what pop is supposed to do, and if it's really good, the deep part gets covered too. A real masterpiece continues to reveal itself over time and provoke/provides a variety of responses and interpretations while doing so. Although it's way to early in the game to know if SMILE will do that, the early indicators are that they will. That entire second movement alone goes to so many places (again, musically and lyrically) within itself, yet the overall theme is never lost, no matter what subthemes reveal themselves. The whole album is like that too. I'll not (yet...) bore anybody with what I'm getting out of the lyrics, other than to say that it seems to be a tale of "heroes and villians" being the same people, an odyssey of the American spirit placed in terms of a man who is overcome by wonderlust, who "leaves a trail" along the way, and whose "trailmarks" find themselves following in their father's footsteps (and knowing Brian's history now as we do, anytime there's father imagery this strong, you gotta wonder...), whether they want to (or are even aware of it) or not. You can get into on a literal level, a spiritual level, a metaphorical level, at almost any level it seems. Or, you can maybe see it as something else entirely. Whatever. No matter. Van Dyke Parks might be "difficult" as a pop lyricist (although I personally think he just requires paying attention and an abilty to go with the flow), but he is not inconsequential. I'm sure that there will be some who will listen to this work once or twice like they would any other pop record and shrug it off with a "ok, yeah, whatever". That would be a mistake, because this is not a record suitable for quick absorption. There's too may layers (yet again, musically and lyrically) to get with just one or two casual listenings. Maybe that means that this ain't a pop record, maybe it means that it's an art record that uses the veneer of pop as it's reference point. Whatever... One thing's for sure - this is no longer an an artifact of the long passed past, like the various bootleg compilations were (frankly, they have no been rendered totally obsolete, afaic, as anything other than documentary curios). This is a work of NOW, a truly contemporary work that, ironically, loses in the "delay" of its completion what it gains in it's relevance to things beyond its timeframe. It's beautiful, and it's deep (how deep remains to be seen, but it's definitely deep enough to keep the diggers busy for a while). What more can you ask for?

It wasn't as much his clothes as it was the hair and the crazed look on his face. Could you see Bob Brookmeyer starring in The Shining? Well, you can now!

UNDER THE JASMINE TREE is a "typical" MJQ album. SPACE is not.

I'm sticking to the synthesizer line myself. Not that it matters, because it doesn't. But you asked me. Agree w/Mike about Woody. As for the whole "influence=innovation" line of argument, well, maybe, often enough, but ultimately, no. Unless coming up with a unique synthesis is an innovation unto itself, and one peson at least has overtly said it is. But... I don't know. The original post was poised in the form of a question about some comments read in some liner notes, so to get back to THAT - yeah, those albums were highly studied (and in band terms, yeah, slightly "innovative" in their own way, but even that was more a matter of synthesis than true innovation), and most likely still are. But I think that what appealed to everybody who studied them was the synthesis element. Here was a way to play "in" and "out" at the same time, and a LOT of people were looking for a way to do that - the hard bop language had worn itself out in terms of contemporarity, but the avant-garde was just too far beyond many people's grasp and/or interest. So here's Joe, showing people how you can take a bit of Trane's modality, a little bit of Bird's swing, a little bit of the Lennie&Lee&Warne harmonic and rhythmic omnidirectionality, a little bit of the R&B grit, and a little bit of everything else that was out there and put it all together into one coherent style. It was a great synthesis, still is, but it didn't really create anything new in and of itself, except for, like I said earlier, some of the mechanics involved, and again, even those can be traced back to somewhere else. They were developed and personalized, sure, but that's not the same as "innovating". But it sure gave a lot of players a new "comfort zone" that they hadn't had before. And yes, all worthy innovations DO come out of something else. But - a true innovation pushes the music forward, and I think that what Joe's music did was to push the music sideways, to give it room to grow and accomodate all the "forward" innovations, to give them a chance to find there footing in what would eventually become the new "mainstream". Same thing for Woody (and the Larry Young of UNITY while we're at it) - he took Freddie's root style, confronted it with Trane's bag, and found his own thing as a composer AND as a trumpeter. But it was an offshoot of Trane all the way. Trane was the true "innovator". You could rightly say that Joe and Woody (especially Woody) were "innovators" on their instruments, but bottom line is that what they really did was take Trane (and others) innovations and find their own way to deal with them. Again, no small feat, that. Again, this is all HIGHLY academic, to say nothing of a matter of semantics. But "innovator" to me should be reserved (in "proper" terms anyway) for those who really, truly changed the music forever, those who laid down something SO strong and SO new that the music had no choice but to follow it and grow (either immediately or over time). Those people are few and far between. And yes, it usually involves things technical and theoretical, because, like it or not, that's how music gets made. You come up with some new technical and/or theoretical (and by theoretical, I defintely include "emotional perspective") stuff, and find a way to make it work, really work, and then you gots yourself a true innovation. Because you have come up with a new way to play/approach/feel about the music. Now don't get me wrong - I LOVE Joe Henderson, he's one of my favorites, period. But I think that that love needn't be grounded on whether or not he was an "innovator" or not. He WAS a very distinctive voice, and he delivered music of consistently high intellegence, soul, and swing. In the end, THAT'S what should matter, not whether or not he was an innovator. Because if all we loved was innovation, we'd love but a handful of all the great music that has been made.

Darian Sahanaja on SMILE: http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=60&page=0 Fascinating.

I knew none of this. Thanks.

http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~adams/realbook/

Yeah, chucks dig guys who decorate tastefully.

Yeah!

Listened to it about 4 more times last night, and it got better each time. The "finished" aspect of it, the completeness of the entire thing, is VERY strong. What has heretofore existed as a collection of various pieces has been at last made whole, and without compromise either. The arrangements are demanding, and the execution superb. I admit it - I was a little skeptical as to how this was going to come off. It would have been easy enough to put the highlights that all the fans know (as well the ones that the collectors know) together in a revue format, simplify the arrangements, put a showbiz glitz on it, and call it SMILE. That would have been cool in and of itself, actually, and frankly that's what I was expecting, at best. But dammit, Brian (and whoever else was assiting him) went on ahead and finished the thing, actualy treated it like the long-form composition that it could have been 35+ years ago if Brian would have had the maturity, sanity, and environmental support to go ahead and think of it like that instead of trying (and being expected) to revolutionize pop music. If this album would have been released in this form in 1966 or 1967, it WOULD have revolutionized pop music. But tealistically, this album could not have been made, much less released in this form back then. Brian had the vision, but between all the speed making him think faster than he could execute and all the familial, intraband, and corporate dysfunctionality removing what little focusing ability he had left, he just wasn't up to putting the thing totally together. But here we are three decades later, and it seems that finally, FINALLY, he's reached the level of maturity needed to do more with all those brilliant ideas than just make a bunch of brilliant fragments. The attention to the overall design that he hadn't been able to muster has finally been paid, for whatever reason, and I'm telling you - this thing holds together as a whole in a way that I was not expecting. And truthfully, the absence of The Beach Boys works to its advantage in this way more often than not - the focus is no longer on the group, but on the composition itself, and the composition as it has been finalized DOES stand up to the scrutiny. Sure, it's hard not to hear some of these things and not notice that Carl's not there anymore, but only for the first listen or two. And occasionally, some (but not much) of the more dazzling studio wizardry of the original versions is noticed MIA. But - it's not that big of a deal. Not when viewed in consideration of the overall piece. If you want the ultimate dazzling performance of "Surf's Up", the song, you know where to go. But I tell you - you'll not get the same impact as you will from hearing it as the climax of the 2nd movement and hearing set it up over many minutes in some truly magnificent ways. And that holds true of all the other familiar numbers too - they're now integrated parts of a single work, not isolated teasers of what might have been. People who find the entire SMILE concept/hype/whatever ponderous in the first place should probably stay away. as should people who are going to find themselves unable to listen w/o hearing The Beach Boys. But if you can forget about all that (and I strongly think that you should), then you'll be rewarded with a dazzling performance of a work that is shaping like it might have a depth and staying power that I, a "fan" in the first place, was honestly not expecting. In otehr words - yeah. HELL yeah.

Just had a listen, and... Yeah. It's no longer SMILE the unfinished album. it's now SMILE the composition. Yeah. Perfect? No. Do some of the individual segments come off better in earlier versions? Yes. But it's finished, all the loose ends tied together at last, and it is quite good. Yeah.