JSngry

One of the all-time great "blue-eyed soul" artists of all time, afaic. Possibly THE greatest. Any white guy who can duet with Patti LaBelle and not sound jive has NOTHING to prove. Don't care much for that Motown thing he just did, but it could have been a lot worse. It's time that we all move on from that, but it seems to be hard to do, for some reason.

Ok, here's a wierd (but serious) question - did John Hammond know and/or work with Arthur Godfrey at any level?

No banana?

My memory's foggy here, but wasn't there an aborted Quincy date for Columbia somewhere around this same time? Did we discuss it here, or did I read it somewhere else? It was either Quincy's date or somebody else's that he was conducting, and Columbia(?) put a lot of money into the first session, but then withdrew for no apparent reason. Ring a bell?

Finally got around to listening to both of his Grits albums, and I like them both. No BS music all the way, and a stellar cast on both. "Local" in the BEST possible way. However, I can hear what Larry means about "A Nessa-produced McDougal album probably would have been something else". Better recording, better formatting of the tunes, just an overall better presentation would no doubt have ensued. Based on the evidence here, the guy was (is?) worthy of a little better showcase than what he was able to do on his own. But these are fine documents nevertheless. Maybe not "essential" in any way, but definitely valuable in showcasing one facet of one of the richest jazz cultures in the world. One question - there seems to be a period of about 6 years seems to separate INITIAL VISIT & BLUES TOUR, and McDougal seems much stronger and focused on the earlier album (but BLUES TOUR has some KILLER George Freeman, so hey...). Were his playing activities curtailed during those years, did he get sick, or is that just the way the date went down? I also hear his phrasing becoming slightly rushed in the later album, and to be honest, I had to laugh out loud at the image of a guy with overactive saliva glands playing that far on top of the beat. The images were vivid! : And one more one question - is it a prerequisite for Chicago tenorists to have ultra-hip names? On INITIAL VISIT, we are graced by the tandem of E. Parker McDougal and Jay J. Peters. Could those names belong to anybody OTHER than jazz tenorists?

I bought it more out of curiosity than anything else, wasn't really expecting too much. VERY pleasantly surprised! Quality music all the way around. It's the "Afro-Eurasian Eclipse" come to pass in a lot of ways, and I'm happy to hear that it's this much fun. Anybody else?

FWIW, Arthur Godfrey was on CBS, and CBS owned Columbia at the time. Don't know what, if any, significance that might have.

No problem. I understand where you and Chuck are coming from. I suspect this is yet another case of different perceptions caused by different entry points into the music at different times. I had heard INDESTRUCTABLE, "ESP", "Moon Of Manakoora" and the first Weather Report album in the space of about a year and a half, and hell, it was ALL Wayne Shorter for what I knew. The whole "new esthetic" thing was probably over the top in terms of the music overall, but that is what Wayne has done for me personally. He's created another way of for me to approach playing, and it's a way that is applicable in nearly every situation. That's not to say that I go out of my way to imitate him, just that what I "bring to the table" in terms of what the music is going to "be about" has forever been altered from a deep and prolonged exposure to his work. And that exposure (and the impact thereof) does include Weather Report and beyond. Sometimes the actual music (and sometimes not), but always the concept. I'll not try to speak for anybody else, but there were so many times on WR albums when Wayne would play one little something that struck me as being the perfect statement for that moment. Sometimes it would be just one note (like those hits at the end of "Herandnu". Perfect in EVERY way, musically and tecnically!). That perfection got me to thinking that maybe, in a lot of ways, that a gesture could be as meaninful as a full-blown statement. Like I said earlier, hardly a new idea, but this was WAYNE SHORTER doing it, for Crissakes, and, to me, THAT mattered. And that might be precisely why it mattered, in a different way, to you and Chuck and lots of other people. Unintended/unintentional consequences of what Wayne and Weather Report were going after, perhaps, but that's the way it's played out over the years. What can I say?

Is it really hard for you to be wrong? Oh HELL no. It's disgustingly easy. That's why I enjoy it so much when I'm not!

I see we have a difference of opinion!

Thought I was pretty clear. Guess not. Sorry. Tone and phrasing needn't be (SHOULDN'T be, ideally) separate components of a player's voice. In other words, in Wayne's case, you can't separte what is being played from how it's being played. Well, you can, but that misses the point entirely, I think. A "voice" is just that - a sound. You use that voice to say what you have to say, and you alter it to fit whatever it si that you're saying. Is Wayne the first to do this? no, not by a long shot. but he's the first one to do it the way he did it, which is to find a way to simultaneously be on top of and inside the ensemble (see the famous "We always solo, we never solo" credo of WR). What Wayne did was to cast aside the notion of "soloist", a voice on top of a supporting cast, and also the notion of "group improvisation" as a mechanism for collective soloing in a "free" context. He found a way to play in a structured environment as a specific part of a improvisational collective. Call it "picking your spots" if you like. Again, others have done somewaht the same thing (Jimmy Giuffre's various groups come to mind), but nobody has perfected the art of the distilled statement like Wayne has. One phrase, ONE PHRASE of his can constitute a complete statement. Of course, he never really limits himself to just one phrase in the course of a perfomance, but that's the esthetic at work - making each statement concise, complete, and compact before moving on to the next one, whenever that may be (and the need for that "whenever" to NOT occur in a preplanned or cyclical, much less immediate, location is also a part of the "new esthetic"). It's the art of playing ONLY what is needed, and playing it ONLY when it's absolutely necessary. Playing and thinking like this requires ultra-fast reflexes and the highest level of virtuosity. Without those two things, you'd just get random blips and sputters that really don't amount to anything other than random blips and splutters. You never get that with Wayne - you always get a distinct melodic idea, fully formed, and fully shaded/nuanced. Even if it's only two or three notes surrounded on either side by long silences, those two or three notes HAD to be there, and they had to be played exactly like that at that time. Next time might be totally different. Again, Wayne's not the only player to explore these ideas, but he's taken them to his own place, and in doing so has come up with a whole new concept of functioning within a improvising group (as well as a whole new concept of how those groups should function, but this thread is about Wayne Shorter the saxophonist). Maybe it's less apparent to a lay listener than it is to a player. Not trying to play the "musician card" here, really, but maybe it is. As somebody who plays a lot of improvisational music (in a lot of different "styles"), I've had my imagination totally captivated by the way that Wayne has gone about defining his "role" over the last 30-35 years or so. Frankly, afaic, "soloing" in the traditional sense is a dead-end more often than not. The vocabulary's been exhausted, and if the meaning behind that vocabulary still remains relevant, the traditional sytax of it hasn't, at least as far as making "now" (as opposed to "re-creative" music) goes. This is hardly news - the AACM picked up on that a LONG time ago. The whole soloing thing is essential schooling (at least for now), and it's still a blast to both do and to hear, but let's face it - it's a test where for all but a very, VERY select few, all the answers have been already published. The challenge now, at least for me, is how to function IN a group, not on top of it. Again, the AACM led the way (one of the ways, anyway), and showed many possibilities. But what Wayne has done is adopt/adapt this "new mind" to the older vernacular, to still function within the "song structure" (albeit an often considerably stretched one). This began with ODYSSEY OF ISKA (maybe even on SUPER NOVA), and continued on through Weather Report (although that group became something totally different than what it originated as, Wayne retained his concept throughout, all things considered), and continues today. HIGH LIFE, FOOTPRINTS LIVE, and ALEGRIA are very much GROUP musics, musics that are somewhat like a mobile - everything (composition, players, solos, parts, EVERYTHING) seemingly revolves around a central axis independently, but closer examination reveals that the independence is anything but - everything is connected at the most basic level. Again, this concept is nothing new, but the idiom(s) that Wayne's applied it to is, as is the high degree of virtuosity (instrumentally, compositionally, personally, every way) that he brings in doing it. I know not everybody hears it that way (I'm waiting for Larry Kart to jump in and tell me I'm full of shit, only very, VERY eloquently ), but that's the way I've been hearing it from the git-go, and nothing has changed my mind yet. Hope that's clearer, but I doubt it is. This is reaching the point of getting so personal that I don't have the ability to articulate it clearly, because if I could really explain it, I'd have it under control myself, and it would be time to move on. I don't, and it's not!

What part?

Here's a second for adding AdAware and/or SpyBot. They're both free, and they both work quite well. AdAware has a new version out now - SE. Like I said, it's free, and it's a no-hassle program.

About Wayne's virtuosity - I don't think that there's ever been an "inside" player who has exhibited such control over tonguing as has Wayne. Combined with his equally advanced control over tonal manipulation through throat and embouchure contol, it's allowed him to create a realm of expression that is a lot more "vocal" in quality than most players of his generation - not in the "maoning" quality that somebody like Johnny Griffin so dazzingly gets, but a very "speechlike" quality. It's what makes those sparse but significant solos in his best Weather Report work stand out to me. If you were to just look at the notes on paper, and play them "as is", without a clue as to the inflections and colors tht Wayne was putting on them, you'd perhaps wonder what all the fuss was about. but listening to HOW he plays them is a whole nother thing. It's "operatic" in a way. The intent being not to "play a solo" as much as it is to "sing" a melody, a melody that is fully deliniated in every expressive aspect. It's an approach that only a true virtuoso could pull off, because it requires absolute confidence and control, both musical and personal. That's not to say that it always worked, but it did more often than not afaic, and it really opened up a door for a new esthetic in improvised music. Or, more likely, it provided a more "modern" door for the timeless esthetic of "melody over all" to function in. No longer was virtuosity in the function of finding new forms or techniques or whatever. Virtusity was now in the service of melody, PURE melody, and the more distilled (read:concentrated) the melody could be made, the more intense was the virtuosity needed to deliver it in that form. The art of the novel has been condensed into the art of the significant utterance. Wayne had already shown us one "new way" in his work with Blakey and Miles. He's since shown us another "new way", and if that way has been much less imitated (probably because it's TOO DAMN DIFFICULT in so, SO many ways), it nevertheless must be dealt with (by players and listeners alike), because once a door like this has been opened (and never closed by the one who opened it), well, attention must be paid.

Another nice version of this one is on the Individualism of Gil Evans recording. Also on that one is another moment of supreme Waynosity - "The Barbara Song".

"Elegant People" - so much control, so much passion, so much of everything. "Tout De Suite" - one melody examined from seemingly infinite perspectives. "Yesterdays" from the final Plugged Nickel set/disc - no words for that one! But geez..... "Moon Of Manakoora" on Wayning Moments. HawHawHawHaw! More to come - put me down in the "if Wayne plays it, I want to hear it" camp, no matter what or where or when it is. The man's virtuosity is so evolved that he can play less than anybody and make it mean more than most. And when he chooses to play LOTS, well, so much the better.

He's on it!

Dorky cover, great, GREAT playing. Definitely one of the most involving and interesting sides I've heard in the last few months. PRETTY ACCURATE AMG REVIEW Those who have been curious but reluctant about Bley for whatever reason(s), start here - the tunes are all familar, and the shit swings like a mofo. But it's still Bley all the way - lines and harmonies that weave in and out seamlessly and logically, with the net result being that, unless you listen REAL close, you're likely to think you heard something you didn't, one way or the other. And you'd not be to blame for that - Bley is a master musical illusionist. The guy's a trip, and in the best possible way. Bassist Jay Anderson is good, and drummer Adam Nussbaum sounds like he's having the time of his life. Those who already dig Bley, well, you'll either already have this one, or will pick it up when you find it. I found it (used) last weekend at a Hastings in Longview, Tx for $4.99. The ghost of Treasure City lives! As for those who don't dig Bley at all (and have heard him playing in a setting such as this), hey - why are you reading this thread? In all seriousness - check it out!

It's good. If you dig Pearson, you need to have it.

Do we blame the studio for not tuning their piano, or do we blame Schlitten for not insisting that the studio tune their piano?

Does the Organissimo board count?

No, habaneros kill assholes.

Esther could cut you to the bone quicker than anything except seeing your mamma cry. She didn't always, but she could.

Two Esther Phillips compilation CDs, a Marvin Stamm Verve LP w/arrangements by Johnny Carisi, an Akyoshi/Tabakin RCA LP, and a sealed LP copy of I FELL IN LOVE WITH A PROSTITUTE, a classic sermon by the Rev. Jasper Williams that I'd only had on cassette.

The Cole v. Sinatra thing is also interesting, because I sometimes try to sing along with singers' records (just because I can't sing worth a damn, and also to get a better lock on true melodic phrasing). Now I'm not talking about Nat's small group jazz singing here, I'm talking about his "pop" singing, the stuff w/Riddle, Billy May, etc. Different animal altogether. But anyway, on ballads, I found that it was a LOT easier to sing along wht Nat than it was w/Sinatra. NAt's phrasing and inflections on this stuff are all pretty striaghtforward - it's the purity of voice, preciseness of phrasing and enunciation that give his readings their power in this context. Sinatra, otoh, is just too complicated for a hack like me to sing along with. Larry noted this with some keen observations, but let me tell you anyway - the cat is doing so much shifting of phrasing, articulation, timbre, inflection, everything, that to effectively sing along with him, I'd have to do a whole "transcription" session, just like I would with a horn solo. This really freaked me out at first, because I had been feeling the vocals mopre than listening to them. But when it came time to "get inside" them musically, I realized just how deep of a singer this guy was. Tat's not to say that Nat's stuff doesn't get to me just as much. Not at all. His reading of "When I Fall In Love" is profound on many levels, and there's plenty more where that came from. Obviously. But "conventional wisdom" would have Cole being the singer with the "looser", difficult to emulate accurately, pop style, what with his jazz background of unimpeachable greatness and all, with Sinatra being assumed to be the more formal, perhaps "rigid" style of interpretation. My experience, though, is that it's exactly the opposite. Go figure that!