JSngry

That Davis Tadd thing was on West 54, the same short-lived label that released Slide Hampton's first WORLD OF TROMBONES album, and what else? I bought the Davis album in the 70s, didn't care for it, thought it was too loose, ragged, unfocused, whatever, and ditched it in about a month. But the Bastardinous ones at Dusty Guruve had a sealed copy for sale at a good price when I found that Wilen thing earlier this week, so it's coming back to me. I think I might have acted too hastily back in the day...

They'll get more. They always do. They're pushers, and they're pros.

Youknow, not to be too esoteric or anything, but the question being asked here could also be asked as "Who do you think brought out the best in Andrew Hill?", and I think the answers would be identical. The reason I say this is that I don't think that Hill by nature is the kind of leader who is inclined to push his vision of his music on his players to the point that if they ain't gettin' it that he's going to MAKE them get it. All the unreleased sessions from the late 60s point to this, as does a story I heard about how the roots of DUSK. Seems that Ron Horton (it was either Horton or Frank Kimbrough, but I think it was Horton)went to hear Andrew, one of his idols, perform somewhere, and Andrew had a group that was just not cutting the music particularly well. Ron went up to Andrew afterwards and expressed his frustration at hearing such great material played so inadequately. Anrew's response was along the lines of, "Yeah, I know, but what can I do about it?" Horton then volunteered to get Andrew some players and to help him organize his music in terms of readable, accurately notated charts (supposedly, Andrew doesn't write all the rhythmic quirks in his melodies in a specific manner, he just writes the basic rhythms and leaves it to the players to figure out where the cracks are). Well, Andrew took Horton up on his offer, one thing led to another, and DUSK was the eventual result. This is all secondhand information, but from a source I trust fairly well. Even allowing for some "slant" as to Horton's "importance", the essence of the story rings true to me. Hill has never struck me as a real assertive type leader. It has always seemed to me that if he gets players he can really count on to dig deeply into his music, then he does, but if not, he'll just kinda go with the flow and not really push anybody past what he percieves to be their limitations and/or natural tendencies. This is not an uncommon trait amongst musicians, so I certainly don't consider it a "flaw" or anything like that. It's just the cat's nature, nothing more. But it does accent just how important the "group vibe" is to Hill's music. It's so full of subtlties and implications that only the best players, no, scratch that, the best MUSICIANS (a big difference, imo), the ones who aren't afraid to dig in and tackle it fearlessly, can fully bring it to life. When this happens, I think Andrew responds in turn, and you get magic. When it doesn't, I think he kinda lays back and goes with the flow. You still get good, even great music, just not the "ultimate Andrew Hill experience", if you know what I mean. So it's a two-way street as to who brings out the best in whom, I think. And along those lines, I'd LOVE to hear a duet album, on standards, maybe(!) between Andrew & Von Freeman. Maybe make a trio w/Malachi Favors. Something to stir up old memories of Chicago through today's older and wiser eyes. That could be something really special, and it's not too late for it to happen, at least in theory. But the "business" end of it might prove problematic. Still, a kid can dream, can't he?

Miles w/Hill in the 60s? Don't know about that. Exactly why I can't say, other than I think that there would be a conflict of basic rhythmic sensibilities. But I could be wrong.

I wonder how Jimmy Lyons would have sounded on COMPULSION. Not that that date needed any changing around. No sir! For that matter, I wonder how Jimmy Lyons would have workied in place of JAmes Spaulding on some of the more outre BN dates. I just wish that Jimmy Lyons could have been heard more in his all too brief lifetime. A HELLUVA player, and I think that him and Hill could have made some good music together in the middle '60s, especially the "frustration" dates like COMPULSION & the quartet date with Sam Rivers (remember, Lyons & Rivers tore the joint up w/Cecil!) unless there would have been a clash of chemistry or something like that.

ROY ELDRIDGE oscar peterson That's how I'll listen to this set. Roy was a freakin' force of nature, and I can't think of anything or anybody or any setting (not even his playing "Mame" on a Count Basie album in the '60s!) that can detract from that.

Johnny Griffin or Tyrone Washington on GRASS ROOTS.

On the Jarvis tip, his work w/Elmo Hope on LAST SESSIONS is pretty goshdarn good. I think that maybe my favorite Charles Davis on record, all things considered, is on THE STRAIGHT HORN OF STEVE LACY. But that's really too close to call.

Those Miller airshots show the band to better effect than do the studio records, I think. It's still Miller, and it's still wound pretty tight, but there's a bit of genuine swing there that you don't always find on the studio stuff. The band was just inhumanly tight (a subject of much simultaneous admiration & exasperation for me), and the writing was often quite good (for what it was), sometimes great, so if you even halfway like the music, you might find the airshots even more likable. My suggestion - Goodwill, Salvation Army, and other places to whom old folks and their families give stuff they no longer want and have no clue as to the value of. Eeitjer that or a really big used record store that carries everything all the time.

Yeah, buty I couldn't tell you the name. The tune was that old Sweeney Sisters favorite "The Trolley Song" (a song that can be a surprisingly effective vehicle for jazz singing, as witnessed by Barbara Long's nice version on Savoy). I think it's off her newest album.

Sure, that too.

Since you say it sucks, would you call the singing an oral illusion?

Let's see... Haven't heard (it), may never (hear it, that is...), and, it - this album - may, MAY (and I stress "may", with good reason, in my opinion) turn out to be (a) mini-Van, but it (the cover) is more like an old Prestige (strangely I'm reminded of MGM - (could be an old movie poster) [maybe Man with the Golden Arm]), regardless of the Swing, and Soul, ref. At least, that's the way I see it. If you don't try, you'll never know...

No one favorite, but Gilmore on Paul Bley's TURNING POINT makes a great record essential imo.

Yep.

I'd be interested, but only if the prize was an orgy...

Well, I don't have a prolem with "depth issue", simply because we all have areas in our life, emotions, experiences, whatever, that go "deeper" than the mundanities of everyday life (but not all areas of everyday life are mundane, nosiree Bob!). Something taps into those areas, and we feel a depth of response that we don't get from the "common" stuff. So, if I say that Stacey Kent laks depth, all that means is that what I get from her doesn't penetrate beyond the first several layers of my psyche. The problems I DO have though, are several - first, since we are al individuals, we have at least as much difference between us as we do commonality as far as specifics go. So what strikes me deeply might not mean squat to all but a few others, maybe not even anybody. But that doesn't invalidate my esponse to whatever the stimuli is, it just means that I need to realize that whatever it is that's triggering that "deep" response is something that is not something that is going to trigger the same response in too many others. Accept that, move on, and don't get my feeling hurt when nobody else "gets" it. And if I don't get what moves somebody else, not mock it too cruelly. But even beyond that, I get irked by the equating with "lack of depth" with "lack of substance", or "lack of worth". It's just unnescessary, I think, and greatly narrows our appreciation of life. I mean, there is so much pleasure and joy to be had in the simple things, things that might not be usually thought of as "deep", but things that still can bring us happiness that we would otherwise not have. Maybe it's simply semantics, but to me, "deep" and "important" are different things that only sometimes overlap. And even at that, I think that if one lacks an appreciation of the so-called "simple pleasures" of life, that one is a lot more prone to an exaggerated or incomplete view of what might really be "deep". When your whole life is about misery, gllom, doom, and despair, well, what room do you have for a good sunset? And what is going to happen when you decide to prioritize in terms of what experiences you want/need to have to move your life in the direction you'd like it to go in? Seems to me that you're going to end up with more of the same whether you want to or not, because it's all you give value to, consciously or not. So I think that there is a VERY important place for things that make us feel good, even if they're not particularly "deep". We NEED that balance, I think, and we need to be able to feel good "just because". I'm not at all about denying portions of our humanity just because they don't make us sweat, cry, ponder, whatever. Now, I thnk it's foolish to go the opposite way, to deny anything that gets under our skin and takes us over and makes us feel too "uncomfortable". We need both. In the jazz and other "art" worlds, I see what I feel is too much of the former attitude, but in the "regular" world, I see what I feel is too much of the latter. The unexamined life and all that. I think there needs to be a balance, and I seldom see one today. Not that tthere's EVER been a society that has achieved it, but hey - this is the one I live in, so that's what I have to address. Even worse, I think, is the tendency to dismiss that which is relatively "light" but EXPERTLY executed. That's what caught my ear with the Kent stuff - everybody was doing what they did at a very high level, and they sounded like they were having a blast doing it. I like that. So much of life entails "doing a job", and I don't doubt that that's what the Kent gig is for all concerned - a job. Now, the "arts" crowd will no doubt agree, but they'll likely use that as grounds for dismissal. But I don't. I can't. What, somebody pleasse tell me, is WRONG about going about a task that you enjoy performing in such a manner that you do it excellently? And waht is so horribly evil about deriving pleasure from being damn good at what you do? And even more, what is so damn wrong with creating a product that you enjoy and then selling it to other people who enjoy it? Not a damn thing as far as I can see. I wish the people who designed and built coffee makers had the same enthusiasm in THEIR work as I sense that Stacey Kent and her band have in theirs! Too oten, we worry about if we should feel good about enjoying something or not, and I personally think that that is absurd. Short of criminal acts that bring harm to others, if something makes youo smile, go with it for crissakes! It doesn't lessen you to enjoy good craftsmanship joyously executed, it makes you a better rounded, and yes, "deeper" person. Take it for what it is and groove on it. That goes for the deep and the shallow alike - it's all part of the whole, and a person who knows one spectrum but not the other (and that goes both ways) is missing out on so much of what life has to offer. If I want to be touched, moved, provoked, etc., I know where to go for it. If I want to get a simple kick and a good feeling that might not be as "simple" as some would want me to believe, I know where to go for that. I'd not be without both options, as well as those in-between. It's all good.

Depth is where you find it. And what you want or don't want to make of. So, that leaves the field....REALLY open! BTW, I found a CD of the aforementioned Joanie Sommers doing a set of brief standards w/a Shelley Manne band listed on-line, and sampling it, I'd say that those who dig Stacey Kent might enjoy this one also. It's HERE, replete w/short audio samples of every cut. Having listened closer, I'll say that although their voices have very similar timbres, but that Sommers uses a vibrato that Kent seems to have not much use for and that decision is one in Kent's favor, imo. But it seems like a set in the same light and breezy jazzy-pop-standards bag favored by Ms. Kent, so some of y'all might want to check it out.

Sent.

Consolodation of steps, my friend. It's the smart choice for business! Seriously, this test was one that I felt pretty good about on most cuts, so, in a concerted effort to postpone tackling the laundry, here's a track-track analysis of how and why I did what I did. #1 - Read the previous posts to mine, before even hearing the cut, heard it, and knew that they were correct. #2 - Knew it was a Van Gelder recording from the piano sound, figured it was a Lem Winchester Prestige date (a REALLY strong hunch), went to AMG and found a song title that fit the melody and went with that. Would have guessed Winchester anyway, but got a kick out of going for the exact tune. Still don't know if it's a good call or not though. #3 - Knew the session from note one, since I have the album somewhere. Didn't bother w/AMG because I know who/what it is, and getting the specifics would have been redundant in my mind, at least for me. #4 - Kowing that Jim is a big advocate of Louis Stewart, I figured there'd be a cut by him on here somewhere, and this sounded like the type of player I mentally concieve Stewart being, although I'd not heard him before. Recognizing the tune, I just looked to see at AMG if there was a version of this tune by this artist, and sure enough, there was. It's still a guess, though, and might be wrong. #5 - The Golson call was near-automatic, so going to AMG was merely to nail down the specific cut. Which, as it turns out, was better done by Joe than me! But, yeah, I'd have had no other call but Golson for this one. #6 - Still don't know who it is! But I'm liking Joe's call on Pattitucci, and therefore, Rubalcaba. But AMD is of no assistance here, even after having learned that the tune is AKA "Favela". So I'm SOL on this one. #7 - I'm still liking Hall, but no help from AMG here. His discography is immense, and I still haven't felt like going through it all. But the Raney suggestion is intriguing. I don't know his work all that well, but on what of it I do, the done is just a little "dirtier" than that heard hear, but JUST a little. But that's mostly the older stuff, so... #8 - Still a maystery to me, no help from AMG here either. I'm still thinking Getz becasue the tone is too close for comfort. He does play more on top of the beat than Getz usually does, but I've heard a fired-up Getz play like this, so I can't rule him out on those grounds alone. But w/not listing of a Getz performance of this tune that matches this arrangement, I'm at a loss. Whoever the tenor player is, if it's not Getz, he/she scares me by being able to come THAT close to all the little nuances - it ain't natural to copy somebody THAT much! #9 - Recognized Coleman instantly, figured that Strozier was a likely altoist due to the age of the recording and knowing that there was an informal "Memphis Mafia" in those days. Besides, it just SOUNDS like Strozier. Picked up on Pat Patrick fair & square, and just used AMG to find an album that matched, and there it was. But this one I nailed the front line on pretty easily. Pretty individualistic players all around, if you know their playing. #10 - Recognized the tune immediately, ruled out Breau, and, yeah, cheated by going to the AMG song listing. But it wasn't a difficult choice at all. When I saw Kessell had done this tune, I said, "GOTTA be him" because of the tone and overall virtuosity. Ain't but a handfull of jazz players who could pull off a performance like this technically. Looks as if the guess was correct, again, thanks to Joe. #11 - Still clueless. But reading Jim's recent raves about Eddie Higgins, this sounds like it could be him. rooted in Wynton Kelly's overall feel and concept, but more open harmonically. But that's just a guess. #12 - No brainer for me. Eddie stands out to me no matter what the context. Just used AMG to find the album. #13 - Ok, cheated w/AMG on this one. Knew the tune, looked for a guitarist-led date. Not to hard to find. Would have guess none of the players. #14 - Looked for the obvious "Sarah/Double Rainbow" match on AMG and didn't find it, so I listened closer, heard the flaws in the vocal, and decided it was somebody else. But who? Well, DUH - always trust your ears, and look for extended tune listings on ALL MUSIC GUIDE DOT COM I must say though, taht I'm a huge Sarah Vaughn fan, but this cut doesn't do it for me at all, for the reasons I first stated, and knowing that it really IS Sarah doesn't change that in any way. #15 - GOT to be Dexter. Knew it as soon as I listened to the music rather than the instrument. Tom Storer, your information after the fact made me very happy! #16 - Knew the tune & it sounded so much like later Red, I looked at AMG for a match. Not finding one, but seeing Jamal listed, I thought that he might be a possibility, but wasn't sure at the time. Red COULD play all those flourishes, but seldom did, and the musical connection between him and Jamal is well doicumented. But I could not imagine Jamal using a bassist who played so out of tune. THAT threw me. But having listened further, I'll commit to him. Ahmad Jamal, from THIS ALBUM.

Fans of the ECLIPSE should be aware of a Laserlight thing (can't remember the title offhand) that's got an alternate take of "Chinoiserie"(sp?) in which Harold Ashby's solo is considerably more adventurous harmonically than that on the Fantasy version. Well worth the minimal Laserlight price.

Please, let's not argue. She sings jazzy material with a pop esthetic. She'd be as out of place at Baker's Keyboard Lounge as Betty Carter would have been at Mr. Kelley's. If anybody wants to think she's a heavyweight jazz singer, well, go ahead. That's not ME you hear snickkering in the background. Honest... And if anybody wants to think that she's a hack or that what she does as well as she does doesn't require an unique set of musical and interpretive skills, well, go ahead. That's not ME you hear snickkering in the background. Honest... Pop singing is a whole 'nother game than jazz singing, and just because the material crosses genres, as do certain stylistic elements sometimes, that doesn't mean that they're the same thing, or that one is intrinsically "better" than the other, for that matter. Myself, I often prefer the best pop to mediocre (or worse) jazz. If there have been comparisons to Krall, that's unfortunate. In terms of skill, Ms. Krall is a pianist first and a singer second. I can find technical and interpretive flaws with her singing that Ms. Kent displays not a hint of. As for "depth", they're both relatively shallow, but Kent seems to not make that a concern, and that works to her musical advantage, I think. Nothing too meaty on the one hand, but on the other, no tricks and no gimmicks either. Just good songs well sung. It's POP fer Crissakes! Krall, otoh, for reasons perhaps pertaining to her Lutheran upbringing, her roots in jazz, both, or neither, really seems to be trying to be a serious jazz singer, which is something I DON'T think she's equipped for, not yet anyway. Her phrasing is often awkward, at odds with the phonetic flow of the lyrics, and that's something that a good singer of ANY genre needs to have under control so they can proceed accordingly in whatever direction they choose to go. I'd not say that Stacey Kent lacks substance, not at all. I would say that she lacks "depth" (or, to avoid fanning the flames of argument even more, what I[/] would percieve as depth), but I'm not bothered by that, because no pretensions whatsoever to the contrary are presented with her product. Thus, I don't even bother looking for any, and by not finding something I'd be ill-advised looking for in the first place, I avoid a disappointment that shouldn't have happened, and one that might translate into a disparagement of the talent that is borne of my self-induced misguided search. Better to take what is there for what it is and appreciate and applaud it as such, which as long as you have a reference bank that is broad enough and deep enough to allow for sufficient recognition as to what is what, is, I think, the ideal way to appreciate what all the musics of our world have to offer on their own terms.

I was talking to my good friend Dr. Harold J. Numbers last night, and he suggested this. It's an intiguing notion. Hey, it's all EMI, right? And we've seen numerous examples of hip-hoppers redoing Rudy's work (to say nothing of Rudy redoing his and Lion's OWN work), so why not? If the Beatles idea is too radical for you, how about some other items from the EMI pop catalog - The Beach Boys, The Band, Matt Munro, Gene Vincent, The Hollywood Strings, Helen Reddy, etc. Post your wish lists here.

Between 25 & 30 as I remember.

Damn, did I miss Laugh-In?