JSngry

Larry, thanks for posting Bill Kirchner's comments. Like I said, all I had heard were stories. Bill obviously knew the guy up close and personal, so his impressions definitely mean something to me. Too often the dark side is all that gets publicized. It's good to get a better balanced picture of such a gifted and ill-fated musician.

I guess the Solid State reissue would only confuse matter further, eh?

Klemmer, eh? An interesting career - from a pretty undisciplined but undeniably energetic quasi-free player to one of the godfathers of smooth jazz to a pretty undisciplined yet undeniably energetic straight-ahead player. The stuff w/Ellis was a perfect fit - Eliis was wacky, and so was Klemmer. Ellis had moments of substance, and so did Klemmer. Ellis knew no fear, and neither did Klemmer. You get the picture. Ellis also had Glen Ferris on trombone, and Pete Robinson on keys, so there was a key nucleus of young, energetic players who just didn't give a damn what anybody thought, and the results show that, for good and bad alike. You just can't diss guys who are this far off into their trip, no matter how weird that trip may be, especially when some pretty good stuff actually happens (find a copy of Ellis' AUTUMN and check out the mindfuck version of "Indian Lady" therein) I've only heard one of Klemmer's Cadet dates, BLOWIN' GOLD, and was not impressed, but neither was I repulsed. I think his "best" work was on impulse!, CONSTANT THROB, WATERFALLS, & INTENSITY. Often bordering on "free funk", these albums will come as a BIG shock to anybody who only knows Klemmer from his BAREFOOT BALLET days. None of it is at all "deep", but it IS all vibrant, and that's gotta count for something. Some have praised NEXUS quite effusively, but I never heard what the fuss was about, honestly, and Klemmer's featured performances of "'Round Midnight" & "God Bless The Child" (on the Galaxy albums5 BIRDS & A MONK and BALLADS BY FOUR, respectively) are among the very few performances that so totally repulsed me on first listen that I've yet, roughly 25 years later, to even attempt a second listen, so riled did they get me. But Klemmer's not a "bad guy", musically, he just has a spirit and a concept that doesn't reach me overall. And besides, his prototypical "smooth" output beats the HELL out of what followed in its footsteps. Like Gato Barbieri, the "commercial" settings forced him to curb his most extreme tendencies and focus on playing lyrically, which in both cases was not always a bad thing. However, when Gato went for broke, it quite often moved me. When Klemmer went for broke, it amused me more than anything else. But THAT'S not really a bad thing either, ya'know?

Gotta admire the kid's spunk, but PLEASE contribute to his edjumacational life exspearimintce and tell him that the PROPER spelling of "yawl" is "y'all". He might be able to walk the walk and talk the talk, but until he learns to SPELL the talk, well, he'll never REALLY swing.

Lexx still be banned, but (s)he no really care.

Well, then it wouldn't be "deluxe".

I just picked up a 2-CD set (on Ember) of Bird at the Open Door, 1953, I think. Sound is not airshot quality, but is "ok" for an amature location recording, certainly better than some things that have come out (am I the only one who found Stash's BIRD SEED literally unlistenable, even for a diehard Bird bootleg buff?). It's edited to (mostly) exclude all non-Bird notage, so if that kind of thing is problematic, I'd suggest steering clear. But that's the only reason - the playing is incredible. Something about Bird's later live playing really gets me. It seems like he's "left himself" and is playing with an omnisicient detatchment, free to effortlessy go wherever he wants whenever he wants, and doesn't have to expend any physical or emotional energy in doing so. Some pretty profound stuff, I think, and highly recommended, with the above caveats.

Hmmm...who's the drummer on the Rollins version, the Trane version, and the UNITY version? "It's just Elvin's tune..."

Yeah, I think that's a good way to feel it, Lon. Not at all unlike Cecil Taylor, Tatum's music delivers so much information so rapidly, and so densely, that the listener, even the musically astute one who can follow the cat without TOO much difficulty, is more often than not stunned by the sheer magnitude, force, and power of the work. Repeated, careful listenings are a delight, as the shock wears off and the beauty of the details begin to reveal themselves, but Tatum is not a player for those who like their music to be warm and fuzzy - there is little overt emotionalism in his music. But that's OK by me, because as Lennie Tristano liked to point out, there is a difference between "emotion" and "feeling", and there is PLENTY of the latter in Tatum's playing, if one is willing to be receptive to it, eventually. To me, Tatum is not necessarily a "jazz pianist" as much as he is a world unto himself. That world is based in jazz, and usually exists IN jazz, but, really, the guy had his own perception of music that was at once in and apart from the jazz of his (or any other) time. Like I said over in the Masssey Hall thread, the whole notion of music that is at once full of feeling AND full of virtuosity of the absolute highest level is intimidating to many, and understandably so. It's discomfiting to realize that some people, a very, VERY, select few, can indeed have TOTAL command over their instruments, their intellect, and their feelings all at once. Such people may indeed be "freaks" and/or "geniuses" but looking for a way to somehow lessen the scope of their accomplishments is dishonest to my mind - what they do speaks for itself, and the fact that we (most all of us) fall short really ain't THAT big a deal unless we pretend that being fine just as we are ultimately makes our thing the same thing as what those guys do. It doesn't, and it isn't. The Tatum Pablo solo recordings are a VERY good listen, but they are NOT to be rushed through. I had a roommate in college who bought the LP set, and we dove right in. Neither of us could handle more than a side at a time, though, and sometimes not even that. It wan't just sensory overload, it was intellectual overload as well - the is just SO much to digest in one track, never mind an entire LP side, and FORGET about listenng to the whole set straight through, or as close to it as time allows! But think about this - the pyrotechnical technique, the harmonic detours that defy logic yet somehow make complete sense in the end, the voicings that should require more than two hands, in short, all of the things that freak us out about Tatum, these things were NOT "dazzling" to HIM - they were perfectly normal. It was how he heard music, simple as that. Sure, he had his stock runs and his "show" pieces, but playing those things must have been "role playing" to him, the way to fulfill the expectation that he be an "entertainer" of SOME kind ("Hurry Hurry Hurry, Step right Up - Come See The Blind Negro Piano Virtuoso Play Faster Than Anybody In The World!"). When the guy just sat down and played, as he does on the 20TH CENTURY PIANO GENIUS album and on a lot of the Pablo solo things, it was all music for the sake of music, and, damn, what music it was. People who are able to see/hear/feel/whatever that much detail as a matter of course, and are able to express it fully and unhindered, are different than you and I. They are indeed "geniuses", and if we can never reach their heights, we would be fools to ignore what they show us, for it is most assuredly real, and as such, we should all take heed and try to "get the point". "The Truth" ain't always easy, but it IS always true, and like it's written somewhere, "the truth shall make you free". Can't speak for anybody else, but I WANT to be free, and I ain't afraid to work at it, even if I never get "all" of it!

YO QUIERO COOTIE!

Roy. Just because. ALTHOUGH...Buck could get a vote of mine, as could any of these guys (and Red, and Buddy Anderson).

What if "musicboy" is really Greg having a laugh at our expense?

Take your pick : http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&u...&sql=H1169031:1 Between Young, Rollins, & Trane, you got my Big 3, but to be honest, I strongly recommend checking out Artie Shaw's version to hear the song done more balladic.

Dude... I...I...I.... I think I love you, man! :D :D :D

He's still here, which leads me to think that he's getting off on the negative attention he's receiving....

Disappointing, to say the least. The sincerely offended zealot with the power to bring down mountains is not-so-slowly fading to exhibit the much less vivid hues of yet another victim of a persecution complex on a self-imagined power trip, a Shriner trying to race one of those wacky mini-cars in the Indy 500, and threatening to call in the DOJ because all the cars are faster than his. The NERVE of them! Oh well, it was a good show while it lasted, but it looks like the Second Act ain't worth sticking around for. Just as well, I suppose. There's a REAL world to deal with, doncha know...

David S. Ware's version of "Yesterdays" on flight of i is based very strongly on Rollins' solo. It's my opinion that the Rollins of the 60s, understandably overlooked (somewhat) and overshadowed in its time, continues to have growing relevance to post-Coltrane jazz. Henry Threadgill, for one, is on record somewhere as saying that he dug Rollins more than Trane in the 60s (or at least found him more musically and personally relevant. I can't remember the exact quote). When one listens to what Rollins was doing with, for instance, his tone in those days, or his phrasing, it seems, to me at least, that there ws much fertile ground being plowed, ground that the sheer overwhelming power of Coltrane did not allow for. Really - has anybody playing in Trane's style, or a derivation thereof, REALLY found any new places to take it? I'll not call t a "dead end", because that makes it sound like a negative comment, and such is definitely not the case (obviously, I hope). But if Trane "closed the book" on certain improvisational options, Rollins OPENED some doors that a lot of folks might have missed at the time. Something that is no doubt trivial in the extreme but I nevertheless find interesting for some reason is that the the "squeals" that Sonny uses at the end of "Lover Man" are not THAT dissimilar to the ones that Jackie McLean was using at the time. In fact, Rollins would incorporate a much more blatant McLean-esque squeal in the early 80s (it's all over NO PROBLEM). No real point to this, but I just think it's "cool" that 2 guys who grew up in the same neighborhood would have the same approach and sound to a saxophonistical squeal. I know, get a life...

As of this post: 11 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) 9 Members: JSngry, Musicboy, Matthew, Joe G, Dan Gould, ghost of miles, White Lightning, kazak, Alexander

Who's gonna do it?

Yeah - either John Ashcroft or Jerry Falwell stopped by. We're still not sure which. Not that it really matters....

Here's the most explicit thing I've said yet - You, sir, are a buffoon, unquestionably, and without even the tiniest bit of allowable doubt. (Gee, I didn't even curse!)

All the Bible requires is that we not take the Lord's name in vain. That leaves PLENTY of other options for "righteous indignation", (or "righteous indigestion", which is what I had Saturday night...) allowing that they are in the proper forum amongst the proper people. This is the forum, and these are the people, as decreed and evidenced by the practice and policies of THIS cyber-brother/sister-hood. Sorry you missed THAT, "bro". You're not exactly operating at the level of either effectiveness OR justification of Christ throwing the money changers out of the Temple here, my friend. A TAD less pomposity might behoove you, ties, real, percieved, or fantasized, to the new EMI Christian label notwithstanding. (OH the fun I could have with THAT one...) Where the "heck" is Alexander right about now? For once, I think he won't have an enemy in the house! :D

Chuck, I'll agree with you about everything except the "fragile" part. Naorah's a Texas woman, the product of a single-parent household who took off to NYC with no real leads. I know women like this, especially TEXAS women, and they might LOOK fragile, and they might ACT fragile, but believe me, man, they're tough as nails, the very definition of "steel magnolias" (hate the term, but love the character trait).

I had NO idea that John Ashcroft was such a Norah fan! P.S. : Hey "musicboy" - you're taking names? Here's mine - Jim Sangrey. J-I-M S-A-N-G-R-E-Y. I am a Christian, and I DO like Norah. But frankly, based on this response of yours, I think that you're a little twirp of an industry wannabe of the ilk that's at least partially responsible for the music industry being as fucked up as it is today. You do no favors to music, Norah, OR Christianity by taking this bullshit attitude of yours. Spare me the "martyr" trip - let's see what artist you're all gung-ho about in 10, no, 5 years. I'll betcha it won't be Norah - she'll still be around and doing well, but she won't be HOT, and people like you like to be where the action is, the latest, the greatest, the HOTTEST. Would you be this feverish about Norah if she was as popular right now as, say, Rickie Lee Jones? Make enemies in the music business? Hell, I've made enemies AND friends, lots of each, and I've done it just by being me, not by hitching my wagon to a "new star" and running a Brownshirt Bulletin Board. The kind of music I make (and, gasp, actually SELL every so often) is totally irrelevant to people like you. But that's ok - you're totally irrelevant to me too. Oh yeah, just how big does one's got have to be before one becomes a "biggot". And surely it is a most revealing Freudian slip that you confuse "ettiquette" with "edict"....Yeah, I'm loser enough to mock spelling errors. What a SAD case I am - a mere musician and not an industry "insider" who takes notes and issues threats under the guise of my religion. Hopeless, I am, absolutely hopeless. I wannabe like YOU when I grow up!

"Lexx" in da' house, opening the door for y'all... http://www.norahjones.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1122