JSngry

Didn't he get dental work at some point? I know Sonny Rollins did, but I seem to recall hearing that about Cannonball as well. But yeah, this record is one of the sweetest of the sweet spots as far as straight-up a lot playing goes.

Well, yeah, ok.

yep.

Yeah, that's one that seems to be recommended. I got it after Chuck suggested it out a few years ago. It IS a monster of a record@ Maybe it gets (relatively) overlooked is that it's a trio record?

In terms of his openness, swing, command/control of the music and of the instrument, the 1966 set might be the best Cannonball record of the 1960s. If not the best, then certainly one of the best. This guy is unfettered and untethered!

What's there is there, the notes were played. Perceptions can and should vary, but there is no variance in what is actually there. I'm listening to much music nowadays that I doubt I will live long enough to fully hear - and then internalize - everything that is there unless I sit down with a score and dig in. That ain't happening, except maybe every rare once in a while. But if I don't hear it, and I have a good score and the score says it's there, I should be able to get my eyes and ears to work to hear it. And if it's not there...UH-oh! But it probably is. But yeah, we all "weigh the elements" based on what we hear and how we know within ourselves they fit into our perception. Otherwise, everybody would hear everything the same way and then, why bother? Have robots make music for other robots. So, what I hear as "evolved sheets" and you hear it as something else entirely, ok, as long as we know we are hearing the same notes, saul goode. I just recommend - to everybody - being careful with jargon and/or "conventional wisdom" and especially the junction of the two. Don't let what you think you're hearing be the end of it because of what you've been led to think it "is". Don't trust that shit, it's ultimately like "magic", it's a distraction at least as often as not. In other words, if you had never heard the term "sheets of sound" how would that perception then go? Of course, you have heard it, and of course I had, but think about how much of what we think we're hearing is based on a narrative that we got from someplace other than the actual music. No notes get changed, ever, but how we hear them? Maybe that's not so certain. Or maybe it is. I don't know, but as an adopted child, i tend to be skeptical about other accepting people's names for things at face value.

Yeah, I totally get that. But that makes me wonder if that's also what's really going on in life too. If we really sorted out the details (and surely we should?), would we be happy, pissed off, or even more confused? Which I guess leads to another question - if we never got to the technology of recording (sound and/or otherwise), would we even be where we are now? Is the assumption now that it's ok to not be immediately comprehensible because either, there will be the record to live with, or else, you know, nothing else is, why should this be, take this one now, the next one when it comes along, etc.

The analogy makes sense, yes. I just don't hear it like that as far as Coltrane's playing. Even in the "sheets of sound" period, those "sheets" are seldom "just" scalar runs, they're arpeggios. sequences, patterns, etc. the true "sweeps" are usually used at the beginning of phrases, and just as seldom make up the entirety of the phrases. There's a lot of "breaking up" of the scales, he just connects them all so damn completely that it hides it, which was perhaps apart of the point. And yes, there is more of that in the earlier "clean" era. I think that's logical in retrospect, the guy was clean and ready to charge, and was leaving nothing to chance, total coverage, if you will. So yeah, I get that. But I I still hear the sweeps in there as the years pass and the music evolves goes along, too. It never goes away, really, no matter what other tools have been added, the "sweep tool" remains. And by the time you get to Interstellar Space, it sounds to me like your "two string" analogy has been maxed out into a total sweep all its own, as if the harp had been rebuilt. Of course, that wouldn't work physically with a harp (although I don't know about extended techniques or such as they pertain to harp). But it can certainly be done with other instruments, including piano, which is a harp with keys, right? Cecil, for sure, and Colin Nancarrow, player piano, hands no longer needed! Just saying, I get what the phrase means to you, and I get the differences in how you hear the different periods. I'm just saying that I'm hearing the same music you are, but I think I'm weighing the elements differently, based on my personal experiences (as are you with yours). Don't know why that would be the case, nor do I care. There are no wrong answers as to what you like and why you like it, and, especially, what you hear how it makes you feel, not just emotionally, but spatially. That shit is inviolably personal, not for nobody to touch except you.. There might be wrong answers, though, when the questions are asked in such a way that impressions are conflated with facts. I do get buggy when critical jargon gets turned into musical fact, like if I once wore all/mostly red and then evolved into a pattern that still had a lot of red in it, just not all in one place, and maybe it's no screaming at you but is whispering pretty loudly in the background. But definitely in there, and maybe all the other colors are in the distant red family , and then somebody asks gee, ever wonder what it would be like if you started wearing red again. I mean, the red is still there, it never left. And if I get tagged early on as "Mister Red", then...ok, sure, but, seriously/really? Don't fall for shit like that! Of course, that's silly, because I hate red and avoid it in all forms as much as possible. But still, that's what I'm saying, one person sees the red no matter what else is there with it, another person basically sees everything but the red. And some people just don't give a damn! Also, apropos of probably nothing, I still have a hunch that there's a "spiritual connection" between Coltrane's "sheets" (no matter the era/form), and Johnny Hodges supra-human glissandos and micro-pitches. Johnny Hodges runs deep!

No judgement on them for doing it, but have always wondered who hired them to do it. That's where I might - might - have some judgement, or at least opinion.

I got mine from either DG or BRO, don't remember which, probably BRO. They had a lot of hat "classical" stuff for almost free, so I just got all the titles they had. Some of it seemed kind of lax, some of it was quite good. None of it was a waste fo time to listen to at least once.

't'was always so: that's going to really, really suck (SUCK!) if it's less than perfectly (and sensitively) payed and interpreted.

Ok, this is, for me, my textbook "sheets of sound period" solo, the phrase originally being used to describe a real-time reaction to what was then new. I use it as a go-to becuase it's not been over-heard by listeners, nor is it too long. It's easy to listen to, imo. So what's happening here (besides that out of left-field opening!)? In basic terms, it's simple - he's "running changes" on in a very methodical way. The key centers of the changes move, and he moves his methodology with them. You can hear the scales, the patters, it's all very methodical (and very exciting/interesting). The "sheets of sound" might make it sound like it's an endless, uh, sheet, but it's not. It's mathematical as fuck, which is not in any way a bad thing, and you can, once you get past the overwhelming of the "sheet" effect, "do the math" and see where that harmonies pivot and the contents of the line follow suit. Really, it's good old-fashioned vertical playing at a very highly developed level. Playing the changes, exhaustively so. If you want to macro-elasticize the impression, you could say that each phrase of the solo is a Coleman Hawkins solo unto itself/ You could, but don't. Where this Russell session falls in relation to Kind Of Blue, I can't tell you exactly, but it's "in the area". So now listen to that iconic "So What" solo (in your head, probably, a lot of people have it ingrained in there), and what is he doing? The same thing he's doing here, only with a helluva lot fewer harmonic pivot points. So, idea began, developed, and then, hey wait, it's still the same chord. Trane's already in his zone, so this is not a problem, but just as that guy did the remix and made "Giant Steps" all into one key, literally, solo and everything, you could do that in reverse here, in some kind of way, take the one chord lines and make them go into actual changes. Now that's ok for one record, but you gonna stick with that all night long, uhh....no. And this is where it gets interesting (and no, I've never seen this documented as being Coltrane's actual thought process, nor would I presume to claim it as such. People processing problem/challenge/resolution don't necessarily know how they got through to the other side until after the make it, and then...why should they care, getting there was the object, not just - just - doing math homework. Otoh, there is no magic. Remember, there is hard work, math, science, and perseverance,. All these are qualtities that Coltrane had in an abundance, that much we can "prove").. So what all happens? You bring in Elvin, that changes everything in a pretty basic vibrational time/space wise. But you also start hearing Trane finding ways to speain ways that fit into his innate pulse and still work out mathematically. Literally, how do you keep up playing with one surge and make it fit into the same temporal allocation but without the recurring subdivisions of that space created by moving chord changes? This is not a romantic notion, this is basic math, really. Notes have to fit into a certain temporal space. Like Chico Hamilton said, if you have one and then two, no matter where or when two comes, you have time. You have space. How will it be filled or not filled? Perhaps it could be noted that if you're aware of the space, yyou're already occupying it?!?!? Trane did a lot of things to work this out, starting with the different colorations of notes by using alternate fingerings. You start hearing that more and more. You start hearing the range of the instrumented expanded, up up up. This allows the energy to fill the space by going someplace it couldn't go before. You hear a lot of this for a little while, and then you get what was lurking there all along - the use of internal pivots, internal harmonic pivots, to superimpose over the underlying static harmony. And when you break that down , you can discover that there's a LOT of math there(I've done just a very little bit of it myself. Others, however, have done it exhaustively. It is real, and it's not arbitrary or coincidental)), logic, symmetry, much of it derived from earlier change-based playing (the whole "3-on-1" thing that Miles called out comes into play here, as does the math of the "Giant Step changes") And that's when the "sheets" really start coming back and charging ahead, lines just like running - at times gushing! - water, but no longer needing chord changes to run. Harmonic touchstones, yes, always. But cyclic, symmetric, inevitable standard song form changes, no. This didn't all happen in neatly defined "periods", because he already knows about it all. But different sessions show different emphasis at any given point (that's why all the bootlegs have merit, it really does vary from gig to gig what the emphasis is) And really, 65 up until the end, yeah, that's still there. 65 in particular is virtuosity of math and instrument at about as high a level as it's going to happen it this realm of music, ever. Sheets abound, but they are now coming from a different place, using the empowerment of total familiarity. Yes, sheets, pouring forth. Didn't his "obsession" with harp music take root in the early 1960s?. There's some sheets of sound! And 66-67? The most successful (and I'd entertain the possibility of it being the only fully successful) music form that period is Interstellar Space, and good god, if that music is not "sheets of sound", then such a thing does not exist, period. The biggest breakthrough that I hear in Coltrane after him cleaning up and coming back with Monk is that he stopped trying to bob and weave like the beboppers, He came direct, still with accents, of course, and still with swing, but no more trying to fit himself into the shadow-boxing bebop phrasing like he had done before (it's all over the quintet records with Miles, all over them). Out it comes, get out of the way if you're not ready. He became a "sheet-er" then, and he remained one until the end. That is why to me, "sheets of sound" to refer to a specific point in Coltrane's playing does not make real/practical sense to me.

The dude got a gig. End of story, really.

How are you reading the phrase "sheets of sound", what does that mean to you? Just asking because as a musically accurate phrase, it's essentially meaningless to me. I hear what he ws doing in 58/59 carry over all the way into 65 (and I am willing to give credence to the LSD Changed Coltrane Forever thing, although I don't see that as a negative or a positive, just...LSD does change people, often forever, that's kinda the point, hopefully/idealistically). It evolved as it went, but the technique was straight out of what had come before. There were other things added/subtracted, but it's pretty much a continuation from what began when he came back with Monk. Now, if that phrase means something else altogether to you or Rooster, then that's a response I don't have. so maybe we're talking about different things? And when it comes to tone, I think I know what he means, kind of. Elvin gave his that deepass pocket to lay in, and yeah, he worked that sucker every way there was to work it, he leaned in out forward back, pretty much any direction. And the more you lean, the more places you have to put your air. But to the original question, if you want to play a mix-match game of "what if" with Coltrane, my god, there have been so many emulators/imitators, I'm sure you can find one (or more) that does that.

Zita Carno.

Dammit, I can't think of the name of the lady who posted that astute analysis of the "Blue Train" solo in Jazz Review...lifeline, please?

Well, it was, wasn't it? Not as entire solos, but lord have mercy, there would be those long runs tht didn't stop (and often used the harmonic substitutions gleaned form both the "3-on-1" and the "Giant Steps" explorations. Again, taking a critically-created descriptive term like "sheets of sound" and applying it to rational/objective musical anaylsis (or never mind analysis, just simple paying attention to what is actually being played!), it's a disservice to all, really. Didn't Ira Gitler coin that term? And he was just looking for a verbal way to convey his feelings about how Trane was beginning to play. He wasn't doing actual musical analysis, like, who was it, oh god, I can't remember her name...Zora, Zito, KitranoI am sorry...CRS kicking in.

Would you consider the impulse! tone to be more in line with the Prestige tone? Wondering how much of the perceived difference might be to how Rudy recorded him vs how Atlantic recorded him? Otherwise, sure, he was evolving. I'm of the opinion that the whole "sheets of sound" thing is more useful as a non-musical statement of listener impression than as an actual objective statement of musical practice. As it pertains to this point, the Atlantic era began with Bags/Trane & Giant Steps and then went on in sessions then sessions could be released totally out of "real time" sequence.. If you want to hear what was really happening is the music, you gotta break it down into individual sessions, that's the true context of how the music was evolving. And there, you will hear plenty of "sheets of sound" type playing. The one that comes to mind most immediately is "Summertime", my lord, sheets, sheets, and more sheets. "Syeeda's Song Flute" too, stuff like that. Also, have you hear the Roulette half-album?

Don't have the Wilson yet, but honestly, I have minimal notice of any audio insufficiency, and absolutely zero complaints regarding same. It's just a damn good record of a damn good band on a damn good set of nights. Not just good, damn good.

What does this mean, exactly? Not sure I understand?

in a good way or a bad way?

Roy McCurdy - INSTIGATOR!

Herd this last night at SMU: SCHUMANN QUARTET and ESCHER QUARTET featuring a performance of the MENDELSSOHN OCTET The Schumann Quartet will perform: Ludwig van Beethoven: String Quartet in B-flat major, Op.18, No.6 (1799-1800) The Escher Quartet will perform: Samuel Barber: String Quartet in B minor, Op.11 (1935-6) The Schumann and the Escher Quartets will perform together: Felix Mendelssohn: Octet in E-flat major, Op.20 (1825 First impressions still fairly strong this AM: That particular Beethoven Quartet is a true delight, and the Schumann Quartet kept it fluid the entire time Subtleties of time and dynamics created surprise after surprise. What a work, what a band. Hearing two different quartets back to back like this was a revelation. The Schumann, to play Beethoven, was light and fluid. Escher playing Barber just roared, omg, GRRRROWWWWLLLLLL!!!! Also the two quartets had slightly different intonations, so when one stepped into the mental space just vacated by the other, there was a very real time/space jolt, like "okay, we're going to vibrate HERE now". Kind of a rush, really. live music strikes again. That Mendelssohn Octet should be made into a theme park ride. It's that much fun. Definitely music worth leaving the house for. Definitely! Young folk as well! Schumann: Escher:

I'm waiting to see how I like the set I ordered before deterring further appetite, but I also saw that avid set and did not recoil in horror, if you know what I mean... I guess Doodletown is a real place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodletown,_New_York It's a funny name from a musical standpoint, don't know if that was it or not, but you got Pipers & Fifers both, courtesy of good ol' Doodletown.