DrJ

Being a person who strongly believes that most human behavior is intended neither as cynical or sinister but instead is the result of attempts to fulfill deep-seated, often unconscious needs - I believe it's the latter much more than the former.

Agreed on all accounts - do not miss this collection.

Wow, a guy goes shopping and for a little ice cream (105 degree heat here in Sacramento today) and there's enough for several BOOKS written! Interesting stuff, and I will say that I should definitely have qualified my comments about Sonny Rollins' later music to say STUDIO RECORDINGS because I have not seen the man live. I am NOT one of those folks who has only heard jazz through stereo speakers, though, I hasten to add! I won't doubt for a SECOND that Sonny's music could be a whole lot more transcendent in the live setting (and I know what you mean, I have had a similar experience - I'm sure in a very different way though - when seeing Andrew Hill at Birdland), which may in fact be what really matters to him. It's just that, if that's the case, I wish he'd stop making records! NEWKLEAR MUSIC (Milestone) by the Keystone Trio is a real winner - John Hicks piano, George Mraz bass, and Idris Muhammad drums. All songs written by Sonny at various points in his career except the closer: 1. O.T.Y.O.G. (Rollins) - 5:28 2. Times Slimes (Rollins) - 8:16 3. Wynton (Rollins) - 7:47 4. Here's to the People (Rollins) - 5:31 5. Airegin (Rollins) - 6:47 6. Tell Me You Love Me (Rollins) - 5:58 7. Silk 'N' Satin (Rollins) - 6:27 8. Kids Know (Rollins) - 4:30 9. Love Note for Sonny (Hicks) - 7:23 As you'd guess, this is not fire and brimstone, change your life kind of music, but a refreshing spin on his pieces, done with a dead simple approach (and I mean "simple" as in elegant). Now I do also have to say that I think this point you made Jim: "But - JUST LIKING OR DISLIKING SOMETHING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HAVING AN INFORMED OPINION!!!"...really misses the main point. You're right, like/dislike is not an informed opinion, but they are just different, one is not inherently more valid than the other as you imply. There is no OBLIGATION written down on a stone tablet somewhere that says anyone has to do any kind of homework to LISTEN TO OR COMMENT ON music...until they start having pop quizzes you have to get at least a Gentleman's C on before you can get into Yoshi's or wherever, it will NOT be an obligation. Some people prefer a whole lot less insider stories, heavy analysis, and consideration of the artist's intent with their jazz and that is PERFECTLY VALID and what's more, it does NOT invalidate their opinion. Furthermore, sometimes I find those folks make more refreshing comments than the insiders (including, yes, musicians), who tend to bring all their own baggage and project it into the music (hey, I'll even admit that maybe I am doing that more than a little with later period Sonny and that maybe I need to approach it, yet again, with a conscious effort to "leave it at the door with the bottles, weapons, and air horn"). I find relatively few musicians to be articulate in talking about music, to be frank...I think it's a different part of the brain phenomenon, although there are some definite exceptions. Funny you picked the doctor metaphor - there's a growing movement in medicine called "patient-centered care" that actually DOES in effect, ask the patient "how do you think we should address this problem?" Now that is not saying we tell them "do your own bypass," but we give them options and trust that most people are reasonable and will pick the most acceptable one that FITS IN WITH THEIR LIFE/PHILOSOPHY/GOALS/etc. Rather than me, the all-powerful doctor, saying "do what I say and like it" which is old school medicine. The new approach works - increased patient satisfaction, increased adherence to care, better health outcomes in research and actual practice. No patient "tells me how to practice," but I look to them eagerly and avidly for guidance to make sure that what my expertise is best applied TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL CASE. It seems to me that musicians, the greatest in my view - the ones that consistently have moved me - make a similar effort to "meet the audience in the middle." I would NEVER presume to tell you how or what to play on your saxamophone, but I would hope if I was in the audience you'd be thinking about me and the other folks in some manner - not in terms of note choices or anything that tangible, but just in the "they're out their listening, with varied backgrounds and levels of musical understanding, and I have some obligation to find a way to meet the majority of them where they live and then try to take them a few steps further." Maybe that's over-idealized, I don't know. So anyway: when my listening buddy tells me he never reads liner notes, doesn't really care if he knows all the musicians on the session, and his eyes glaze over when I start telling him the little background stories that I know about different musicians/recordings, that's cool! His opinion is still very much valid, even if not "informed" in the way you mention. Just to clarify in closing - he listens to music avidly (several hours a day), good stuff, excellent natural ear, etc, and he doesn't overstate his case (e.g. if something seems alien, he may say "not hitting me right now" but won't say "what a bunch of jive mothers!"). So I agree with you that the bore sitting at the table next to you droning on about things he can't begin to understand, that's just plain obnoxious and I think we all know who those people are - take them out of the equation, and you have my vote to diss them at every opportunity. But I think on the whole you vastly over-estimate the value of being "informed" in enjoying music. It works for some people, and it can add another (different, not better) facet to listening, but for others it may actually hinder enjoyment because it turns something pleasurable into (for them) work. That's why they're not musicians or critics, they are listeners.

Hey, no personal offense taken! This is clearly an issue near and dear, and I hope in return that I didn't inadevertently offend you personally. First, to clarify and take issue a bit with your main point: I find no problem in using a well-placed artist comparison to illustrate a point. This is a time-tested writing device, not just in music but in any expository writing. I find it is often quite illuminating and think many other jazz fans do. If you'll notice, I wasn't saying Hank was "better" than Sonny, a useless statement that would indeed be worthy of a rant. But to point out Hank's greater degree of consistency (which was not attached to any further value judgement) is a much different issue. That is a tangible and reasonable observation that can provide a way in to further consideration of these two giants. I personally found the insight illuminating for me when I had it, so I wished to share it. I think some others might also find it illuminating, though not all apparently! Also let's clarify what "consistent" means: it can mean consistently mediocre, which is not what I was saying, or consistently sublime, which honestly I feel Hank Mobley's playing was. So maybe there are semantics at play here, but I don't feel you understood that I was not promoting consistently bland "American cheese on white bread" jazz but rather consistently great "Brie on French bread" jazz! So to say Hank was more consistent is, in this instance, a high assessment indeed. I do hear what you're implying about artists who go for greatness and sometimes fall short, but are more interesting for the trying. I agree to a point. But it's kind of like (here's an oddball metaphor from my life) conducting a really seminal piece of medical research - every once in a while someone just lucks into it, but mostly it takes a lot of pre-preparation and you have a pretty good hunch before you even do the study that it's going to be something special. What I'm trying to say is, some artists are constantly "trying something different" in the name of "going for the sublime," but really they lack a sense of purpose and direction and are swinging wildly and desperately. I would not put those folks in the same category as someone like Don Pullen (probably not the best example but the one that comes to mind), whose work, while somewhat uneven as a body, has many threads of continuity and the chance-taking is based in some sense of purpose and pre-reasoning. I do hear all you're saying and think you make some good points, but I do happen to continue to disagree about Rollins' music in particular. Sorry, while I understand all the theoretical issues about what music is and isn't about, artist's intent, their identity with the music, etc., as a listener those are secondary issues at best. His stuff doesn't move me and I don't think it's a misunderstanding to say that he's alienated a huge portion of his audience AND (this is important) failed to win much of a new one because many others also feel similarly, not just among critics but among fans. I find personally that for every 10 people who pay lip service to Rollins' later music, there's only 1 or so who really enjoys it. It is not an indictment of Sonny as a person to say this, but I feel he's basically lost a sense of direction and inner purpose, and I think if one reads/listens between the lines of many of his interviews and his performances, he knows. In that sense, you and I saying much the same thing - the music is inseparable from the artist, and here we have an artist who has lost his way much of the time. One of MY hot button issues is artists who either admit to, or who I perceive to, basically discount audience opinions. Call me old fashioned, but I appreciate artists who make an effort to meet their audiences in the middle. When I see said audiences leaving an artist in droves, I get suspicious that either 1) the artist is just plain stinking it up; 2) they are actually going out of their way to alienate the audience (and I think Sonny often does this, part of his extreme ambivalence about his stature in jazz and his sardonic sense of humor); or 3) the audience is just not trying and will eventually come around. Regarding the latter: perhaps in 50 years or so I and a lot of other people will come around and what Sonny's doing will hit us. History has shown this can happen after all. But I doubt it in this case. Again, though, all that is secondary - the main issue is I dislike his later playing pretty intensely, after giving it more than a fair chance, and that is really all I care about as a listener. I love his work through the later 60's, especially the wonderful (and often reaching - but with purpose - RCA recordings). And his compositions, on the other hand, have remained interesting throughout, as evidenced by others covering them splendidly as on Keystone Trio's NEWKLEAR MUSIC (Milestone). There, I'm not unreasonably "anti-Sonny"!

Yes, to be clearer (I realize now I wasn't) I did go ahead and order it from The Music Resource given that it was a really good discount. Glad I did based on what you're saying, for sure! CONGLIPTIOUS is a real joy to listen to, fresh and exciting and daring and funny, so I would imagine the box will be more of the same.

Hey, I'm here P.D., anytime! B) Dan - yep, as Mr. Petty once said, "The waiting is the hardest part." 38 weeks and counting...

Ah, you're going to love it as I'm sure you know. Being "Way out West" I won't be there, but I saw Wayne's Quartet at the new Mondavi Arts Center at University of California, Davis this past Spring, which has an excellent acoustic. I was pretty much blown away, and excited to finally get to see Wayne live AND get to see Brian Blade again after having seen him and pianist Aaron Goldberg tear up what was otherwise a very mediocre show by Joshua Redman (I found myself wishing it had been a piano trio date!).

I'll definitely check it out, thanks for the review Jim. Mariano is indeed an original, and I have thus far been out of the loop on his later work. I enjoy his work with Mingus tremendously - BLACK SAINT and also MINGUS MINGUS ETC. It's not an exaggeration to say that without his keening, passionate alto solos and work in the ensembles, the music would not have worked at nearly the same exhalted level. He was, for me, the spark plug on those dates. A few early Mariano sightings that folks might be interested in checking out, particularly to compare where his art began to where he went with Mingus and has now ended up: CHARLIE MARIANO WITH HIS JAZZ GROUP (Imperial) - I think still in print on a TOCJ paper-sleeve import, early leader date (maybe his first?) from 1950-1, with a Boston crew including Jaki Byard (Jaki Byard! Yes! His jazz standard "Chandra" is one selection too) and Herb Pomeroy on trumpet. STU WILLIAMSON (Bethelehem, 1956) - another Japanese import CD. Whether you are a Mariano fan or not, DO NOT MISS THIS RECORDING, repeat DO NOT MISS THIS RECORDING. Williamson was a neglected master of jazz trumpet, and he soars here. In addition to Mariano playing fine alto (and still sounding like Mariano even early on), Bill Holman is on tenor, Jimmy Giuffre on baritone, brother Claude Williamson on piano, Leroy Vinnegar on bass and Mel Lewis at the traps. Fine arrangements, great playing all around, these kinds of Bethelehem dates are a great argument for some type of Mosaic treatment now that the U.S. Bethelehem reissue program seems to have bitten the dust.

Did anyone else see this on the recent e-mailing from Mosaic/True Blue? Too bad Chuck is on vacation, 'cause I'm wondering if this limited edition box is truly soon to be sold out/OOP? I've been eyeing it for some time, and actually lost an E-bay auction of a used copy recently, but this note prompted me to finally take the plunge. I've only heard some of the music - the material released in a 1998 Japanese CD under Roscoe Mitchell's name, CONGLIPTIOUS (has the same tracks as the original LP plus 3 extras). Fascinating music, and historic. Check out this Chicago Tribune article (hey, no regional bias there!), which places the music alongside that of some major heavyweights: 20 boxed sets If anyone else is interested, The Music Resource (www.themusicresource.com) has it for about $58 right now, substantially lower than the $75.00 list price. Their shipping times are often prolonged, but worth it for the discount.

Woody Shaw - SOLID (32 Jazz) Billy Mitchell - THIS IS... (Smash) Stitt/Ammons - BOSS TENORS IN ORBIT (Verve) Julian "Cannonball" Adderly (Emarcy) Pat Metheny Group - LETTER FROM HOME (Geffen) Miles Blackhawk box (Columbia/Legacy) Disc 2 Sarah Vaughan/Lester Young - ONE NIGHT STAND (Blue Note) - that last one always makes me chuckle, sounds like a tabloid headline, didn't anybody think about the double entendre?

Just wanted to say that REFLECTIONS is one of the only Frank Morgan CDs that I find myself wanting to return to periodically. I've come to the conclusion that his playing is just not my cup of tea, although I can acknowledge his talent objectively and he seems like a real down-to-earth guy. But REFLECTIONS has such a great line-up and care in the arrangements, it's a winner even given those reservations. Thanks for reminding me about it, Jazzmoose, will have to pull it out for a listen today.

Glad to see your thumbs are up for this music, Shrdlu (and glad to see you on the board). While this is not epochal music like the Plugged Nickel dates, I am rather flabbergasted at some of the lukewarm reviews the Blackhawk music receives. I came to the new sets without ever having heard the music. In this remastering, and listening with no prior expectations, I have been THOROUGHLY enjoying this stuff. "All of You," leading off Disc 2, is a case in point, 15 minutes of swinging jazz filled with subtle improvisational feats by three of the greatest soloists ever. When I hear Mobley's playing on a track like this and then read comments in the Mobley thread about him not being an improviser of the level of quality of men like Rollins or Coltrane, I have to disagree wholeheartedly. He may not have been an INNOVATOR like those two, but I don't know how anyone could question his improvising credentials. In fact, given Rollins' descent alternately into self-doubt and self-indulgance ever since the late 60's, while Mobley was still evolving as late as the early 70's (see Cedar Walton's BREAKTHROUGH), I think Mobley was far more consistent throughout his sadly truncated career than Sonny has been.

I agree with Stefan on all accounts. Personally, I think the packaging is just fine - certainly FAR better than the stuff many collectors tolerate otherwise without ever complaining (CD-R's with grainy black and white photocopied tray cards, Fresh Sound and Collectibles cheesy looking jobs, etc). If by using the Digipack they can keep the price down to $11.99, sell more, and get more of the back-catalog out (such as the Billy Mitchell, the kind of stuff that used to only appear in the defunct Elite Edition series for almost twice the price), then BRING 'EM ON IN DIGIPACKS!

The nice thing is that the CD doesn't fall out of these newer contraptions. I have a lot of older jewel cases where after the CD has been put in and out of the case a few times, it gets too loose and WILL fall out. That seems pretty hazardous to the disc's health to me!

Agreed, nice list Dan. I went with Kynard.

Yes, Clunky, all the Pepper Galaxy stuff was recorded during exactly the era that I'm talking about, where the "twangy bass" sound was most prevalent. A huge number of titles in the Muse catalog also suffer from this, sadly.

Leeway, you might try these on for browsing: SACD link 1 SACD link 2 SACD link 3

montg - are you referring to the old CD remastering (from late 80's or early 90's) or the CD layer on the hybrid SACD? The old CD did sound horrid, I agree, but I'm surprised you feel that way about the CD layer on the hybrid SACD, if that's what you were commenting on. Maybe to really appreciate how good a job they did with salvaging the sound, you'd have to have heard the old CD! If you have, then certainly we may just disagree on this. B)

I picked this one up today, and it's definitely a keeper. The tracks with organ remind me a lot of some of Ike Quebec's later BN's with organ, given Mitchell's full tone and the stops Sleepy Anderson uses on the Hammond (a sound reminiscent of someone like Freddie Roach). Burns is fine, maybe not showcased as much as on his Vanguards but he sounds good. The real star is Mitchell though, he plays beautifully.

Uh, I'm also sure I'll "enjoy whatever I get" because as I said pretty clearly before in several threads you've been active on, I already HAVE a universal player and have been enjoying it now for several months. I would suggest the requisite "careful reading" before responding to others' comments.

Greg - just to set the record straight about the only points worth addressing specifically in your line-by-line dissection of my post: I have most definitely "done the requisite listening" to compare higher and lower end SACD players (I can't help chuckle a bit at that "requisite listening" part, it's so didactic sounding, like you're some audio professor assigning me my homework!). This is supposed to be FUN, dude. The other issue: I feel more than comfortable that your views about audio quality are at one far extreme compared to most jazz fans. That includes not only the 5 or 10 that post in the Audio Talk section of jazz discussion forums, but "the other 90%" too. For example, I have by far the best listening system of any jazz fan I personally know (not these bizarre Web relationships), and it's not pricey at all. Those folks all look at me like I'm obsessive. What would they think about spending $10,000 for a fancy CD player? The rest of your response to me (which is odd because my post was not directed at you for the most part) just reflects your evangelistic fervor and oracle-like predictions about what MIGHT come to pass with DVD, and which single instance there could be about one SACD somebody said sounded better than one DVD-A title, etc etc. You'll have to do better than this to convince me you've changed a whit since the BNBB days.

I only have a few so far...5 BY MONK BY 5, SAXOPHONE COLOSSUS, ART PEPPER MEETS THE RHYTHM SECTION, a couple others. All are Analogue Productions jobs and all are wonderful for sure. But I think the Sonny Clark grabbed me specifically because it was SUCH a huge jump forward in sound from the previous horrible early CD remastering I had.

Well, yours trumps mine!

Well, I would respectfully say that it's my firm guess that about 90% of the board members would never notice a decrement in quality between the SACD output of a universal player and a dedicated player, due to lack of that much ear discrimination, lack of a high-end enough system to make the difference apparent, etc. So while the "jack of all trades" argument may be true on one level, at a more practical level I don't think it's going to be an issue at all for most listeners. I think a universal player is a very economical way to get into the market, with a huge jump in sound quality from standard CD that is going to be readily apparent even to the most casual listeners given the typical home audio rig. At $400 for a player like the Pioneer that does all its functions extremely well, including DVD (which is how we conceptualized it when we bought it, as a really good mid-range DVD player in terms of video that has SUPERB DVD sound, with a lot of nice extras to replace our first-generation DVD player) you can always go for a "next generation" dedicated SACD player later on if you really get hooked. I know money is always an issue for many of us, but we're talking about spending a few $100 now to get into the game with a universal player. That will not put most people out of the running from spending a few hundred more a year or two down the road when SACD reaches its full potential if they decide to go for a high-end dedicated player. Also, there don't appear to be a lot of DVD-A advocates on the board, but I can say that for rock, and for modern pop music in particular (stuff like Bjork), overall I am finding that so far I actually prefer the sound impact of DVD-A over SACD by quite a large margin. I would really miss not having the option to play these discs.

Those are great stories, Chuck, thanks for sharing them!