Mark Stryker

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811304577366332400453796.html Read this today. Laughed out loud -- many times.

OK, that's a little spooky ...

Kalamazoo her home town - interesting. There's a pamphlet, a short history of the old, pre-Civil War black community in SE Mich. (Cass, Berrien, St. Joe counties), that claims Abbey grew up away down there. (A Niles newspaperman wrote it.) IIRC she did not claim a Michigan background. I do remember in 1975 moseying across a pre-subway Washington DC with Ran Blake to catch a Jeanne Moreau movie. He was a Jeanne Moreau completist. He had good taste (probably still has). Actually, she spoke freely about her upbringing if asked. Very long and fascinating interview here. She was born in Chicago but grew up on a farm in Calvin Center, a rural place in the southeastern part of Michigan. She later lived in Kalamazoo, where she went to high school and apparently also lived briefly in Jackson, MI. Long and very interesting interview here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0cqlssWxwt4J:www.newmusicbox.org/assets/38/interview_lincoln.pdf+abbey+lincoln+and+lisa+and+calvin+and+kalamazoo&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi1vg8IBFeutNMWz5xBv3Z1Rs7-OrB1eQYxasQiQpU4_U-rV_SSN6HxwSH06uLkXe6o1OkvXybIRRtL3FVO5L11T_nvMSQb61bObMOwfBoriYlXagxVvdwNoowoGID6h1_4LIIr&sig=AHIEtbRnamkp5UU5UdeMWVb039qv7HG4bQ

Kid Rock is teaming with the Detroit Symphony in a couple of weeks for a benefit concert in which they'll raise $1 million for the orchestra. (Most of you probably know that Rock is from here and is a big booster for all things Detroit.) I've been thinking about issues related to this one-time marriage, etc., and what the larger context is. While I've studied quite deeply connections/mergers between of classical music and jazz, I really don't know symphonic rock stuff at all. Thanks all for the suggestions. Speak up with more ideas if you have them.

I've actually met Tüür. The Detroit Symphony has played some of his music (under Neeme Jarvi when he was music director here but also under son Paavo Jarvi as a guest). Tüür came to town for one or the other of those weeks and when I saw him in the lobby I when up and introduced myself. Nice man. Interesting composer too. Very eclectic but doesn't create pastiche and there's some rewarding guts and dissonance there.

Well, yes, of course that speaks to differences between good and bad, but I'm cool on the analysis front. I'm looking for specific bands/albums/songs ...

For something I'm working on relating to classical music and rock crossover (don't ask) I want to identify a couple of examples where the marriage works well and a couple where it doesn't. Does anyone here have any inisight on the matter? I'm especially interested in at this point in rock artists who have tried to cast their music in classical clothes. There are any number of "classical" composers like the Bang on a Can folks (Michael Gordon, David Lang, Julia Wolfe, etc.) who write notated music that uses rock rhythms, instruments, textures, production, etc., but that's a separate but related topic. Thanks in advance.

If Tony came back from England and said "it didn't work," then I would take him at his word. In that light, Lundvall asking for a demo seems prescient -- one of the reasons he got to where he did was he didn't throw money at just anything, which is not to say he didn't take risks. But the prima facie evidence in this case suggests he knew what he was doing. On a broader note, leaving aside the discussion of the Lila Wallace issue (I basically agree with Allen on that one), I don't think it's fair to claim Lundvall as some sort of self-defined record company revolutionary and then complain when he didn't change the system. NOBODY could change the system. That's the issue with the SYSTEM. Lundvall was highly effective working within the system. I don't agree with all the artists he signed but he did do good work at Columbia (Dexter, Woody Shaw, Blythe too, yes?) and there are many Blue Note successes too, and he kept up the good fight far longer than anyone else might have in dealing with the bean counters that he had do deal with, creating revenue streams via, say, a Norah Jones to continue to fund jazz projects. I don't know him personally and can't speak to how he treats musicians, wives, children or puppies. And, again, if I were in charge, I would have made different choices along the way. I wouldn't deify him -- and think people who do risk overstating the case -- but on balance, he's clearly been a force for good not evil. That's not nothing in the record industry. What is the evidence that he talked as though it was his goal to literally change the model for the way business was done? And what would that changed model look like anyway. If it's only "sign more cats like Barry Harris," I would count that as a great and glorious thing and rejoice unto the heavens, but I wouldn't necessarily say that's changing the model in any fundamental way.

Specific words aside, placement and context can have an impact, especially if you are trying to write funny. The Pulitzer Prize winning feature writer Gene Weingarten once put it this way: “Always try to put the funniest word at the end of your sentence underpants.”

When I was in school in the early '80s in Urbana, there was a good juke box at this campus hangout right next to the Music School where folks would gather before rehearsals and where the big band would play regularly on Tuesdays. (Treno's for any other Univ. of Illinois folks out there.) We used to play Groove Holmes' "Misty" over and over and over. It was the edited single. Just two minutes long but very hip. The manager used to get irritated that we played it so much and one night he was so sick of hearing it for the 10th time or whatever that he literally pulled the plug on the machine for the night. Busted! Horace's "Song for My Father" was on the box too but in two parts, and if we were light on quarters we'd just play part 2 because that picked right up at Joe Henderson's solo.

Always loved this track -- especially with the studio chatter that immediately precedes it on the LP -- used to have it on my answering machine in college. More discussion here:

Not looking to revive this thread but only to pause for a moment to remember both Joe Henderson and Johnny Griffin on their birthday (April 24).

Hoping Verlander can shut up the Texas bats tonight. Gonna be cold here. Probably in the 40s. Coda: After last fall and the first two games of this series, I'm starting to develop quite an aversion to the Rangers.

Well, see, that's what is kind of lost by some, that you can be on top of the beat and behind the beat, anywhere, really, as long as you stay in the beat and stay connected, it'll all be good. Ride it where best suits you, but by god, ride that motherfucker somewhere, don't be letting it get away, lest of all in such a way that you're just standing there letting it turn the corner while you keep heading straight ahead into the wall! And not just "the beat", either. The pulse, and not just of music! And yes, Roland Hanna was superb in his contributions. Saul Goode, he was. Gotta wonder waht Chick Corea sounded like subbing in the band, as mentioned in the liners. Wonder if he took the chances offered or just role-played. Gotta think Chick took the chances -- that's who he is, plus that's what Thad wanted, what he encouraged, what he wrote and, lo, what he usually got from those around him. Related point: Lots of guys in that band over the years never sounded better than when they were in that band. Ain't no accident. Thad was a m.f. on every level.

Jim: You mean "Central Park North" (not "West"). A slip of the lip can sink a ship ...

Finally got a copy of the set, don't notice too much of a difference with the reverb on the first three albums, but those last two...yeah, this is so much better. I like the original's sond, but this is nice and clear, sounds like a big band instead of a "big band record", if you know what I mean. And no matter what else, Richard Davis is Mr. Smile Inducer all over this thing, and Mel is his ginning co-conspirator. God bless 'em both for being there and doing that. It's a really w-i-d-e beat. Davis way on top, Mel on the backside, but in some kind of of perfect balance, so they form this big 'ole moving chair with front and back legs moving ahead in unison with the whole band riding on the cushion in the middle. And don't forget Roland ...

Tonight: Saxophonist Azar Lawrence Quintet featuring Jeff (Tain) Watts on drums, Benito Gonzalez in piano, Essiet Essiet on bass and Gilbert Castellanos on trumpet. Jazz Cafe at Music Hall in downtown Detroit. I've never heard Lawrence live. Gonzalez plays out of a McCoy bag and has impressed me on record, most recently on the new Kenny Garrett disc, but haven't heard him live either that I can recall. Trumpeter is new to me.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rats-cocaine-love-miles-davis-dumb-animal-research-paid-tax-dollars-article-1.1063528?localLinksEnabled=false Give the writer credit for working a reference to "Kind of Blue" into the lead but subtract bona fides for not being hip enough to know that Eddie Cleanhead Vinson wrote "Four."

On deadline on a review (Bizet's "The Pearl Fishers" of all things), so no time to digest and respond to Larry at this point. Re: Allen: I withdraw the original charge of snarky in favor of "satiric post delivered with perhaps a soupcon of crotchetiness." "Better?" he asked, snarkily

Fasstrack -- Actually, I don's see anyone "slamming" Herbie's forthcoming book, unless you count Allen's initial post expressing his dislike for Hancock in his own snarky way. But that post actually launched the rest of this thread, which at least for me, evolved into a stimulating discussion about Hancock's strengths and weaknesses, stylistic trademarks and the larger frame (musical and cultural) in which his music exists. It's been a vigorous back and forth between those of us who really champion Hancock and those who have greater reservations. I think folks on both sides of the aisle have gotten some interesting things to think about. Larry -- I hear what you're saying: That a harmony-first mentality is effectively leading to the creation of not very effective melodies that exist not as organic entities conceived in unison with rhythm and harmony but as a mere "filling out" of the chords. Right? This can be a chicken and egg discussion but it can be an issue. "Lick" players often think this way. They see the chord and plug in the scale/pattern that fits. But the way all of this breaks down in the brain and comes together on the bandstand is complicated and fluid, with sophisticated players accessing what their ears tell them to play in a web of interconnected decisions, impulses and intuitions. But to go back: the primacy of melody. Here's an interesting post from Dave Liebman a few years ago talking about the Lee Konitz/Andy Hamilton book in which he kicks around some of this. I think it's relevant to what you've been arguing. IT'S ALL ABOUT MELODY I was interviewed by author Andy Hamilton for his new book on Lee Konitz which I just read cover to cover-a fantastic document_ First of all the format is very interesting. It consists of an over two hundred page interview of Lee covering different stages of his career with comments by other musicians interspersed. Konitz is known in the biz as a very honest, outspoken and verbal person with an ability to cut to the chase when he comments on almost any subject. He is merciless in his opinions (being eighty gives you that right I suppose), highly judgmental (on himself as well), yet very clear and able to back up his comments with plausible explanations. I have always felt that musicians are the best sources for review and comment on others in the field, as long as they keep it objective, include comprehensible musical evaluations with of course nothing personal. Lee does just that. For example he admired Stan Getz except when he "pushed" his sound in the upper register, an observation I absolutely agree with. He is equally critical about himself, mentioning among other things perpetual intonation problems as well as a dislike of playing very fast tempos for example. But the major component of Lee's aesthetic is his absolute allegiance and emphasis on melody making as the essence of improvisation, a view which over the years, I as well increasingly subscribe to. My generation especially was entranced by harmony. I guess with my book on the subject, I am a prime target for what I am about to say. It was in essence "Giant Steps" which launched many of my peers on that path (or in some cases, a completely reactive "free" of harmonic content style). I was and still am entranced by the richness of color and its subsequent emotional power that I hear and feel from deep harmony as played to such a high level in the mid 60's by specifically Hancock, Tyner and Corea. The same could be said about at a great deal of 20th century classical repertoire with Bartok, Scriabin, Shostakovich, etc., leading the way. My long relationship with pianist Richie Beirach has been predicated to a large part on harmony, which entices the intellect by challenging one to understand and use it. Naturally, it is also a bottomless pit of discovery with unending combinations. Therefore the trap!! In jazz specifically, rhythm is still king. Without some aspect of swing, the core of the tradition is not present. What constitutes "swing" is a separate discussion, but suffice to say there are numerous ways that in my opinion music can so call "swing." But ultimately, the supremacy of melody has to be acknowledged. As a consequence of its being universal, timeless (beyond style and even culture), with the ability to cut to the core of a listener's visceral reaction to the experience of hearing music as a whole, one must deal with it. As I understand better now, when I hear someone like Chet Baker or Lee play to name two examples, inventing a SPONTANEOUS melody, set in a "swinging" feel as we are expected to do in jazz improvisation, I am duly impressed. In the final analysis harmony shades and supports melody, hopefully enhancing its intrinsic beauty and depth. Of course, as I discuss in my class at Manhattan School of Music on the subject, one's personal judgment as to what constitutes a "good" or a "lyrical" melody are quite subjective. This perception is affected by one's listening experience and in this case, culture, etc., hence an area of discussion always open to analysis and discourse. One way of the other, creating a good melody stands as a crowning achievement, be it written or improvised.

Pete -- thanks for posting those McCoy videos. Burnin'. His left hand comes down like a jackhammer here. Anybody know what kind of personal relationship Herbie and McCoy had? Friendly? Distant? Competitive? Admirers of each other? I've never asked either how they viewed the other, but would be interseting to know, especially during the '60s, when they were the leading figures, holding down the two most prestigious piano chairs in contemporary jazz, and appearing on every other recording on Blue Note. I recall reading once that Herbie got a copy of Nicolas Slonimsky's "Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns" after hearing that McCoy was practicing out of it (McCoy got it from Trane.) As an aside, I did once ask Herbie if he ever played with Coltrane and the answer, regrettably, was no. He did say that once when he was playing the Vanguard with Miles, he saw that Trane was in the club listening. Herbie didn't get a chance to talk to him, but Miles told the band that Trane had really dug it and that he had told Miles that he was going to come back the next night and sit in. Hearing this, Herbie said he went home and stayed up most of the night practicing McCoy's vocabularly of 4th voicings, etc., in preparation. However, when the next night came, Trane didn't show.

Re: McCoy on Milestone. To be clear, I do really like the earlier Milestones with Fortune and Lawrence, and especially love "Enlightment" (Walk Spirit, Talk Spirit" -- Yeah!!) Re: Jim's VSOP point. There's a difference between the macro -- this band will reunite 4/5ths of the Miles quintet and deal with that repertoire -- and the micro, as in when Herbie's solo starts on any particular tune does what come out sound preplanned or freshly in the moment. Still, it's certianly true that macro decisions can present such a strictly prescribed frame that it can overwhelm whatever micro spontaneity might arise in the execution. I have mixed feelings about VSOP, but this isn't one of my issues. Also, I don't know what' more troubling: That you wrote, "but we're not talking about that then, we're talking about another then, when then then was the now," or that I can actually follow the train of thought.

Re: "OTOH, about McCoy, weren't the glories to come in good part because he stepped away from his version of patterned glassiness and became much more rhythmically and harmonically turbulent and in the moment? (Albeit, in later McCoy rhythmic and harmonic turbulence were essentially one." Hmm. I would separate the idea of "patterns" from the other concepts. Later McCoy is indeed much more texturally dense and harmonically and rhythmically turbulent, but in some ways the music is actually more pattern oriented because it relies even more on ideas carved from endlessly juggled melodic-rhythmic cells derived from pentatonic scales. Is later McCoy more in the moment than early McCoy? Never thought of it that way but's he's definitely more volatile and freer in many ways. But you could also say it's a lot more congested too and perhaps not as melodic. For the record, I love McCoy from all periods but some of the Milestone LPs do reach a saturation point in terms of density for me. I remember breathing a sigh of relief when he returned to a trio format for his working band. His own style lightened a little bit, but the bigger impact I think was from getting rid of other horns and percussion to unclog the arteries.

Mark -- I feel I was wrongish in that review in pointing so much toward Coltrane (pianists are by and large pianists, no?), and certainly I was off about McCoy, whose finest work was yet to come. Herbie the accompanist with Miles et al. was something else, but I admit to never having been that interested in most Herbie piano solos (an exception would be one track on that terrific Blue Note Bobby Hutcherson quartet album with Albert Stinson and Joe Chambers) because they so often seem to ... I don't know, rather pre-determined and "glassy" to me. The concept, so to speak, and the execution seem to separate; not much sense of in the moment (but I can see where that might be a partial goal on his part). The electronic Herbie is a whole other ballgame, I would say. P.S. OTOH, about McCoy, weren't the glories to come in good part because he stepped away from his version of patterned glassiness and became much more rhythmically and harmonically turbulent and in the moment? (Albeit, in later McCoy rhythmic and harmonic turbulence were essentially one.) I understand the idea of "glassiness" but would suggest that relates to Herbie's impressionistic touch and harmony. Perhaps your aesthetic tastes lay elsewhere and "Speak Like a Child" in particular emphasizes the qualities you respond to the least, which are also italicized by what Jim identified earlier as an unusually gauzy recording mix for Blue Note. Is it a coincidence that you have always had issues with Bill Evans who has similar impressionistic qualities and who influenced Herbie in those areas?)The disconnect you feel between concept and execution might be a registering of the intellectualism in Herbie's playing that to you sounds too on the surface and thus hits you as overly pre-determined. Forgive the armchair deconstruction of your analysis. I don't hear it this way at all. For me Herbie is one of the most truly spontaneous improvisers in jazz. When he starts a solo, to a degree unusual even in an art based on in-the-moment invention, you really don't know what's about to happen. Now, obviously, he's incredibly studied on some level and has a language that he employs, but he is in no way a "lick" or "pattern" player" in the sense of constructing solos out of pre-practiced materials or applying them in an overly studied way. (Which is not to say patterns don't sometimes crop up as they do in everybody's playing.) Miles used to tell the guys, "I pay you to practice on the bandstand." I think Herbie exemplifies that quality in the best sense. For me, Hancock's achievement was to reconcile a bunch of previously disparate pianism -- impressionistic harmony and refined touch of Bill Evans, swinging momentum of Bud Powell, drama of Ahmad Jamal, funkiness of Horace Silver and ebullient bounce of Wynton Kelly and Red Garland. That synthesis then becomes a new and highly influential template, enriched by Herbie's own newly advanced harmonic palette, his linear invention, his rhythmic independence and, again, his spontaneity. I'm in no way claiming his infallibility. I recognize the track record gets less consistent in more recent decades, the issues of taste, etc. I also know a good many people, including some great musicians, who respect Herbie more than they love him and who have never been as emotionally moved by his work as they are by, well, McCoy for starters. I also recognize that someone's weaknesses are often lodged inside their strengths and vice versa. I'm just just trying to articulate what it is that I'm responding to, and with Herbie it's a lot. At his frequent best I find him more stimulating and satisfying than any other pianist in the contemporary post-bop idiom. There is also a remarkable diversity, an adaptibility, that's worth noting. Here are two sideman appearances that illustrate the range. I think he sounds great in both on every level but would particularly note the variety of phrasing and rhythm and the spontaneity elements since that's what started all of this in the first place. As always, everyone's mileage may vary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXsIMakAJo

Just in after a long night of wildly diverse music -- free music from Matthew Shipp Trio in one spot, followed by straight-ahead music from bassist Rodney Whitaker and Co. at a another. A good night in Detroit. But quickly: I think Larry's initial revue is misguided as it relates to Herbie and McCoy, though I see where he's going and admire his chutzpah to put it all out there and I do on some level agree with the ideas expressed in his response to the letter writer. who, by the way, I also don't think is as necessarily misguided as Jim suggests. But here's what's more interesting to me at 3:30 a.m. I am 95% sure that one Robert Budson is "Buddy" Budson, a fine Detroit pianist who is about Larry's age and who is still working productively here (and married to a good singer named Ursula Walker). I will certainly ask him about this next time I see him. Man, sometimes the world is very, very small.