Mark Stryker

Profile of Bob Hurst in advance of the Detroit Jazz Festival http://www.freep.com/article/20110828/ENT04/110828008/Bassist-Bob-Hurst-steps-into-spotlight-jazz-festival- Also, for those who are interested, lots more preview coverage of the festival, annotated schedule, hightlights, etc. http://www.freep.com/article/20110901/ENT04/109010344 http://www.freep.com/article/20110901/ENT04/109010432

I have far too many to pick out favorites or try to summarize, but suffice to say that the twofers were an incalcuable part of my early jazz education in the '70s, along with the Blue Note cutouts -- the music, the liner notes, everything. Miles' "Workin' and Steamin'" was the first twofer I remember owning at 12. I remember early on learning to distinguish between "samplers" and those that were more actually comprised of complete LP reissues. For a long time, the twofer value was unbeatable. Re: Jackie McLean's "Hipnosis" that mjzee mentioned some posts back -- that first record with KD, Clark, Warren, Higgins was the record that made me fall in love with Jackie. It meant so much to me that I eventually transcribed almost all of the tunes to play with my group in college. Re: "seeds" from the past popping up here and there. I can relate ...

I agree with the first paragraph, don't agree with the second. "Blowin' Hot and Cool" is a very specific book and part of a very specific movement, the so-called "New Jazz Studies." The problems I have with the book and with much of this movement seem to me to have little do with criticism in general or even (gulp!) with academics in general. But what the hell -- party at Jim's house! Just to perhaps clarify my second point. I see no problem with arguing that the book represents academic overreach of a special kind connected to "New Jazz Studies." What's disingenuous to me is basing a complaint on the presumption of a power grab when -- in what others might term a similar action -- a person puts himself in a position of deciding what is and what is not a proper line of inquiry based on a self-proclaimed deeper understanding of jazz values. Which is not to say that board members here do not in fact have that deeper understanding ... What "others might term [this] a similar action"? It all (or mostly) comes down to people. I know who John is, I know (this sounds pretentious) what his values and understanding are, as does anyone who has read his good-sized body of work, which has been available to the public over a long period of time. Whether or not he proclaims it himself, he does have that deeper understanding, has shown that he does many times over. If there are "others" who think that he has to start over from square one and prove who he is anew because they don't know who he is, that's their problem; they need to do some homework. I'm not questioning John's authority or credentials by any means. The work speaks for itself and I've been a great admirer for many years. I was just trying to get at the issue of who, if anyone, should have the power of prior restraint to put some topics off limits. My answer is no one, because you start to run into "Free speech for me but not for thee." I don't agree with John here that the nature and history of jazz criticism is irrelevant to jazz and jazz appreciation. It was/is a music that reached and moved (reaches and moves) a broad audience in important ways; and who wrote what about the music when and (within reasonable limits of investigation/speculation) why is part of the story -- peripheral perhaps, but not without interest. But while no one should have the power of prior restraint about what topics are worth talking about, that doesn't absolve us from the task of recognizing b.s. and power operations for what they are when, as sometimes happens, they become egregious. Free speech in the don't stop him/her from speaking sense is one thing; but some people (not you) seem to think that free speech means that all speech is or ought to be equal in value. Agreed on all counts.

I agree with the first paragraph, don't agree with the second. "Blowin' Hot and Cool" is a very specific book and part of a very specific movement, the so-called "New Jazz Studies." The problems I have with the book and with much of this movement seem to me to have little do with criticism in general or even (gulp!) with academics in general. But what the hell -- party at Jim's house! Just to perhaps clarify my second point. I see no problem with arguing that the book represents academic overreach of a special kind connected to "New Jazz Studies." What's disingenuous to me is basing a complaint on the presumption of a power grab when -- in what others might term a similar action -- a person puts himself in a position of deciding what is and what is not a proper line of inquiry based on a self-proclaimed deeper understanding of jazz values. Which is not to say that board members here do not in fact have that deeper understanding ... What "others might term [this] a similar action"? It all (or mostly) comes down to people. I know who John is, I know (this sounds pretentious) what his values and understanding are, as does anyone who has read his good-sized body of work, which has been available to the public over a long period of time. Whether or not he proclaims it himself, he does have that deeper understanding, has shown that he does many times over. If there are "others" who think that he has to start over from square one and prove who he is anew because they don't know who he is, that's their problem; they need to do some homework. I'm not questioning John's authority or credentials by any means. The work speaks for itself and I've been a great admirer for many years. I was just trying to get at the issue of who, if anyone, should have the power of prior restraint to put some topics off limits. My answer is no one, because you start to run into "Free speech for me but not for thee."

I agree with the first paragraph, don't agree with the second. "Blowin' Hot and Cool" is a very specific book and part of a very specific movement, the so-called "New Jazz Studies." The problems I have with the book and with much of this movement seem to me to have little do with criticism in general or even (gulp!) with academics in general. But what the hell -- party at Jim's house! Just to perhaps clarify my second point. I see no problem with arguing that the book represents academic overreach of a special kind connected to "New Jazz Studies." What's disingenuous to me is basing a complaint on the presumption of a power grab when -- in what others might term a similar action -- a person puts himself in a position of deciding what is and what is not a proper line of inquiry based on a self-proclaimed deeper understanding of jazz values. Which is not to say that board members here do not in fact have that deeper understanding ...

Because today's battles are about ownership, and ownership is all about defining, not spotlighting and encouraging. This is what happens when enough people die. Pretty soon critical mass is reached and even the still-living are up for grabs. Exactly. One of the most awful things about tyrannies, I reckon, is not only that one has to submit by and large to the sheer power of those in power but also that one must accept (if and when this becomes an issue) the tyranny's typically detailed false supporting claims that the power the tyrant has come to exercise is rational and righteous. They want both your bodies and your souls. Well said, gents. Gennari's book about jazz-criticism history is all about power and he doesn't notice or care that there are values in this music we love. He wrote about a peripheral subject, irrelevant to jazz and to jazz appreciation. Sometimes the power-obsessed jazz academics seem like too many hogs fighting over a too-small trough with not enough swill to go around. OTOH Hersch seems to have picked a genuinely worthwhile subject to write about, even though others have already researched it--I hope the rest of it isn't as awful as Allen's excerpt. Jim, at least when revisionists impose their programs/propaganda upon the still-living, the still-living can fight back. As George Lewis did in his AACM history. Fortunately, we have nothing to fear from the likes of Gennari. The most sophisticated tyrants get our souls by nourishing our bodies and distracting our attention (bread and circuses) from their violence against freedom. As in present-day China. That's why Rick Perry is such a trip, the times are right for an American demagogue. I have trouble with this line of thinking because the implication is that Gennari's subject itself is out of bounds because it's "a peripheral subject, irrelevant to jazz and to jazz appreciation" and that he apparently doesn't get that "the values in this music that we love." Sorry, but exploring the history of criticism of any art form is a completely relevant topic in enlarging our understanding of the way that art form has developed and its relationship to the larger society. Just because Gennari may have done a poor job doesn't mean that the job wasn't worth doing well. Moreover, it seems disingenuous to me to complain that Gennari's book represents the overreach of power-obsessed jazz academics when wielding power, intentionally or unintentionally, benignly or maliciously, carelessly or meticulously, is on at least some level an issue in almost all criticism. Certainly musicians have always complained about critics in the same terms that you are complaining about academics -- they don't understand the music or its values, all they want is power, they're failed musicians, bitter, impotent, etc. I'm not saying that there aren't particular problems with certain kinds of jazz academics and that those problems may not be magnified in the context of contemporary discourse/marketplace about the music. But the answer is not putting some subjects off limits. The answer is to try and create a better breed of academic, to encourage and celebrate more and better-written books and to call bullshit whenever and wherever we see it.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/28/139978299/first-listen-sonny-rollins-road-shows-vol-2?sc=tw&cc=share NPR First Listen ...

Didn't have his best stuff and needed to rely on Tiger bats for once to help bail him out, but Justin Verlander beat the Twins today to become the first Tiger in 20 years to win 20 games. He's 20-5. Special year for a special pitcher.

Part of my issue with Mainstream was always the horrible engineering -- the rubbery bass recorded direct and far too upfront in the mix, with drums, especially cymbals, too far in the back and dead sounding and the whole ensembles frequently a muddy mess. The '70s -- a horrible decade for fashion and recorded sound. That said, at least two of the three Charles McPherson records have some nice playing with interesting writing by Ernie Wilkins: "Siku Ya Bibi," ballad album with strings dedicated to Billie Holiday; and "Today's Man" with a seven piece horn section. On the later there's a quartet version of "Stranger in Paradise" on which Charles turns in one of the truly spectacular recorded bebop solos of the decade -- inspired melodies and phrasing, beautiful flow of rhythm, singing sound, shadowed perfectly by Barry Harris' piano. Nothing else on the record is at this level, however, and the sound of Billy Higgins' drums and Lawrence Evans' bass brings tears (of sorrow) to my eyes. I also like the two Hal Galper records, "Inner Journey," an acoustic trio with Dave Holland and Bill Goodwin, and "The Guerilla Band" with the Brecker Bros, two drummers, electric piano and bass and guitar. The latter is a very creative example of the zeigeist mix of the early '70s that married modal post-bop improvising and textural jazz rock. I'd love to hear this remastered to get some clarity into the presentation. Galps is always great -- loose, fearless, messy in the best sense, with a sense of adventure grounded by the discipline that comes from having done your homework. Very underrated musician -- still is.

That's what most instrumentalists (the overwhelming majority, actually) do too. But most vocalists don't have the skills to do it this fluently. Would that they did, or at least that they'd recognize that they don't and either stop trying or else go to the skills store and get some. As for the whole vocalese thing in general, I'm less interested as time goes on. But this clip ain't about vocalese, it's about scatting, and how most of the nonsense that passes for scatting is eitehr some degree of inept and/or quite basic. What Hendricks and Lambert are doing here makes neither concession or excuses about dealing with the tempo and the idiom. Whatever Walter Johnson told Connee Boswell about female dogs preaching on their hind legs is really not relevant to that, although it certainly is a clever tale of Old World fascinations of wand with both gender and species. But these days, women regularly preach (and quite well), and dogs now routinely walk on their hind legs, at least if they want to do the laundry or work a chainsaw. To both Jim and Mark: Yes, that's what most instrumentalists do, but to me Hendricks sounds like he's basically imitating some very licks-based saxophonists; and because he doesn't have much of a voice by jazz vocalists' standards, let alone much of a "voice" by the standards of a good jazz tenorman, the results seem to me to be interesting mostly because it can be done at all, a la you know what. Lambert OTOH seems to me to invent from and with his voice -- I particularly like the way he gets that back and forth rhythmic and timbral phrasing thing going from, so it seems, the back and front of his chest and belly. This is kind of Pres-like, or better maybe Wardell-like, but to me the difference between Lambert and Hendricks is that Lambert's "instrument" is his voice plus his hipness and Hendricks' is almost entirely his hipness. As for the vocalese thing, as I may have implied (and in fact believe), the way L-H-R sing here springs historically and conceptually from the vocalese concept (fitting words to recorded jazz solos), whether not they're actually scat singing. I am willing to listen to contrary evidence. BTW, speaking of scat singing that's almost beyond belief, check out the great Leo Watson. Hmm. While it's true that Hendricks doesn't have much in the way of a traditional vocal instrument, the skills with which he manipulates it -- rhythmic, harmonic and melodic understanding -- qualify as more than hipness. Those are musical skills. So is his intonation which is mostly spot-on, except when he pushes and/or gets tired. I hear Hendricks in the line of jazz singers and instrumentals who don't have conventional voices or tones but find ways to overcome weakness or, in some cases, make virtues of them. On the other point, I don't see how the actual scat singing here stems from the vocalese concept. In the solos, the cats are blowing like any other scat singers -- except WAY better. Thanks for the tip on Leo Watson -- don't know the work at all.

Interesting. You're proposing a distinction between a "lick"-based solo (Hendricks) versus more organic melodic creation (Lambert) that in instrumental terms might equate to, say, Sonny Stitt vs. Warne Marsh. I'm not sure I agree, at least to the implication that Hendricks is not as coherent here -- he's still telling a story, though I would agree that he references more common practice vocabulary than Lambert does. Moving from melody to rhythm, Hendricks swings harder to me, deeper in the pocket and more lightning triplets and bebop curlicues. (Though make no mistake Lambert is swinging pretty damn hard too.) Returning to my Stitt analogy, even there are certainly times when you know what Stitt's going to play, it doesn't matter (at least to me), because the time, phrasing, swing and command of the vocabulary are so great. Of course, I don't listen to Stitt for the same things as I listen to Marsh for and vice-versa. Leaving that aside, I don't understand how Lambert is more "vocal" in conception compared to Hendrick's "instrumental" conception? Scatting is by definition singing without words in an instrumental fashion, yes? On that level at least I don't hear any difference betweeen the two singers. Am I missing something? On another front, generally speaking I have always felt at any given moment there are only anywhere from 5 to 10 people on the planet who should be allowed to scat sing. I think we can all agree that both Lambert and Hendricks passed the audition.

Just listening to the George Coleman -- this septet is a prototype for his great octet, missing only the second tenor. Frank Strozier is here on alto and plays a terrific solo on "Sunny" -- what an underrated master! Unfortunately, the balance and sound are not good in the recording throughout the set. Fantastic chart on "Green Dolphin Street." Supercharged bebop, "Countdown" substitutions all over the place and delirious saxophone soli writing. George tears it up. "Body and Soul" ends the set. He later wrote a more involved chart, but some of the ensemble shout stuff shows up halfway through. Uses "Countdown" on the bridge ala Trane here as well. I remember a critic -- Lee Jeske? -- who once wrote that Coleman's Octet was one of the best reasons for living in NY in the '70s. I once had an incredible "Jazz Alive" (NPR) tape of the octet playing "Body and Soul," "Green Dolphin Street," "Frank's Tune" and maybe something else. I miss that tape. Curious about the Ted Curson. Also a septet, recorded earlier than the Inner City LP "Jubilant Power" but with the same band, a surprising mix of personnel including Chris Woods, Nick Brignola, Jim McNeely, David Friesen, Steve McCall.

Coda: Dave Lambert is making the changes too on "Airegin" ...

Ah, beat me to the punch. I've watched this clip a million times and it kills me everytime I hear it because it's just so take-care-of-business on every level, especially the swing. Could be the corniest shit in the world but it sounds like the hippest instead. I've seen Jon Hendricks a few times over the years and even relatively recently, with the voice basically gone and the range very limited, he still gets over because it's NEVER not in the pocket. It don't mean a thing and all that ... He was at the Detroit Jazz Festival around 2005 and after his set he came over to hear Aretha Franklin, who was closing the festival that year. I was standing not too far away from him with a good sight line to the stage. Aretha morphed from the most substantial music of her set and was into the real "showbiz" part of the night, moving all around, preening with back-up singers, hard funky rhythm and the whole bit. I sort of sidled up behind Hendricks (who I did not know) and leaned in and said to him, "You should do some of that in your show." I was joking but he turned to me and said, "Oh, we can do that. We can do that." He was serious, and I believed him.

Word. I'd only add that Jon Hendricks' time and phrasing -- 100% rooted in bebop -- are every bit as hip as his harmony, maybe hipper. Not only do most scat singers completely shuck through the harmony, their time is so square that it doesn't even matter what notes they're singing. I mean, I'll forgive vagueness and intonation is you're at least giving me swing. But with J.H. you get it all. He's a bad m.f. ... In this clip with Mel Torme the difference is striking. I like Mel (more in other clips but he's a great musician), but you can hear in this duet with Hendricks how much more connected rhythmically he is the late swing era/Ella compared to Hendricks, who bebops his ass off. Jon is considerably more behind the beat and several times Mel sounds like he's rushing in comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cmm4OoMTaY The best track here is "I'll Be Seeing You" that contains some of my favorite Sonny of recent decades. He plays the hell out of the changes while keeping the melody present, spending most of the 9 minutes trading with Jack DeJohnette. Sonny bites off some truly inspired bebop that has a purity that harks back to his best '60s work. It's all a highlight to me, starting with a really slick intro, but I especially love the passages that start at the 3:44 mark: He starts an ascending phrase that quickly u-turns and heads for the basement, before heading back to the middle register to end with a quintessential Rollins rhyme-resolution. In his next 4 he picks up on DeJohnette's rhythm (and seemingly his pitch) with a rapidly stuttering figure that struts like a peacock. Dig the physical manifestation as Sonny straightens his spine and sticks his chin and chest out. In the next 4 he opens with a loose, swirling figure in the upper register that threatens to get away from him, but he uses his infallible inner pulse and pinpoint, percussive articulation to lock back into the pocket. This is some of the shit he perfected in the 60s. In the next 4 he enters with a melody that already seems in motion, before swooping down like an eagle and letting his momentum carry him well into DeJohnette's break. It's all personal taste at some point but this is the way I would want to play.

I suspect very few drove -- it's New York. They may have stumbled down the subway stairs or vomited in the back of a cab, but probably not many, hopefully, got behind the wheel.

I know he was very busy in the studios, which is why Gary Peacock, Richard Davis, Albert Stinson, etc. appeared with the Quintet on various tours. And although Carter is a great musician and has written some great tunes, I've never gotten the sense that he has a "vision" - a music that is distinctly his "own." Disagree. Carter's piccolo bass group in the '70s pursued a distinct sound ideal and his more recent trios with guitar and piano go for a kind of immaculately tailored refinement of the mainstream. I'm leaving aside value judgments on quality/profundity of the results and simply addressing the notion of vision as a bandleader. It is true that Carter's own bands have been about things that are very different than his most innovative and influential work he did with Miles and others.

Thanks for sharing. This was so great I tweeted it: http://twitter.com/#!/Mark_Stryker

Maiden Voyage, if you want to allow for George Coleman instead of Wayne. Has Herbie (or George) ever addressed how or why Coleman ended up on "Maiden Voyage"? Not that he doesn't sound great, especially on the title track, where his melodies and use of 4ths digs into the meat of the tune: (transcription here: http://stevekhan.com/coleman1.htm). But in so many ways it seems more logical for Wayne or Joe Henderson to have been on this record given the date of May 1965 and the nature of the material. Maybe it was a timing/schedule issue. Maybe Herbie really wanted George and thought he would be perfect for the material or context. I wouldn't necessarily argue with the results, but I do sometimes wonder what one of those other guys might have sounded like here. Just wondering.

Some of Wayne's recordings come close but his penchant for using other drummers rather than Tony Williams creates the biggest disconnect. But not for Elvin Jones, "Speak No Evil" is the Miles group with Freddie Hubbard on trumpet. "Adam's Apple" has Herbie but also Reggie Workman and Joe Chambers. "The Collector" aka "Etcetera" has Herbie with Chambers and Cecil McBee. Williams' "Spring" comes at it from another angle, with Wayne and Herbie but also Peacock and Sam Rivers. For what it's worth, I just realized that "Spring" was recorded only 11 days later than the Shorter bootleg with Hancock, Peacock and Williams

Gary Carner, an expert in all things relating to Pepper Adams, as well as the creator of http://pepperadams.com/ and the saxophonist's in-progress biographer, is now posting rare live recordings. First up is an Adams original, "Joy Road," with a Detroit rhythm section, taken from a 1982 radio broadcast of what was then known as the Montreux-Detroit Kool Jazz Festival. http://pepperadams.com/SolosOfMonth/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/nyregion/sold-as-lobster-salad-but-a-key-ingredient-was-missing.html?_r=1 Amused and appalled by this but also confused as to how nobody in New York could call Zabar's on this for 15 years.

Levine has indeed sometimes been criticized for, as Dwight Garner put it in the Times the other day, leaning too hard on his blue-collar bona fides. But I do think it's important to remember, as Garner also pointed out, that Levine has lived in Spain, translated the work of Pablo Neruda and César Vallejo and edited a volume of Keats’s poems. He has also specifically repudiated the descriptions of himself as a barstool Whitman. Garner quotes him saying: “I’m so weary of that anti-intellectual stance: I’m just standing here suckin’ on a beer writin’ these lines until the pool room opens. I love intelligent poetry — Stevens, Ammons, Tom Sleigh, Robert Morgan.” While Levine's plainspoken language is intended to reach a far wider audience than the work of more opaque academic poets, he's not specifically writing for the butcher or the line worker -- he's channeling his own experience into his art and putting it out there for everyone. That's a different thing. Levine's working-class voice and stance is not an act -- it is part of the deepest core of an identity that was forged through his family background, childhood and his crucial young adulthood. As with many artists, especially writers, early identity becomes the source of the work for the rest of their careers and there's no statute of limitations on such influences. Now, yes, of course hypocrisy can be an issue in some cases -- rich artists posing as jus' folks when they've been eating caviar served by butlers and haven't worried about paying the heating bill for decades. But Levine is by no means in that class. He's a poet who has made a modest living teaching, and he was well into middle-age or later when the awards came his way. He was 63 when he won the National Book Award and 67 when he won the Pulitzer.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110811/ENT05/108110516/New-poet-laureate-brings-memories-Detroit-factories-life-his-writing?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p Born and raised in Detroit, Philip Levine, America's newly appointed Poet Laureate, told me some nice stories about the impact of jazz and jazz musicians on his artistic life. There was only room for a taste of that part of the conversation in our Free Press story today, but I hope to revisit the topic with him later.