Mark Stryker

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Ff6098PAhc

I'm hoping somebody can clear something up for me. Yesterday I bought a used LP of the Roy Haynes' trio record "We Three" with Phineas Newborn and Paul Chambers. Great side, of course. I've had it forever as an OJC LP and on CD, but this appeared to be an original copy and it was at a killer price -- $3 -- and even though it physically looked a bit scuffed and the cover spine was maybe 60 percent split, it was still impossible to pass up. As it turns out, it sounds great, with just a bit of surface noise. It's a mono recording, by the way. OK, here's the question. On the front of the jacket, the label is listed as New Jazz. However, on the back, the label is listed as Status. The inner label on the record is the orange Status liner with that familiar logo (the s-that's-also-an-arrow.) I always thought this record first came out on New Jazz (purple label), which is the indication of my OJC. I know that New Jazz and Status were both Prestige subsidiaries. So what gives with this LP? Why does it say different things in different spots? Frankly, it looks like a fuck-up, which I suppose is entirely possible -- like a misprinted stamp or something that gets recalled right away. Perhaps it's worth more on the collector's market because of the mistake. So, if anybody out there wants to offer me an obscene amount of money for this, I'm all ears. Explanations anyone?

I agree completely with Larry's previous posts on Bennett's relationship to jazz. This is an interesting topic, and I've talked to Bennett about it on a couple of occasions and thought the board might be interested in his view. Here's what he said in 1992: "I'm not a jazz singer; I'm a singer that a jazz audience likes." (author's note: this thread suggests not all of the jazz audience would agree, but Bennett's point still stands.) ''My job is to always sound vital. I have to produce energy and a vitalness, and the jazz artists supply that to me. I improvise with them. Every night, I'll sing the same songs, but by the way they're playing, I'll listen to them and sing their phrases. Wherever they're at, that's how I'm singing.'' In 2006 he said this: "I know how to improvise, and for me jazz is the greatest contribution culturally that the United States has given to the world." Also: "It's the interpretation of going behind the beat or in front of the beat, and it changes every night. You might be singing the same song but there's a vitalness that the musicians feed me and I feed them. I'll make a turn of phrase and all of sudden they'll change the chords, embellish it and make it better." I will add that I heard Bennett about seven weeks ago and I thought he was in great form, especially on ballads, which he often sang in a strikingly loose rubato over just guitar or piano accompaniment. Even at 80 he could maintain a legato line. (He turned 81 earlier this month.) On both the swingers and the ballads, he was always telling a story, and I heard all kinds of little nuances of phrasing that personalized the lyrics and deepened the emotional quality of the work. Complaints? Well, the over-reliance on "big finish" climaxes is still an issue and there are other mannerisms too. There has always been something stiff about his stage patter too (though not in his singing in my view). The line between soul and false sentiment is awfully thin in the idiom in which Bennett works, but I've always felt Bennett communicates the former not the latter. Others may disagree. I did find it interesting the degree to which Bennett both aesthetically and physically placed himself inside the center of his quartet as opposed to singing outfront of the band, if you know what I mean. The group, incidentally, included pianist Bruce Barth, guitarist Gary Sargent, bassist Paul Langosch and the former Basie drummer Harold Jones. MS

Jim: Thanks for such thoughtful and illuminating responses. I find myself agreeing on several counts. Still, while I'm intrigued by the notion that the past featured more of a masculine projection of feminine values than the real thing, I'm not sure I'm convinced -- I would need some time to ponder this. Also, for the record, I'm always the one willing to stop and ask for directions; it's my wife who will stubbornly stick to her guns, even if it means getting more lost. MS

Ted Striker: Because of my mistake, six men didn't return from that raid. Elaine Dickinson: Seven. Lieutenant Zip died this morning.

Clem: Re: Jamal. I'm glad we could find common ground on something. Re: Cabinetmaker. No need for a home visit. I'm cool with the website. Re: Jones. My point is that there is a lot more happening in Hank's music than mere craft, and while the level of craft is certainly remarkable, perhaps its very polish makes it too easy to dismiss/overlook the unique depth of expression, substance and originality in his improvising. Hank is no radical, but the voice is unimistakable and deep. Is radicalism the only standard for greatness? It is true that Hank spent a lot of time in the studios and he came of age in an era in which performing as a "professional musician" was not always the same thing as as a "professional jazz musician." But peak achievement is not nothing, and if by flatline environment you mean bebop and standards, well, that's a big chunk of modern jazz you appear to be damning as aesthetically irrelevant. When Hank assimilated bebop in the '40s, that style was on the cutting edge. MS

Here's a link to the full obituary as it ran in the Detroit Free Press on Thursday morning. http://159.54.239.117/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...70574/1010/NEWS