Cornelius

"[...] a glorification of the obvious." And glorious it is!

Coleman Hawkins on "There's A Small Hotel" and Willie Smith on "Sophisticated Lady". I love this.

No thanks, Doc.

"It is my old problem with jazz critics that they view this music from a vantage point that is far removed from the audience's experience." [DizzySpells] A critic is not obligated to the vantage point of the audience (what is "the" audience anyway?) but only to his own conscience. "It is a rather elitist stance [...]" No, it's not. "[...] that does contribute to informed discussion, but not much else." An informed discussion is a hell of a lot. Just contributing to that is plenty enough to put the "much else" on another day's to do list.

"When John Coltrane finally left Miles Davis to form his own group, Stitt filled in on tour in 1960. I have a recording of him on the 'Complete 1960 Stockholm Concert'." [Che] I haven't heard those tracks in a while, but my memory is that while Stitt had a few good moments, he didn't fit with the band and especially with Davis.

Why are so many writers so unwilling to deal with the music? They tell you it's because they don't want to lose the readers. Perhaps there's some truth in that; that general readers can't absorb too much technical discussion. But it seems to me that so many writers go so far in the opposite direction - utterly inane tripe, including cliche apocrypha, "lifestyle" portraits (some people are actually proud that that's all they write about - People Magazine style), etc. And when musical content is included, it turns out incorrect - pretentious doubletalk. Meanwhile, I suspect that these jazz writers don't want to tackle the details of the music itself because they don't know much about it. It's a lot of homework to learn about chord changes and things like that. Why bother when you can slide by without it? Okay, some of the esteemed scribes have managed without knowing the mechanics of the music. But I don't see that they wouldn't have been even better writers if they had. Hentoff wrote a column a month or two ago in which he defended himself from his own conscience about this. I found the article to be transparently self-vindicating rationalization.

Just to be fair, I guess that the poster Che was not so much blaming the author as noting that the technical passages are in fact difficult for some people. As to happy mediums, I unhappily view the balance already so far on the lite [sp intentional] side that the too infrequent stiff shots of technical and substantively musical material are just a start toward bringing us toward the medium.

It's okay that people want some easy reading. But it's intolerable that writers themselves don't demand a standard of themselves, and intolerable that good, detailed, and intelligent writing about the music is actually discouraged for being "arcane", "technical", "elitist" and all the rest. The dumbdownedness of jazz journalism and jazz writing makes me want to scream.

"I have read Nisenson's book on Sonny Rollins which I think is a little better than the Coltrane book." [Che] How could it be worse? Wait, it could be worse by being Blue: The Murder Of Jazz. That's got to be the most sophomorically bad writing about jazz ever. Then, there's Ben Ratliff...but that's another dark corner perhaps best left undisturbed.

Mike Fitzgerald, I thought about adding something like that. It really is sad that the state of jazz writing is so poor. I guess that decades ago jazz was not usually thought of as serious enough to write about with the intelligence as classical music and other art forms, even film. And, in general, jazz writing has still not caught up. One contributor to this problem is that so many entrenched jazz writers actually argue that jazz writing doesn't need to be better than it is. Yet, what's so often written in books and in the jazz magazines is just garbage.

"This book not only details Coltrane's strengths and weaknesses [...]" Musical weaknesses? By '57 (even by '56), what weaknesses? / The Lewis Porter book is top notch. Eric Nisenson, on the other hand, is the most godawful jazz writer I've ever read.

Yep, Morgan's structure and communicativeness were great. But I also enjoy Hubbard's less "linear" structural logic too, sometimes even when he wasn't so logical and seemed not to have the clarity that Morgan would have about the plan of the solo.

"Lee [...] for the most part sticks to the hard bop bag." [sal] That is true, for the most part. But don't forget that Morgan moved into other areas too. / "Empyrean Isles" [big Wheel] That's not just one of many counterexamples to Chrome's claim but it also has some of Hubbard's playing that's really funky, as at least evidence toward rebutting other posters' evaluation of Morgan as funkier (or blusier or more soulful). I don't think many of these comparative generalizations hold up.

I don't miss that there's great feeling in the playing. But I think the execution and ideas are so embarrassingly poor that it's lousy music, and especially a lousy example of Mobley (whose execution and ideas I so deeply enjoy in so many of his other recordings), the depth of feeling notwithstanding. I suspect that we humans are not likely to be anywhere close anytime soon to a satisfactory, objective aesthetic for deciding controversies such as the one we have here. But I do think that we can at least approach making our judgments meaningful beyond mere expression of taste. In that regard I am inclined to suspect that it is something of an error in critical judgment to give this album high marks, especially in terms of Hank Mobley. But, again, this does not mean that I don't appreciate the provocative reasons JSngry has so engagingly given for finding merit in the album.

Just for sake of irony, I'll play the Savoy album, since it has Morgan's name in big letters on the cover while Mobley, the actual session leader, has his name reduced to much smaller letters.

Concert In The Virgin Islands is a real good album, with several compositions you're not likely to have on other albums. P.S. Despite the title, it's a studio album.

You mean that that particular post of mine should be assumed to follow each of his posts. Yes, you have a good point there. Why even bother, eh? But has anybody ever figured out if he's a put-on or if he's serious?

Lee Morgan is not that great that having all his records saves you from the utter illogic of what you posted.

No, we cross-posted. My response was to ariceffron's post, as I edited it after seeing that yours intervened. As to your comment, I do see your point, and thought it witty the way you stated it, though I don't agree with it in the particulars. Aside from that, your petty attacks against me, across the board, are just inane. If you have some disagreement with me, then have the balls to state it rather than just posting the juvenile snipes that you do.

arriceffron's post makes no sense.

Chuck Nessa: Four smiley faces. If that's the best you can do. sheldonm: Do you have a specific criticism?

A Chuck Nessa post that says nothing - my dream post. By the way, Chuck, there's a thread in which people are telling stories about their own personal reactions to the death of Charlie Parker. You better go in to tell them that they all need psychiatric attention since you contend that such posts reveal pathological self-absorption!

There's benefits to both. Strictly by ear keeps things nice and immediate. But notation gives you insight into the constructions, especially the rhythmic figures.

Where to start?! A lot of people mention Tune-Up. If I had to pick one as his "magnus opus", this wouldn't be a bad choice. Also Constellation was packaged with Tune Up in the CD release Endgame Brilliance. Also from the Muse period is 12. Going back, the Prestige 'late 40s (and 1950?) sessions, especially with J.J. Johnson, Bud Powell, and others. The two discs from the Hi-Hat are INCREDIBLE (talk about intricate) (note: some of the solos from the other members of the band are cut out). The Verves with Gillespie, of course. The track "The Slow Blues" from the Jazz At The Philharmonic '60 concert in Stockholm is basically "Parker's Mood" but with even more oomph! Verve albums such as Personal Appearence, The Hard Swing, and Sits In With The Oscar Peterson Quartet. And, most of all, New York Jazz is killin'! Salt And Pepper on Impulse with Paul Gonsalves. Matchups with Gene Ammons on Prestige and Verve. Lots of good stuff on Roost too, all on the Mosaic box. That's off the top of my head. There are so many others... / He may have made some lousy albums too, but I've not checked them out , many of which just look schlocky in concept if nothing else, so I have no opinon on those.

His tone was beautiful, and I don't hear him lacking focus nor intricacy. On the contrary. As far as what his talent deserved, I've got no complaints. Album after album of great music: beautifully conceived and executed. (I'm not including some of the later stuff, especially with electric sax, of which I've not listened to enough to give an opinion.) You feel his drug problems are related to the deficiencies you percieve, but do you have any evidence of a causal relation?