Jackie McLean, Prestige Recordings

[jazzbo]

Oh yes, I've had the material on the Select for many years, before the Select was even mentioned. It's Moncur that I don't care for most on these. I'd listen to them a lot more often if he were not present. I'm just not a fan of his playing style and writing.

[BruceH]

"4,5, and 6"----that's a good one.

[couw]

Jackie did some very FINE recordings for Prestige, cool stuff to be sure, and darn interesting on their own and in relation to what came afterwards. But, they are simply not the utterness of why McLean became a voice to reckon with in jazz history at large. Rather similar to Trane's Prestige output really: nice for sure, darn interesting, probably as good as, or even better than, all the other blowing sessions that were released on Prestige at the time (McLean's included!), but not up to par with the Atlantic and the Impulse stuff. And face it, McLean does NOT occupy a seat anywhere near the demi-God throne that Coltrane's buttocks rest on in this world. Cool if he does for you, but there are other people out there and it IS possible to objectify things to a certain extent. This blahblah about personal tastes is very much okay and I dwindle in it for many posts myself, but I do also think that it is worth to try and find out about the "story" that most jazz fans share as a sort of pendant to the hero-centric epic that the Burns documentary blessed us with.

So, in my utmost humble opinion, the BN recordings of McLean are more important than what came before or after. This does imply an interest into what became before or after and it does NOT put those recordings down. It puts the BN recordings UP, and that is something entirely different.

By all means: buy all of the McLean Prestige disks you can find, they're good. Not splendid, but good like in okay. They are a vital piece of the story of McLean. As McLean is probably not in the UTTER upper echelons of the jazz artists of eternity (NOTE: I DIG JackieMac to death, but I do acknowledge that his place in the pantheon is not in the limelight but rather somewhere in the more dimly lit second rooms), they are not a vital piece of jazz history.

And Simon: I do not think anyone stated that the Prestige stuff is not worth listening to. It is worth listening to, but worth is always defined within a context, and if you're talking Desert Island, these are low on the common list (Note: not personal list, but shared personal or common list). If you're talking McLean, they're on the list somewhere, but not at the top.

And come on people, yes this is good music, but fegh look at *all* the good music that people scream about on this board! We need some perspective here that digs deeper than "I dig it."

thankyouverymuch

Edited May 30, 2004 by couw

[jazzbo]

Uh oh, here is someone who wants perspective and rules again!

I don't think we do need anything other than "I dig it" as a bedrock.

Edited May 30, 2004 by jazzbo

[couw]

no rules, just perspectives. It seems to be a tremendous task for some to get beyond the "yeah I dig it part" and point WHY they dig it, to compare the digging-ness to other music they know. No problem there, but you have to admit that an opinion with some background is more easily appreciated than a simple + or -.

"I dig it" is a cool bedrock for anyone who knows me, for all of those who don't I'd rather provide some context. I think it helps. "I dig it" can easily become a mantra, mostly because most of us all dig "it" a lot. That this lot of "it" is usually miles apart and only covers part of the same territory is of interest I think.

feepfeepfreeepfeep.

[BruceH]

Rather similar to Trane's Prestige output really: nice for sure, darn interesting, probably as good as, or even better than, all the other blowing sessions that were released on Prestige at the time (McLean's included!), but not up to par with the Atlantic and the Impulse stuff. And face it, McLean does NOT occupy a seat anywhere near the demi-God throne that Coltrane's buttocks rest on in this world. Cool if he does for you, but there are other people out there and it IS possible to objectify things to a certain extent.

Actually, I like Jackie McLean a lot more than Coltrane. Of ANY period. But maybe that has something to do with my not thinking of Coltrane as a demi-God. (Or even a hemi-semi-demi-god.) I may well be in a minority on this, but in that case, I humbly submit that the majority is wrong.

[couw]

Rather similar to Trane's Prestige output really: nice for sure, darn interesting, probably as good as, or even better than, all the other blowing sessions that were released on Prestige at the time (McLean's included!), but not up to par with the Atlantic and the Impulse stuff. And face it, McLean does NOT occupy a seat anywhere near the  demi-God throne that Coltrane's buttocks rest on in this world. Cool if he does for you, but there are other people out there and it IS possible to objectify things to a certain extent.

Actually, I like Jackie McLean a lot more than Coltrane. Of ANY period. But maybe that has something to do with my not thinking of Coltrane as a demi-God. (Or even a hemi-semi-demi-god.) I may well be in a minority on this, but in that case, I humbly submit that the majority is wrong.

heheheh...

that's cool, I like that. I have the same thing with Miles...

(I know I'm in a minority position there though... )

[Shawn]

Personally I've become a fan of Jackie's Prestige era albums and even though I don't play them very often, I always enjoy them when I do. I especially like anything with him and Mal Waldron together, I really like that combination. I couldn't really pick a favorite disc, but I have a warm place in my heart for Jackie's Pal and I also agree wholeheartedly with the rec for the live disc with George Wallington...and asskicker!

Like many I do agree with the opinion that Jackie really "became" himself once he left for Blue Note (I feel the same way about Donald Byrd)...but I think to really get a true picture of an artist you have to study the evolution, and all eras of an artist of McLean's talent are worth investigating.

[JSngry]

Ok, here's some condensed perspective:

If you want to hear great Jackie McLean (great as in "anybody into the base of jazz that this music springs from can tell that this is quality music of more than superficial importance"), then stick to the Blue Notes (and some of the Steeplechase dates, and the Triloka dates, and the date w/The Great Jazz Trio, etc.etc.etc.).

Now, if you want to know why those dates are so great for reasons other than "They're GREAT!", if you want to dig deeper into the music and get some perspective (ironic, isn't it ) as to how the "obvious" greatness came to be, and mayben even the very nature of that greatness, well, you need to dig a little deeper, and that means checking out some of the Prestige, and Jubilee stuff, as well as Jackie's work w/Blakey and Mingus. And that's true for most any artist in any medium that "matters" to one's self.

Hey - not everybody feels the want or need to dig too much deeper than knowing that something is great (or good, or whatever), and those people are content with having that knowledge and appreciation. That's cool. I'm like that with a bunch of stuff myself.

But jazz is not one of those things, so when I see Jackie's Prestige work being dismissed as "for completists only" and words of that ilk, I feel obligated, as a person who really DOES value perspective in appraising, and more importantly, enjoying, music, to step in say that that may be so much bullshit, especially if McLean is a player that one wants a fuller understandong of. Because perspective does not consist of merely knowing what is good or not, or from knowing what is better than what, it comes from knowing WHY such is the case, and it comes from appreciating that which is not as great for what it IS just as much as for what it is NOT.

No, you certainly don't need to spend your last dimes on Jackie's Prestige work, nor do you need to clear your shelves of all the gold to make room for it. That would be a bit much, unless Jackie is REALLY your man in a way that few others are (and I know some cats for whom this is the case). But - if you dig Jackie well enough to wonder about who he really is, where he came from, blahblahblah, in other words -if you want to have some PERSPECTIVE on Jackie McLean as man and musician, how can you NOT check out at least some of the pre-BN work, and how can you NOT dig at least some of it, if for no other reason than for the perspective (there's that darn word again!) it yields on his later work? There's some good stuff there, and if "good" is not "great", so what? If all you want is "great", you can save a lot of money and time, and if all you want is TRULY great, in the broadest sense, then you can narrow your jazz collection down to a relative handful of recordings, and your collection of EVERYTHING man-made down to such a size that your elderly grandmother could take care of it's maintainance w/a few minutes every other month or so. But where's the fun in that?

The call for macroperspective is definitely a good one, but to think that it can be developed w/o a parallel microperspective is a concept that I find amusing, simply because one cannot funtion effectively w/o the other (that's residual macrobiotic training popping up - can't have a front w/o a back, and the bigger the front, the bigger the back). Of course one can go too far in either direction and lose the balance (and the perspective), but for my money, the development of one enhances the development of the other.

Not as condensed as I had planned on, and still just my opinion, but still right.

[Joe]

Go for the collaborations with Waldron first, then fill in with the other dates.

Of individual albums, I have a soft spot myself for LONG DRINK OF THE BLUES, as it features that priceless "breakdown" take of the title performance. You also get to hear Jackie on tenor sax, which is pretty darn interesting...

[jazzbo]

Well, I've just seen attempts to standardize perspecitves etc. to be anathema to free discourse and to bulletin boards.

I think we're all junkies here for this board, and know how each other's personal preferrences lie and that this is the bedrock upon which we build our opinions of others' opinions. I think it's the terra firma that can serve as a support on bulletin boards, whereas other bold experiments. . . fail.

[couw]

Ok, here's some condensed perspective:

[...]

I should think we are saying very much the same thing. Just that I am right... :g

[couw]

Well, I've just seen attempts to standardize perspecitves etc. to be anathema to free discourse and to bulletin boards.

I think we're all junkies here for this board, and know how each other's personal preferrences lie and that this is the bedrock upon which we build our opinions of others' opinions.  I think it's the terra firma that can serve as a support on bulletin boards, whereas other bold experiments. . . fail.

Well Lon, I guess it's just that Jim's post above is a bit more interesting than one that merely goes "I dig it."

And that's a pretty fatalistic attitude you got there. Just because it is doomed does not mean an attempt will not throw off something that is worthwhile. Like pretty interesting posts for example. And your "wisdom" with the difficult words in it is rather perverse as it itself factually lames free discourse on any of the integrational levels. You're probably just overstating your case when you allude to people wanting to standardise opinions on this board, so I will leave that and I will just emphasise that all I was saying is that I think it is healthy business to step back from ones obsessions once in a while and try and view it all with some distance.

See, I'm not your next best despot, I'm just a normal guy with a lot of unhealthy obsessions, on which he tries to gain some perspective.

And to put all this serious crap into perspective:

Edited May 31, 2004 by couw

[Simon Weil]

Well, I've just seen attempts to standardize perspecitves etc. to be anathema to free discourse and to bulletin boards.

I think we're all junkies here for this board, and know how each other's personal preferrences lie and that this is the bedrock upon which we build our opinions of others' opinions. I think it's the terra firma that can serve as a support on bulletin boards, whereas other bold experiments. . . fail.

Well, I'm very much a "people-based" guy, in that I see these boards as (obviously) rotating about people. Sometimes (?often) it does work to the detriment of free discussion when someone comes in and tries to impose his view of what Jazz is and isn't.

But it's also like Jazz itself, you need some sort of form to have the discussion operate in - Most of the time we operate with implicit standardized perspectives aka terra firmas. The reason I wrote my post was the sense that different sorts of standardized perspective were being fudged together.

See, people's opinions are one sort of terra firma for talking about Jazz, but so is "this is a classic recording" or "this is great artist" type of discourse. I thought they were being made to collide in this thread with sticky results.

I.E. I thought it was glooping up free discussion.

Simon Weil

[jazzbo]

Okay, it is rather fatalistic of me I suppose. I've seen it happen often enough that I don't believe it can be spelled out implicitly and succede. (And I'm an anarchist at heart, a people loving anarchist). I agree that there are implied standards that work alright as long as a spotlight is not shined near them.

As for what's interesting, that's anyone's call. I find lots of Jim's very interesting, and a lot I scratch my head, and many I've seen others say the same thing in about twenty times less words and go by unnoticed. Jim is a friend, I love the guy, but there are many types of interesting posts in this place from many posters, I guess the variety of responses from a variety of viewpoints is what I find most interesting about this place.

And as for obsessions. . . I'll free myself from mine when you free yourself from yours!

[couw]

And as for obsessions. . . I'll free myself from mine when you free yourself from yours!

No way José!

let's keep the variety up

[sidewinder]

Rather similar to Trane's Prestige output really: nice for sure, darn interesting, probably as good as, or even better than, all the other blowing sessions that were released on Prestige at the time (McLean's included!), but not up to par with the Atlantic and the Impulse stuff. And face it, McLean does NOT occupy a seat anywhere near the  demi-God throne that Coltrane's buttocks rest on in this world. Cool if he does for you, but there are other people out there and it IS possible to objectify things to a certain extent.

Actually, I like Jackie McLean a lot more than Coltrane. Of ANY period. But maybe that has something to do with my not thinking of Coltrane as a demi-God. (Or even a hemi-semi-demi-god.) I may well be in a minority on this, but in that case, I humbly submit that the majority is wrong.

Funilly enough - and much as I truly love Coltrane's music - I would probably agree. There's something about McLean's playing that goes straight for the jugular..

Count me in as a massive fan by the way of 'One Step Beyond', 'Evolution', 'Hipnosis' and 'Destination Out'. One of my favourite 'cluster' of 60s Blue Notes. Desert Island material for me.

Edited May 31, 2004 by sidewinder

[JSngry]

I find lots of Jim's very interesting, and a lot I scratch my head, and many I've seen others say the same thing in about twenty times less words and go by unnoticed.

Word!

You know, I tried to be brief w/my first response to this topic, tried to keep it simple and unambiguous.

But NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Mr. Couwenberg goes clamoring for PERSPECTIVE!!!!

Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull...

[couw]

[Chrome]

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned the Triloka recordings ... I've got both and they're both excellent ... I don't know if it's because he's working with his son or not, but McLean just burns throughout both discs.

Per AMG:

DYNASTY: This is one of the great Jackie McLean albums. After nearly a decade away from recording, the veteran altoist teamed up with his son, René McLean (who triples on tenor, soprano, and flute), pianist Hotep Idris Galeta, bassist Nat Reeves, and drummer Carl Allen for a very passionate and high-powered live set. Whether it be originals by René (including "J. Mac's Dynasty") or Galeta, a very intense version of "A House Is Not a Home," or Jackie's "Bird Lives," this is dynamic and consistently exciting music. The go-for-broke solos (which transcend any easy categories) and Jackie's unique sharp tone make this an essential CD, one of the top recordings to be released in 1990. — Scott Yanow

RITES OF PASSAGE: Recorded over two years after his "comeback" album, Dynasty, but using the same personnel, altoist Jackie McLean once again sounds in prime form. His intensity and passion had not declined through the years and his sometimes-abrasive tone had, if anything, become even more distinctive. With this particularly strong group (which has son Rene on tenor, alto and soprano, pianist Hotep Idris Galeta, bassist Nat Reeves and drummer Carl Allen), McLean pours his heart out on two of his originals plus pieces by Rene And Galeta. Outstanding no-holds-barred music. — Scott Yanow

[John L]

Someone made a comparison of Jackie McLean's Prestige recordings with Coltrane's Prestige recordings. I can accept that, and sure wouldn't want to be without either.

[Brad]

Well, this was a rather interesting thread that somewhere along the way I missed. I won't say "I dig his Prestige work" but I do like it as part of the totality of the whole, especially as he made his transition from Bird clone to BN Jackie. I like Alto Madness but my favorite is, as with some, A Long Tall Drink of the Blues, especially for the argument those guys get into. All the albums Late mentions are worthwhile pickups.

[pryan]

I gotta check me out some Jackie on Prestige, I think. How's that for garbled english?

[Late]

How's that for garbled english?

... that's pronounced ENG-GISH. Sheez.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think he was speaking "Canadian". That's what they talk like in Canadia.