AOW Week - December 11

[ghost of miles]

What do Pepper fans here think of the Village Vanguard sessions? I was thinking of them while reading Larry's piece on Bill Evans in his new book--in particular, his postscript analysis of the impact of cocaine on Evans' TURN OUT THE STARS dates, which I've always thought do indeed have the "feverish" or frantic air that Larry imparts to them. ("Brittle" is another word that comes to mind.) From what I've read, Pepper hardly slept during the VV stand as a result of his stimulant intake, and yet I don't hear a distorting impact on his music. Perhaps I'm not listening deeply enough... I find the VV box a satisfying experience. Then again, I'm somewhat of a Pepper devotee, putting him right up there with Bird, Jackie, and Lee in my alto pantheon.

Edited December 16, 2004 by ghost of miles

[pryan]

I've only heard the Saturday night single disc from the Vanguard sessions, but I liked it quite a bit (that one has a great version of "You Go To My Head"). The intensity of Pepper's playing was quite evident to me, but I hadn't realized that he was on a bunch of "stimulants" at that time. I thought he was relatively sober at that period of his life (obviously not). I think cocaine would/does impact an individual's playing; Miles from the later 60s and into the early 70s is a good example of this change. I'm not too familiar with late-period Bill Evans to comment; didn't know he was using coke either.

[JSngry]

I think cocaine would/does impact an individual's playing; Miles from the later 60s and into the early 70s is a good example of this change.

Not sure how you mean that, but that was supposedly one of Miles' sober periods. Not coincidentally, it'a also the peiod of his chops being at their peak.

As for Pepper, I like him a lot, but can't "get close" to him emotionally. Which may or may not be the point of his music, I dunno. Don't know that he wanted to put it out there that readily...

But that Vanguard stuff is da'bomb. Elvin & Pepper connected, so hey....

[pryan]

I think cocaine would/does impact an individual's playing; Miles from the later 60s and into the early 70s is a good example of this change.

Not sure how you mean that, but that was supposedly one of Miles' sober periods. Not coincidentally, it'a also the peiod of his chops being at their peak.

As for Pepper, I like him a lot, but can't "get close" to him emotionally. Which may or may not be the point of his music, I dunno. Don't know that he wanted to put it out there that readily...

But that Vanguard stuff is da'bomb. Elvin & Pepper connected, so hey....

I don't think Miles had too many "sober periods", but if that Sony documentary is somewhat accurate then I think he was doing coke in the first half of the seventies. Steve Liebman mentions Miles taking pills and using cocaine, specifically. From what I gather, cocaine produces quite the adrenaline rush and you tend to think rather clearly. This may or may not explain why Miles was playing in the upper reaches of his horn, with short phrases, etc. I'm pretty sure Miles used coke throughout the decade between '65-'75.

[wolff]

Like I said earlier, I sometimes have to be prepared to listen to Pepper's later stuff, including the Vanguard sessions.

For me, at times the emotion he emits is disturbing, but then 4 bars later he can turn around and emit beauty. I like the ride and am more enthralled by his playing than many other musicians. He seems to control 'everything' when he is playing on these dates, if that makes any sense.

[Larry Kart]

This may be related to part of what Jim says above but coming at it from another direction. Art (Pepper i.e.) grabbed very hard emotionally way back when -- guess I was listening to his things from the time they came out from 1956 on -- but the union between the feelings that were aroused in the listener and that were (presumably, to some degree) being felt/expressed by the creator, and of course the union between all of that and the arguably (and perhaps paradoxically) exquisite craftsmanship with which the whole shebang was shaped and thenemerged in purely musical terms -- finally led to a kind of "I've had enough of that" sense of satiation. Everything of Art's that I loved back then, I still love, but I just don't listen to it that often anymore. I think I feel the same way about Mahler. Great music; I know it; I love it; but when I start to listen again to any of it, I feel like it's already been built into me and become part of me and to hear it again in real time would be redundant. Does that make any sense? I don't feel that way about a lot of other music that I know and love. I think, in both cases (Pepper and Mahler) it may have to do with the combination of pained, even tragic, opened-vein emotion and the typically perfect but highly personal formal/expressive means. Compare Jackie McLean to Pepper and it might become clear. No less potent emotionally, Jackie's playing typically has a shagginess or brokenness that asks you to try to complete your part of the puzzle along with him every time. Art, at his best, solves and resolves the whole thing. Or back to Mahler -- at the end of every one his symphonies, one of the feelings I get (and that I think you're supposed to get) is: Well, that's the LAST symphony anyone's going to write or need to write. Of course, there are in fact nine of them (or ten), plus Das Lied, but still...

[JSngry]

I don't think Miles had too many "sober periods", but if that Sony documentary is somewhat accurate then I think he was doing coke in the first half of the seventies. Steve Liebman mentions Miles taking pills and using cocaine, specifically. From what I gather, cocaine produces quite the adrenaline rush and you tend to think rather clearly. This may or may not explain why Miles was playing in the upper reaches of his horn, with short phrases, etc. I'm pretty sure Miles used coke throughout the decade between '65-'75.

Ok, to be more precise, I think the very late 60s were when Miles is reputed to have cleaned up, gone on a health food kick, stopped using drugs, and all that. 67-69. roughly. Not a very long time, but I do think it existed.

But yeah, as the 70s got into full swing, Miles was back doing a lot of things.

[wolff]

Compare Jackie McLean to Pepper and it might become clear. No less potent emotionally, Jackie's playing typically has a shagginess or brokenness that asks you to try to complete your part of the puzzle along with him every time. Art, at his best, solves and resolves the whole thing.

Yes, I can see what you are saying. Art pulls me into his world. He does not really 'take me places' or let me roam like McLean. Art takes me to his place most of the time, especially on the later ballads.

[pryan]

Larry - I think I understand what you're saying with regard to Pepper. Would you say that a comparison (or a contrasting of their respective styles) of Sonny Stitt and Gene Ammons is analogous with your contrast of McLean and Pepper? Stitt is somewhat like Pepper in that he seems to take the listener on a ride that is very smooth and the solo is beautifully resolved each time, whereas Ammons, like McLean, tends to have rougher edges, but nonetheless connects with the listener in a different, more emotionally-direct way (more "real", perhaps?).

[pryan]

I don't think Miles had too many "sober periods", but if that Sony documentary is somewhat accurate then I think he was doing coke in the first half of the seventies.  Steve Liebman mentions Miles taking pills and using cocaine, specifically.  From what I gather, cocaine produces quite the adrenaline rush and you tend to think rather clearly.  This may or may not explain why Miles was playing in the upper reaches of his horn, with short phrases, etc.  I'm pretty sure Miles used coke throughout the decade between '65-'75.

Ok, to be more precise, I think the very late 60s were when Miles is reputed to have cleaned up, gone on a health food kick, stopped using drugs, and all that. 67-69. roughly. Not a very long time, but I do think it existed.

But yeah, as the 70s got into full swing, Miles was back doing a lot of things.

Yep, I'd agree with you on those points.

[JSngry]

This may be related to part of what Jim says above but coming at it from another direction. Art (Pepper i.e.) grabbed very hard emotionally way back when -- guess I was listening to his things from the time they came out from 1956 on -- but the union between the feelings that were aroused in the listener and that were (presumably, to some degree) being felt/expressed by the creator, and of course the union between all of that and the arguably (and perhaps paradoxically) exquisite craftsmanship with which the whole shebang was shaped and thenemerged in purely musical terms -- finally led to a kind of "I've had enough of that" sense of satiation. Everything of Art's that I loved back then, I still love, but I just don't listen to it that often anymore. I think I feel the same way about Mahler. Great music; I know it; I love it; but when I start to listen again to any of it, I feel like it's already been built into me and become part of me and to hear it again in real time would be redundant. Does that make any sense? I don't feel that way about a lot of other music that I know and love. I think, in both cases (Pepper and Mahler) it may have to do with the combination of pained, even tragic, opened-vein emotion and the typically perfect but highly personal formal/expressive means. Compare Jackie McLean to Pepper and it might become clear. No less potent emotionally, Jackie's playing typically has a shagginess or brokenness that asks you to try to complete your part of the puzzle along with him every time. Art, at his best, solves and resolves the whole thing. Or back to Mahler -- at the end of every one his symphonies, one of the feelings I get (and that I think you're supposed to get) is: Well, that's the LAST symphony anyone's going to write or need to write. Of course, there are in fact nine of them (or ten), plus Das Lied, but still...

Well, yeah. I "recieve" Pepper in such a way that I percieve the emotion more than actually recive it. It's not like it's not there (god know, it's overflowing with it), it's just that I get the feeling that it's being put out there for me to observe rather than participate in. almost as if he's saying, "Yeah, I've got it, and THIS MUCH of it. Show's over. Move along."

Which is cool, you know, it's that whole "emotionless soul" thing in full flower. But you also sense that if he means it at that exact moment, he doesn't REALLY mean it longterm, because if everybody moved along and stayed moved along, there would eventually be nobody left for him to show it to, and THEN where would he be? The need to prove depends on having somebody to prove to, right? And wanting to prove is not the same as wanting to share. And - not wanting to share is not the same as HAVING to share anyway, for any number of reasons...

I mean, I DIG the cat immensely, but my "realationship" w/his music exists at a totally different dynamic than it does with most other jazz greats. Which, again, is somehow what I think is the point of the whole thing - the creation of a totally individual identity that defies "possession" of anybody except its owner.

[Larry Kart]

Off the top of my head, I don't hear Stitt versus Ammons as analogous to Pepper versus McLean. (And by "versus" I don't mean to suggest it's a prize fight, even though Stitt and Ammons did go at it almost that way at times.)

And Jim -- if I understand what you mean by " Which, again, is somehow what I think is the point of the whole thing -- the creation of a totally individual identity that defies 'possession' of anybody except its owner" -- then I think, a la what I tried to say at the end of one of the Art Pepper pieces in the book, that that was Art's deal in human terms: He created a totally individual identity that HE could not possess.

[pryan]

OK, it wasn't really a well-formed thought on my behalf, just something I kind of associated with the kind of contrast that you had made previously (Pepper and McLean). I still think I may be able to elaborate on my point a bit, but it may have to wait a bit.

[JSngry]

And Jim -- if I understand what you mean by " Which, again, is somehow what I think is the point of the whole thing -- the creation of a totally individual identity that defies 'possession' of anybody except its owner" -- then I think, a la what I tried to say at the end of one of the Art Pepper pieces in the book, that that was Art's deal in human terms: He created a totally individual identity that HE could not possess.

Well, you've listened to him and lived with him a lot longer than I have, but he's always struck me in just the opposite way - that he created a totally individual identity that he could not share for any longer than was absolutely necessary.

I mean, his whole deal, tone (Bird's tone went outward and onward seemingly into infinity, Peppers did the same, just in the other direction), phrasing (how many of his phrases start quiet, hit a quick eruption, and then recede as quickly as they arrived?), time (has anybody ever hugged the beat tighter than Pepper and still been able to swing?), everything, seemed to be designed to intentionally extend outward just long enough to have been put on display and then immediately, if not sooner, snap right back inside from whence it came.

If Bird invited us to hop on and fly, if Konitz invites us to lay back and see what's there this time, what did Pepper invite us to do? Marvel at what a bad motherfucker he was and then get the hell away, basically, is how I hear it.

Of course, the reality of it all is that there's no way in hell that a lot of us could do that. Nor is there any way in hell that he'd stop issuing us the invitation (maybe that's what you mean by not being able to possess the identity?). It's pretty damn perverse, really, but it's neverhteless as real as everybody wanted/needed it to be. And reality wins most every time as far as I'm concerned.

To me, Art Pepper was like a Three Card Monte man who payed you double every time he beat you (and of course, he always beat you). Go figure.

Edited December 16, 2004 by JSngry

[BruceH]

Everything of Art's that I loved back then, I still love, but I just don't listen to it that often anymore. I think I feel the same way about Mahler. Great music; I know it; I love it; but when I start to listen again to any of it, I feel like it's already been built into me and become part of me and to hear it again in real time would be redundant. Does that make any sense?

Makes a LOT of sense, with a lot of music. For me, some music gets so internalized ("digested" you might say) that there's no point in listening to it anymore. Of course, when this happens with all music, it'll be time to kill myself.

[AllenLowe]

When I heard Pepper in person in the midddle 1970s I loved his playing, unselfconscious and intense - but almost everything I've heard on record of him after this comeback strikes me as too selfconcious, trying too hard to be "contemporary" (and Art was definitely worried about being left behind by the whole array of post-Coltrane-ites; he indicated this indirectly in an interview I did with him at the time). He wanted to play "outside" sometimes, but didn't really know how to do so. When he just decided to play, no b.s., he could be wonderful - at other times he strikes me as thinking too much, as trying to determine how he can be "relevant" (to use a really annoying 60's term) to the music - and I must admit I find the Vanguard ballads to be simply too much and too maudlin - personally Pepper was a brilliant musician with the temperment and maturity of a 12 year old - I say this from having spent one very long and interesting day with him and Laurie when I was working for a Boston jazz publication - nice guy but a classic junkie, self-obsessed if musically brilliant; I think the later music particularly reflects this lack of real self knowledge, if I may be pardoned for a bit of amateur psychoanalysis -

Edited December 16, 2004 by AllenLowe

[Larry Kart]

Very interesting, Jim. If I get what you're saying (and I think I do), it makes a lot of sense to me and helps to explain why as much as I admire and have been moved by Pepper through the years, I'm not drawn much anymore to listening to him again. On the other hand, I wish you could read what Terry Martin says about him (in two essays actually, not one -- the first from 1964, when Terry was in his early 20s, the second from 1979) in "The Art Pepper Companion." Again, it's some of the best critical writing there is about any jazz musician IMO. One quote, about Art's solo on "Pepper Pot" from the Tampa Quartet album, that points to where Terry's coming from there:

"'Pepper Pot' has the quintessential ambiguity of his artistry, a bounce tune beginning as a series of excellent swinging variations, say open to a Sims for example, but developing with startling logic to a totally new world of courage and pain; beautfully underpinned by the rhythm section, we are in Pepper's own organic world; it is coherent, there are laws we are no position to understand.... The timbral control and articulation are staggering, and the rhythmic development toward the close of his solo is worthy of Young or Monk.... Only Navarro I think equals Art Pepper on this ground of structured tragedy, the heart of Lester Young and the mind of Benny Carter."

BTW, how do you feel about Benny Carter? Does his playing too seem to you "to be designed to intentionally extend outward just long enough to have been put on display and then immediately, if not sooner, snap right back inside from whence it came." No blame if that's how you feel, no claim of hypocrisy if you don't. I'm just curious -- if only because Terry's deep prediliction for Carter ("the master of construction," he writes elsewhere, but also a player whom lots of reasonable people don't warm up to) seems to have set him up to respond to Pepper as he did.

[Jim R]

Thanks to all who have posted here. This is an interesting and intriguing discussion, and for me it's somewhat of a personal challenge. Pepper has never really "hit me" in a way that would place him among my favorites. I've been trying for years to discover what it is I'm missing, and for whatever reason I've never gotten all that excited nor been all that moved by anything I've heard (far from everything, I'll admit). I do enjoy listening to him, it's just that I don't hear anything that really knocks me out. Unlike some situations where I read glowing comments about musicians (jazz or otherwise) on bulletin boards and yet know that I'll likely never agree, I've long felt that putting some effort into letting Pepper finally reach me could pay off. Unfortunately, I'm less confident of this as time passes. The thing I'm really struggling with is understanding the notion(s) that Pepper excels at ballads, lyrical playing, and emotional expression. He hasn't struck me that way very often. "Emotion" is a nebulous concept, and one which was discussed here specifically with regard to Pepper, if I'm not mistaken (I literally just remembered that, so a search may be in order), and maybe I'll never really be able to hear it as some listeners do. I also wonder if his perceived lyricism and ballad prowess will ever be apparent to me, but as I say I need to hear more examples of his work.

In terms of STRAIGHT LIFE the album, I just listened to it and was pretty underwhelmed after one spin. Tommy Flanagan is one of my favorite pianists of all time, and I think he plays well on this, but the chemistry with Art does seem to be lacking. I think I understand Chuck's comment about Red Mitchell, too. I don't necessarly have exactly the same reaction, but I can see what Chuck means. At times, Pepper seems to be trying too hard to be "fresh" with some of the note choices during the heads, and to me sounds somewhat aloof during his solos. "Nature boy" is pretty nice, but I wouldn't go too much further than that. "Ending with that version of "Long ago and far away" (which happens to be a favorite ballad of mine)- with that fucked up ending- leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I look forward to the next time I hear a great rendition by someone whom I consider to be lyrical... like Chet or Paul Desmond...

The comments about Pepper the man seem to fit with the way I experience his playing on (at least) this particular session. I suppose it's natural to wonder about the dynamics of a session like this, with four veteran players who hadn't worked together (? correct me if I'm wrong) very often before.

Anyway, I'll continue to try to continue to be open to AP in an active way. I hope this wasn't TOO negative for you, Leeway. I really do appreciate the opportunity to examine this topic again, especially with some of the advanced musical analysts who have posted here.

[Leeway]

Jim R, I appreciate your comments. I'm well aware that Pepper just doesn't connect with some people. I have no problem with that at all. Even among Pepper fans, some like his early work, others his later work. I happen to like them both .

Lately, I've tried to listen more critically, and I know that Art's penchant for simply walking into a studio and making a session didn't always work in his favor; sometimes the results were sterling, as in "Art Pepper Meets the Rythym Section," and sometimes not. "Straight Life" suffers somewhat from that approach. Also, Art's playing depended a lot on who he played with, so if he wasn't "sympatico" with them, the session could and did fall flat. But when he had players with him whom he liked, the results were often fine.

Despite these problems, the vast majority of Art's ealry work is wonderfully swinging, and in the later work, I still find his ballad playing superbly lyrical, and much of his playing has greater depth overall. Try "Living Legend" if you haven't already. I was actually going to pick this for AOW. I like Hampton Hawes on piano. I think Art did too. Also with Haden and Manne- great lineup.

Larry Kart, I agree that Benny Carter was another identifiable influence on Art. Carter himself often gets overlooked in discussions of tenor (and trumpet too) players. Maybe that lyrical, clear, seemingly simple style is out of favor these days (?). Art also seemed to always have a real blues feeling to his work.

Larry, I have the "Art Peper Companion." One aspect of the essays collected therein that struck me oddly were those that dealt with Art as some kind of "great white hope." I doubt Art felt that way, and I sure don't think of him like that. In fact, I thought some of the writing along that line rather embarrasing. I don't have the book at hand, but didn't Gary Giddins do a piece, "The Whiteness of the Wail" about Art? I think in a later piece Giddins distanced himself somewhat from that essay, but it showed a curious way of looking at Art's musicianship.

[Dan Gould]

Larry Kart, I agree that Benny Carter was another identifiable influence on Art. Carter himself often gets overlooked in discussions of tenor (and trumpet too) players.

Maybe that's cuz he played alto?

[Larry Kart]

Leeway -- I know what you mean about the "great white hope" business, which tends to be crude and stupid. But I think that Terry Martin, in first of his two pieces in that book, deals with the question of Pepper's "aesthetic position as an American white" with a great deal of sensitivity, subtlety, and insight -- though that phrase ("aesthetic position as an American white") and the judgmental stance it suggests, might make its author (then living in Great Britain and a young college student I believe) cringe a bit these days. Also, a good many things have changed since then. But if "Straight Life" the book is to be trusted, Art's status as a white man making what he himself regarded as a black music loomed very large in his mind at times. Remember the passage where the young Art asks an acquaintance whether he (i.e. Art) has the "right" to play jazz?

[JSngry]

BTW, how do you feel about Benny Carter? Does his playing too seem to you "to be designed to intentionally extend outward just long enough to have been put on display and then immediately, if not sooner, snap right back inside from whence it came." No blame if that's how you feel, no claim of hypocrisy if you don't. I'm just curious -- if only because Terry's deep prediliction for Carter ("the master of construction," he writes elsewhere, but also a player whom lots of reasonable people don't warm up to) seems to have set him up to respond to Pepper as he did.

Oh, I like Benny Carter just fine, but I don't think he's anywhere near as "twisted" (in an objective, non-derogatory sense) than Pepper. With Carter, you get a degree of seperation, sure, but it's one that comes from the player presenting his creation after it's completed (a;though the time span involved from beginning to end is but a microsecond, it's still enough to matter. In other words, Carter gives you the finished product and keeps everything else out of view, like a work of architecture or some such. Pretty straightforward, really, and I suspect how one reacts to him is dependent upon how much more that the finished product one wants/needs to be a part of. When it's as well-crafted, intellegent, and knowing as the best of Carter's playing is, it's enough for me. No complaints.

No complaints about Pepper either, but the difference for me is that Carter creates that degree of seperation before giving out with the music, whereas Pepper creates it after. Unlike Carter, Pepper lets you in on everything that's going on (and that went on), but the second he does, POOF, he snatches it right back. Carter's more than happy to let you have it, perhaps because he "it" was a seperate entity from what was used to create it, so there was never any concern about being able to do it again, whenever and whereever. With Pepper, I get the feeling that there's a part of him that is afraid, perhaps even terrified, that since he knows he's showing/giving us the whole deal, if he lets it go, if he gives it away it'll be gone for good. so he snatches it right back.

Like I said, not too many players like Art Pepper, and truthfully, if the "what" of what it was that he was putting out there wasn't so damn compelling, I'd not bother with him. Too much other rewarding music that isn't so perpetually "teasing" (not the best word, but all I can think of right now). But it is, and I do.

Like I said earlier, he consistently beats me at his game, and then he pays me double. I'm a sucker to keep playing, but dammit, I need the money!

[garthsj]

Like I said, not too many players like Art Pepper, and truthfully, if the "what" of what it was that he was putting out there wasn't so damn compelling, I'd not bother with him. Too much other rewarding music that isn't so perpetually "teasing" (not the best word, but all I can think of right now). But it is, and I do.

Jim, I wonder if you would be kind enough to elaborate on your assertion that not many "players" liked Art Pepper. Were you referring to Art, the person, or Art's music ... if one can separate the two. Over the years, after many discussions with west coast musicians at the various "weekends" that Ken Poston puts together, Art Pepper has always been a hot topic. (The image of the "empty chair" at the table is very apt in this case). I agree that after a few drinks most of the people who knew and played with Art will confess how difficult it was to find him likeable all of the time ... but I have never ever heard anyone say anything negative about his music. He is considered about as close to an improvisational "genius" as most of them have ever encountered, and they all speak with envy about how natural and easy it was for him. The guys who played with him in the Kenton orchestra are universally in awe of this natural talent. (But don't get them started on his drug habit!).

Garth.

[AllenLowe]

Per Dan, let's not forget that Benny Carter payed trumpet as well - and personally I have to admit I like his trumpet playing better than his alto playing. But that''s another thread...

just to add a little bit to this discussion, there seems to be a sense of Pepper as somewhat detached from what he is playing - and to me, this is one of the things that makes him great, no irony intended. There is a certain modernist perspective that I call the "impersonal I" - it has to do with first person representations of the self that go deeper than the typical literary realist approach - without getting too literary here (Larry knows this stuff much beter than I do anyway) I think such an approach has more depth and feeling than the typical heart-on-sleeve style of creation. This, to me, is one of the things that makes the earlier Pepper so incredible to listen to. It is, as has been indicated, as though he is standing to one side and watching himself play. This makes his playing, bith technically and emotionally, extremely fresh to me. In his comeback years he is too aware iof himself, calls himself a genius, and seems to be acting as though he has missed some jazz developments. I find his attempts to "catch up" as largely self defeating and pointless -

Edited December 17, 2004 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Like I said, not too many players like Art Pepper, and truthfully, if the "what" of what it was that he was putting out there wasn't so damn compelling, I'd not bother with him. Too much other rewarding music that isn't so perpetually "teasing" (not the best word, but all I can think of right now). But it is, and I do.

Jim, I wonder if you would be kind enough to elaborate on your assertion that not many "players" liked Art Pepper. Were you referring to Art, the person, or Art's music ... if one can separate the two. Over the years, after many discussions with west coast musicians at the various "weekends" that Ken Poston puts together, Art Pepper has always been a hot topic. (The image of the "empty chair" at the table is very apt in this case). I agree that after a few drinks most of the people who knew and played with Art will confess how difficult it was to find him likeable all of the time ... but I have never ever heard anyone say anything negative about his music. He is considered about as close to an improvisational "genius" as most of them have ever encountered, and they all speak with envy about how natural and easy it was for him. The guys who played with him in the Kenton orchestra are universally in awe of this natural talent. (But don't get them started on his drug habit!).

Garth.

What I meant was that there aren't too many players like Art Pepper, not that a lot of players didn't like him.

Sorry for the lack of clarity on htat.