Jump to content

Miles - "Blackhawk"


BFrank

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I found both the Friday and Saturday sets today; they didn't, however, have the 4-CD (ie. all in the slipcase). Broke down and bought them separately. I've only listened to the first disc of FRIDAY... and I have to concur with what everyone has said so far. Some AWESOME playing by everyone. John L is right on with that rhythm section description; so tight and swinging, yet always perfectly interacting with the soloist. Beautiful stuff and they sound like they're having a ball too. Can't wait to hear the rest.

Oh yeah, and about the notes, I think they're fine. Although I must admit I never had the originals, so all of the notes were new to me. Some wild stories about The Blackhawk itself and the nights of the recordings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got mine yesterday a friend got the box for me as a b-day present, came a few days early...... Mobley burns so hard on that version of "Walkin", made me laugh out loud. "No Blues" is great too, will listen to disc 2 of Saturday Night when I get home from work tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine was smiling at me from the front porch at home as I drove up yesterday evening! :party:

Listened in the car this AM, as I didn't have a chance last night. "Oleo" is nice, blazing stuff, never heard Miles in better form on such boppish material. "No Blues," though, sounds like home - wow, this group was LOCKED IN. I cannot wait to savor this one over the weekend on the home system.

I like Eddie Henderson's stream of consciousness notes, the personal flair is great and that "Bye Bye Blackbird" story is indeed a funny one.

PS - Off topic but Blumenthal's liners are generally excellent IMHO - Mosaics especially - it's just in the RVG series that his comments seem pointless, for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's got great sound - definitely has a "you are there" feel.

Did anyone notice ideas in Miles' solos similar to those in the Plugged Nickel collection?

Now, if only Philly Joe had been on drums!

Anyway, highly recommended! Four hours, what a generous playing time!

You can hear the Italian club owner saying "bravo". :)

I don't like Blumenthal's notes either. Would that he would stop using the word "would" so much. Instead of saying such things as "Hank would later record this with McCoy Tyner", why not say "Hank later recorded it with McCoy Tyner"? As Frasier said, "I can't stand pointless erudition".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see your thumbs are up for this music, Shrdlu (and glad to see you on the board).

While this is not epochal music like the Plugged Nickel dates, I am rather flabbergasted at some of the lukewarm reviews the Blackhawk music receives. I came to the new sets without ever having heard the music. In this remastering, and listening with no prior expectations, I have been THOROUGHLY enjoying this stuff. "All of You," leading off Disc 2, is a case in point, 15 minutes of swinging jazz filled with subtle improvisational feats by three of the greatest soloists ever.

When I hear Mobley's playing on a track like this and then read comments in the Mobley thread about him not being an improviser of the level of quality of men like Rollins or Coltrane, I have to disagree wholeheartedly. He may not have been an INNOVATOR like those two, but I don't know how anyone could question his improvising credentials. In fact, given Rollins' descent alternately into self-doubt and self-indulgance ever since the late 60's, while Mobley was still evolving as late as the early 70's (see Cedar Walton's BREAKTHROUGH), I think Mobley was far more consistent throughout his sadly truncated career than Sonny has been.

Edited by DrJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compare Rollins and Mobley in any manner does a disservice to both men. Their means and ends are/were totally different, and to say that Rollins has been on a "descent" since the late 60s misses the point of what it is that he's all about as much as the criticisms of Mobley for not being a "first rank" improvisor (their are SO many different ways to be that!) or for being too predictable or however it's phrased.

For people like this, there is no difference between what they play and who they are. NO difference. Sonny takes chances on a scale that Hank never did, and often those chances fall flat. But when they work, my God! But that's Sonny. Hank was very much about a stubborn insistence on staying within himself, especially as the 60s rolled on and he seemed to take a delight in displaying a passive-agressive approach to paring down his solos to as bare an essence as possible (passive) with JUST the occasional moment of "What The Fuck?!?!?!" harmonic/rhythmic jugglery (agressive) to let you know that he was still fighting.

It's just a guess to say that the two men have/had TOTALLY different psychological makeups, but it's probably the safest guess you or I will make for quite a while. Totally different men, totally different stories, and totally different means to tell their stories. It might be true that Hank was more consistent than Sonny has been, but it's completely irrelevant to what music was and is to these two players (and all the others at their level). I could make the argument that if Hank had let himself loose (and not just musically, but personally. ESPECIALLY personally.) even half as much as Sonny has, for better and for worse, that he'd have lived a happier life and might still be alive today. But that's not who Hank Mobley was. Similarly, I could argue that if Sonny had reigned himself in half as much as Hank had, the last 30 years of his recordings wouldn't be the mess that they have been. But that's not who Sonny Rollins is.

I don't mean this as an "attack" or an argument with you Tony, but the last few months have, for personal reasons, really brought me face to face with just how inseperable I am from music, not just my music, but the entire world of practicing, creating, performing, and all that. I'm having to live in the so-called "real world" a lot more directly now than I have for quite some time, and it's forcing me to confront who I REALLY am, since I don't seem to have more than a passing similarity with most of the people I'm dealing with regularly now. They have a concept of life, its goals, its rhythms, its textures, its priorities, its colors, pretty much EVERYTHING :D that is different than mine and the people I've been dealing with (mostly) for the last few decades - musicians and other "creative" types. I'm not in any way saying that one group is "better" than the other, because that's obviously just not so. But the differences are real, and birds of a feather flock together for good reason - life just seems to go smoother when everyone's, if not on the same page, at least reading the same book. And there's a LOT of good books, so we don't all need to read the same one.

Saying, "I think Mobley was far more consistent throughout his sadly truncated career than Sonny has been" for you is no doubt a simple enough expression of opinion, and I gotta respect that. But in the touchy-feely-where-the-hell-is-my-life-going-to-go-NOW frame of mind I've been in lately, I feel compelled to tell you, and all the other posters who have made similar comments about other artists, that THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF MUSIC!!!! Not the ultimate point anyway, and ESPECIALLY not the point of either Sonny Rollins or Hank Mobley, individually or together. I mean, I'm a fan too, as well as a musician, so I know what y'all mean, and I can go there too, if only to a point. But qualitatively comparing Sonny Rollins and Hank Mobley, two of the few musicians whose work has been as close to my heart as any and have deeply helpde mold who I am as a person, well, you just got my goat and I'm snapping!

Sorry, Tony, you're one of the more astute posters in the jazz cyberworld, so you probably shouldn't be the recipient of this ranting howl (or howling rant, as the case may be). But it's something that's been building up, and you just happend to be there when it came to a head. ABSOLUTELY nothing personal, and take it for the self-indulgent whine it no doubt is. No hard feelings, I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, no personal offense taken! This is clearly an issue near and dear, and I hope in return that I didn't inadevertently offend you personally.

First, to clarify and take issue a bit with your main point: I find no problem in using a well-placed artist comparison to illustrate a point. This is a time-tested writing device, not just in music but in any expository writing. I find it is often quite illuminating and think many other jazz fans do. If you'll notice, I wasn't saying Hank was "better" than Sonny, a useless statement that would indeed be worthy of a rant. But to point out Hank's greater degree of consistency (which was not attached to any further value judgement) is a much different issue. That is a tangible and reasonable observation that can provide a way in to further consideration of these two giants. I personally found the insight illuminating for me when I had it, so I wished to share it. I think some others might also find it illuminating, though not all apparently! ;)

Also let's clarify what "consistent" means: it can mean consistently mediocre, which is not what I was saying, or consistently sublime, which honestly I feel Hank Mobley's playing was. So maybe there are semantics at play here, but I don't feel you understood that I was not promoting consistently bland "American cheese on white bread" jazz but rather consistently great "Brie on French bread" jazz! :D So to say Hank was more consistent is, in this instance, a high assessment indeed.

I do hear what you're implying about artists who go for greatness and sometimes fall short, but are more interesting for the trying. I agree to a point. But it's kind of like (here's an oddball metaphor from my life) conducting a really seminal piece of medical research - every once in a while someone just lucks into it, but mostly it takes a lot of pre-preparation and you have a pretty good hunch before you even do the study that it's going to be something special. What I'm trying to say is, some artists are constantly "trying something different" in the name of "going for the sublime," but really they lack a sense of purpose and direction and are swinging wildly and desperately. I would not put those folks in the same category as someone like Don Pullen (probably not the best example but the one that comes to mind), whose work, while somewhat uneven as a body, has many threads of continuity and the chance-taking is based in some sense of purpose and pre-reasoning.

I do hear all you're saying and think you make some good points, but I do happen to continue to disagree about Rollins' music in particular. Sorry, while I understand all the theoretical issues about what music is and isn't about, artist's intent, their identity with the music, etc., as a listener those are secondary issues at best. His stuff doesn't move me and I don't think it's a misunderstanding to say that he's alienated a huge portion of his audience AND (this is important) failed to win much of a new one because many others also feel similarly, not just among critics but among fans. I find personally that for every 10 people who pay lip service to Rollins' later music, there's only 1 or so who really enjoys it. It is not an indictment of Sonny as a person to say this, but I feel he's basically lost a sense of direction and inner purpose, and I think if one reads/listens between the lines of many of his interviews and his performances, he knows. In that sense, you and I saying much the same thing - the music is inseparable from the artist, and here we have an artist who has lost his way much of the time.

One of MY hot button issues is artists who either admit to, or who I perceive to, basically discount audience opinions. Call me old fashioned, but I appreciate artists who make an effort to meet their audiences in the middle. When I see said audiences leaving an artist in droves, I get suspicious that either 1) the artist is just plain stinking it up; 2) they are actually going out of their way to alienate the audience (and I think Sonny often does this, part of his extreme ambivalence about his stature in jazz and his sardonic sense of humor); or 3) the audience is just not trying and will eventually come around. Regarding the latter: perhaps in 50 years or so I and a lot of other people will come around and what Sonny's doing will hit us. History has shown this can happen after all. But I doubt it in this case.

Again, though, all that is secondary - the main issue is I dislike his later playing pretty intensely, after giving it more than a fair chance, and that is really all I care about as a listener. I love his work through the later 60's, especially the wonderful (and often reaching - but with purpose - RCA recordings). And his compositions, on the other hand, have remained interesting throughout, as evidenced by others covering them splendidly as on Keystone Trio's NEWKLEAR MUSIC (Milestone). There, I'm not unreasonably "anti-Sonny"! :g

Edited by DrJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this Keystone Trio thing, and what era Rollins compositions do they cover? For that matter, WHO are the Keystone trio, and where have they been all my life?

As for latter-day Rollins, we disagree profoundly and fundamentally, and that's cool. I personally think that he's "lost" in somewhat the same way that the 9-11 terrorists were "lost" in America prior to the attack - THEY know who they were and what they were up to, but if too many of the wrong people found out, all hell would break loose and they couldn't go about their business any longer. I've been to a Rollins show when he was "on", and trust me - it fucked me up a LOT more than 9-11 did. The WTC bombings were a horrible assault on our fundamental sense of security, but they did nothing to challenge my fundamental concept of reality and human potential. Sonny's performance did. Everything I thought I knew or felt about music and what a human could think, feel, know, and do was assaulted down all the way down to its core. It's a given to me that there will always be tragically destructive lunacy afoot in the world, (nothing can REALLY shock me in this regard - an adulthood of club dates has pretty much taken care of that. That's only partially a joke, btw...) but it's not a given that a man can somehow find a way to suspend/escape/levitate across/whatever time, leave the 3-dimensional reality that the rest of us inhabit, let us see and hear him do it, and come back to join the rest of us. Literally. To experience that in the flesh was a MAJOR mindfuck, moreso than evil inevitably coming to pass terrifyingly close to home. This comment might seem bizzare to many, but that's what I mean about different worlds and all that. I sincerely apologize to any who are offended by this, and I in NO way mean to minmize the horror for the residents of NYC and those who lost love ones in the attack. Indeed, I don't know if I could make such a statement had I been there when the bombings occured (but I can't say that I couldn't either. You never know for sure until you get there, But Sonny was there, for whatever, if anything, that's worth) "Playing it down" is not my intent AT ALL, nor is saying that I wasn't shook up by 9-11. I was. But Sonny that night shook me up MORE. Lots more. Such is my world, and I'm not alone. Trust me, I'm not alone - other residents have probably been inside your collective ears and brains within the last 24 hours. I'm violating the unofficial code of silence about things like this, :D but so be it. It needs to be said. Flame away, any and all.

As for Sonny's stated ambivalence about his place in jazz, I understand exactly where he's coming from, and it ties into my earlier points. Suffice it to say that I find his ambivalence to be extremely knowing, totally humble, and mature in the extreme. He's been to the mountaintop the way few have, can go still go there, and no doubt finds the spectacle of being proclaimed "The World's Greatest Living Improvisor" quite at odds with the true nature/thrust of what any "questing" musician is all about. Failure comes with the territory, and it is about as miserably PERSONAL a failure as I suspect a human being can know. Triumph, when it occurs, is indeed a moment of rapture (in the Biblical sense) but it's inevitably tempered by the humiliating (in the sense of forceing humility on the individual) realization that it could very easily never happen again, and that no matter how hard you want to believe it, it wasn't "you", at least not the conscious "you" that got you there. The higher you go, the deeper you realize just how fragile you REALLY are. The marketplace images and hype begin to go beyond the ludicrous. Dude, I'm less than halfway up the ladder (although, how can you be halfway up something that has no end? :D ), I've had no more than 5 of those times when it's REALLY all there, and I know this to be true. Never mind somebody who's climbed higher on the ladder and/or had more of those moments (I do know some personally), they know about it a LOT better than I do. Again, this is not usually discussed publically, but since I've already broken the code...

A lot of fans are turned of by latter-day Rollins, and just as many are ambivalent. I've noticed that there seems to be a nascient appreciation of the best of his recorded work from these days, and you'll find lots of people who swear by his live shows (as well as a few who swear AT them :D ). That's all the way it should be. But the LAST word that I would use to describe Sonny Rollins these days is "lost". Humble, insecure, inconsistent, somewhat indifferent/diffident, yeah, I could use those words. But they're not the results of being "lost", not by a long shot. Most musicians I know, jazz or otherwise, would give the body part of YOUR choice to be so lost! :D

Again, apologies to all who read this for the 9-11 thing. I know it's going to be misinterpreted by many, and nothing I can do will be able to clarify it for those who don't "get it". But before anybody gets TOO worked up and comes to my crib with lit torches and a noose, ask yourself this - if music gives its makers and listeners alike the strength to overcome a profound human tragedy like 9-11, does it not follow that music is in the end STRONGER than such mindless terror, no matter how vile it may be? And if music is indeed stronger than evil, does it not then follow that music has the potential to fuck somebody up even MORE than evil does (getting one's mind fucked up is not necessarily a bad thing!)? And is it not a possibility that somebody/anybody who lives and breathes to make a/some music that is even slightly worthy of the being presented in ANY fashion could get fucked up by a musical experience just a bit more than somebody for whom music, no matter how personally felt, is not at the core of their reason for being? Not always, but at lest occasionally? Just think about it before opening up the heavy artillery, ok?

Edited by JSngry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I think I know what you mean, and I also think that partly you feel that way because you are a tenor saxophonist with decades of experience and Newk hit you in a way that perhaps he would not have hit nearly every other member of the audience that night? I say that because I have seen Texan drummer George Rains many times here in town in the eighties, and I saw him one night in a small club with Angela Strehli's band and he was playing on a level he never had before. I had been studying him from fifteen feet away for a few years, week after week, literally, and all of a sudden I was watching him and he was just playing in a manner that I never had imagined he could play, or really that anyone could play: every bit of time was at his disposal and he could make the band crawl or dive, soar or sprawl, he was a part of every note and every nuance. Guitarist Denny Freeman was fully aware of it, and he would look back at George in wonder now and then. After the second set I tried to talk to George and compliment him but I didn't get a chance to. I've wondered if there was some special ingredient to his evening that made him suddenly this supernatural drummer. I'll never really know. BUT the gal I was dancing with that night, who I had been traveling with from Antones to the Continental Club and all over town following Lou Ann Barton's and Angela Strehli's bands for about a year, didn't notice anything different about George that night. She just danced her dance and drank her vodka, as she always did. But it was a night of drumming that floored me.

It both inspired me after that to work harder, and also undermined me because when I faltered I felt I'd never be able to come close to such a performance/talent. I've never witnessed another such supernatural performance from a drummer since. However, I think a large part of the experience, the identification of the experience itself, hinged on my knowning his work pretty intimately and serially, and on my knowledge of drumming itself. . . .

Edited by jazzbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's funny how stuff like that can slip by unnoticed by most folks. But the folks who DO catch it... ;)

The Rollins thing was freaky indeed. It was in 82 in Albuquerque, and the firat set, under 45 minutes, had been pretty uninspired. Sonny took a looooonnnnggggggg break, and when he came back, he was THERE from note one. It kept getting deeper and heavier. It was one of "those" nights.

Well, they were playing one of those loose, half-Latin/half-funk grooves that fell so flat on so many of the records but actually worked really nicely in person (that alone was a lesson right there - don't always judge something by the record. use your imagination to thearr what it COULD be, and maybe along the way you can hear what the intended message is, and relate to the "failed" performance a little more knowingly). Anyway. Sonny was getting into this flowing eighth note thing, and the rhythm and articulation gradually began to disolve into a land beyond any real notatable specificity. Cool, I'm thinking - teach me, Sonny. This is what I had hoped to hear, so I'm happy happy happy.

But then, something quite unexpected happened. Sonny's time somwhow, someway, intersected with the band's time in such a way that all of a sudden WE WERE IN A DIFFERENT DIMENSION OF TIME AND SPACE. I do not say this casually or with even the slightest bit of hyperbole. This shit was REAL, Jack, as real as anything can be. I lasted for 3-4 bars at most, and then were were back in the world we had just left, only with the slight disorientation that anybody must feel when being temporarily displaced from their place in the time-space continuum. At first I thought it was just me, but I looked up on stage, and Bob Cranshaw was shaking his head and looking at Sonny with a look that told me all I needed to know - it wasn't just me. Looking around the audience, a crowd of about 5-600 in a civic auditorium, I noticed that nearly everybody was shifting a bit in their seats, as if to reorient themselves after having been plopped back into them just a faction or so off from where they had been before being taken on that little trip. This was not random butt-shiftiing either. This was a distinct, identifiable activity throughout the auditorium. I don't know if everybody in the house was COGNIZANT of it happening, but they were affected by it physically, cognizant or not. Damn, I thought to myself, we've just been levitated by Sonny Rollins. How often does THIS happen? How many times HAS this happened? What does it feel like to be able to do this? How do you get there?

And - what do you do for an encore? An activity more suited for an ashram or a monestary or a mountain top was being presented as "entertainment", or missing the point even more, "art". How the hell do you go about exploring in this realm of metaphysics (Sonny's a extremely well-trained practitioneer of Yoga remember, and that's one of those things that starts simple, but can get as deep as you want it to) while functioning in a realm of record contracts, concert promoters, and having an audience laying down their money expecting to see The Greatest Living Improvisor play The Greatest Living Jazz, as if it was a set routine everytime out? My guess is that you take it way, WAY underground, pick your spots VERY carefully, and don't leave too much of a mylar/digital trail. He learned THAT lesson a long time ago...

Now, not every jazz musician is going to go where Sonny goes, obviously. But I guarantee you that ANY player worth a damn gets as personal and as intimately connected with their music as Sonny did with his that night, to the best of their ability. Intimacy is all about finding yourself through losing yourself, and no two people are going to lose or find the same thing. Thus the diversity of compelling voices that tcontinue to enthrall us across the entire spectrum of this music. Is that something the average fan wants, or even NEEDS to know about? That's a question I can't answer, but I think that if it's a bit naive of a musician to expect to be fully understood by a "lay" public, when the only way to come close to fully understanding it is be involved in it yourself (and this is true of any occupation, activity, etc.), then I think that it's alos a bit arrogant of a fan to think that loving something, feeling it deeply, in a way that is sometimes beyond words, is the same as understanding it at the same level of those who actually do it. This doesn't mean that a musician's perception render's everybody else's invalid - once an idea is in the air, it's fair game for anybody to take it any way they see fit. That's just the way shit works, right? But it does mean that what seems like a good impression of what one is experiencing in music is by necessity limited to one's own world of experience, which may or may not be conguent to those of the people creating the music. Impressions thus formed are indeed valid as personal feelings, but may also in fact be a little (or more) out-of-sync with what it is that is creating those feelings, so a little, uh, "perspective" when making broad evaluations, etc. is in order, no?

It's funny. Everybody loves music, but not too many want to dig too terribly deep into the "hows" and "whys" of it, and some (nobody on this board, thank god), actually think that they know MORE about such things than somebody who's actively and intimately involved in them. I'm sure that every doctor has had the patient who tells him how they should be treated, or that every lawyer has the client who knows best all the time. Society as a whole looks at these types and laughs, because society recognizes that doctors and lawyers are skilled, trained profesionals. But EVERYBODY loves music, EVERYBODY'S an expert, and EVERYBODY knows that musicians can't be objective about what it is that goes into their craft or what comes out of it as a result. Therefore, ANYBODY can say ANYTHING about music, and it's cool because that's their "opinion".

Well hey - if you show me (or any self-respecting musician) that you even HALFWAY know what you're talking about, then your opinon carries the weight of whatever degree of knowledge you have, and if you're not a prick about it, it'll be cool enough. Just be honest with yourself. Or if you're somebody like C. Nessa, C. Albertson, Lon, Bill Fenhor, somebody who has been immersed, not just been a fan but has actually IMMERSED their life in the study, observation, and active participation, not just in the records, but the LIFE of the music, then your opinion definitely caries weight, more than a little, actually, and I find disagreements with people like this as unpleasant as I find the agreements joyful. But - JUST LIKING OR DISLIKING SOMETHING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HAVING AN INFORMED OPINION!!! You get people who have a good record collection but have never heard the music anywhere besides coming out of their speakers, or cats who have just discovered jazz, like, 15 minutes ago, spouting off about who's great and who sucks, and they get offended if you tell them that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. It ain't right, but musicians are somehow supposed to be polite and humble and patient in the face of such ignorance in a way and to a degree that few practitioneers of any craft/art are. It's bullshit of the HIGHEST degree if you ask me!

Fortunately, I don't knowof any posters here at Organissimo that are so arrogant, but I seem them on other boards, and I read them in the press, and when a pretty hip cat like Tony Jerant says he thinks that Sonny Rollins has lost his way, I snap. Again, Tony - IT'S NOT YOU! ;) It's stress, that's all it is. Pure stress.

Come to think of it, we ALL have stresses in our lives, so what am I bitching about? Let's get back to discussing the Blackhawk set. Great band! Great solos! Snap your fingers! Pat your feet! It's Mellow Miles, Hip Hank, Wonderful Wynton, Prancing Paul, & Jamming Jimmy packing up all our cares and woes, swingin' low, there we go!

Dig it, man. dig it!

Edited by JSngry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GregM

Jim said:

I personally think that he's [sonny Rollings] "lost" in somewhat the same way that the 9-11 terrorists were "lost" in America prior to the attack - THEY know who they were and what they were up to, but if too many of the wrong people found out, all hell would break loose and they couldn't go about their business any longer. I've been to a Rollins show when he was "on", and trust me - it fucked me up a LOT more than 9-11 did. The WTC bombings were a horrible assault on our fundamental sense of security, but they did nothing to challenge my fundamental concept of reality and human potential. Sonny's performance did.

Whew. That was the stupidest simile I've ever encountered. Sonny Rollins compared to 9/11 terrorists. Pinch me. . .did I really read that? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, we've sort of discussed this a bit before outside the board, and we've made some tentative stabs at it on boards, what I'm talking about I guess is music as a vehicle for the spirit, or spirituality, or some such.

I totally believe that Rollins experience. It falls in line with what I've started to believe about music as a method of rising and advancing the spirt, or communication of human essentials in a unique manner, or something along those lines. I'm not sure I can put words to what I feel music is and is capable of. It's as old as our two-legged-walking psyches and it is one of the few universal things in human culture. I think it has always had a hand in our civilizations, and a hand in bettering the human condition. And it will be with us to the bitter end, or the better end.

Look how Miles and his employees and two nights in a not so posh club in San Francisco communicated with all those persons, and through the magic of technology has communicated with so many many others for over forty years. One day maybe man will understand all there is to understand about this. . . but I doubt it. I continue to marvel more than struggle to understand in a clinical way any longer. I marvel at the music and the beings that create and disseminate and are reached by the music. I need it as a part of my world; I know you need it as a part of yours. I think all reading this thread need it as well.

Music has actually been a method by which fraternity came into my life. And I think fraternity is needed now, more than ever, or perhaps it is always needed desperately for the advancement of the human spirit.

Anyway, thanks for sharing that experience Jim.

Edited by jazzbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but it's not a given that a man can somehow find a way to suspend/escape/levitate across/whatever time, leave the 3-dimensional reality that the rest of us inhabit, let us see and hear him do it, and come back to join the rest of us. Literally. To experience that in the flesh was a MAJOR mindfuck, moreso than evil inevitably coming to pass terrifyingly close to home...

It's sounds a bit like an acid trip experience I once had...where I was in this car going up Kensington High Street (in London) and the next thing I knew, the scene had segued into the road outside Harrods - which is actually about 1 mile away. Like a cinematic fade or something. Mindfuck like that.

In other words, it sounds like acid without the drug. Tough to do...

Simon Weil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, a guy goes shopping and for a little ice cream (105 degree heat here in Sacramento today) and there's enough for several BOOKS written!

Interesting stuff, and I will say that I should definitely have qualified my comments about Sonny Rollins' later music to say STUDIO RECORDINGS because I have not seen the man live. I am NOT one of those folks who has only heard jazz through stereo speakers, though, I hasten to add! I won't doubt for a SECOND that Sonny's music could be a whole lot more transcendent in the live setting (and I know what you mean, I have had a similar experience - I'm sure in a very different way though - when seeing Andrew Hill at Birdland), which may in fact be what really matters to him. It's just that, if that's the case, I wish he'd stop making records! :P

NEWKLEAR MUSIC (Milestone) by the Keystone Trio is a real winner - John Hicks piano, George Mraz bass, and Idris Muhammad drums. All songs written by Sonny at various points in his career except the closer:

1. O.T.Y.O.G. (Rollins) - 5:28

2. Times Slimes (Rollins) - 8:16

3. Wynton (Rollins) - 7:47

4. Here's to the People (Rollins) - 5:31

5. Airegin (Rollins) - 6:47

6. Tell Me You Love Me (Rollins) - 5:58

7. Silk 'N' Satin (Rollins) - 6:27

8. Kids Know (Rollins) - 4:30

9. Love Note for Sonny (Hicks) - 7:23

As you'd guess, this is not fire and brimstone, change your life kind of music, but a refreshing spin on his pieces, done with a dead simple approach (and I mean "simple" as in elegant).

Now I do also have to say that I think this point you made Jim: "But - JUST LIKING OR DISLIKING SOMETHING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HAVING AN INFORMED OPINION!!!"...really misses the main point. You're right, like/dislike is not an informed opinion, but they are just different, one is not inherently more valid than the other as you imply. There is no OBLIGATION written down on a stone tablet somewhere that says anyone has to do any kind of homework to LISTEN TO OR COMMENT ON music...until they start having pop quizzes you have to get at least a Gentleman's C on before you can get into Yoshi's or wherever, it will NOT be an obligation.

Some people prefer a whole lot less insider stories, heavy analysis, and consideration of the artist's intent with their jazz and that is PERFECTLY VALID and what's more, it does NOT invalidate their opinion. Furthermore, sometimes I find those folks make more refreshing comments than the insiders (including, yes, musicians), who tend to bring all their own baggage and project it into the music (hey, I'll even admit that maybe I am doing that more than a little with later period Sonny and that maybe I need to approach it, yet again, with a conscious effort to "leave it at the door with the bottles, weapons, and air horn"). I find relatively few musicians to be articulate in talking about music, to be frank...I think it's a different part of the brain phenomenon, although there are some definite exceptions.

Funny you picked the doctor metaphor - there's a growing movement in medicine called "patient-centered care" that actually DOES in effect, ask the patient "how do you think we should address this problem?" Now that is not saying we tell them "do your own bypass," but we give them options and trust that most people are reasonable and will pick the most acceptable one that FITS IN WITH THEIR LIFE/PHILOSOPHY/GOALS/etc. Rather than me, the all-powerful doctor, saying "do what I say and like it" which is old school medicine. The new approach works - increased patient satisfaction, increased adherence to care, better health outcomes in research and actual practice. No patient "tells me how to practice," but I look to them eagerly and avidly for guidance to make sure that what my expertise is best applied TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL CASE. It seems to me that musicians, the greatest in my view - the ones that consistently have moved me - make a similar effort to "meet the audience in the middle." I would NEVER presume to tell you how or what to play on your saxamophone, but I would hope if I was in the audience you'd be thinking about me and the other folks in some manner - not in terms of note choices or anything that tangible, but just in the "they're out their listening, with varied backgrounds and levels of musical understanding, and I have some obligation to find a way to meet the majority of them where they live and then try to take them a few steps further." Maybe that's over-idealized, I don't know.

So anyway: when my listening buddy tells me he never reads liner notes, doesn't really care if he knows all the musicians on the session, and his eyes glaze over when I start telling him the little background stories that I know about different musicians/recordings, that's cool! His opinion is still very much valid, even if not "informed" in the way you mention.

Just to clarify in closing - he listens to music avidly (several hours a day), good stuff, excellent natural ear, etc, and he doesn't overstate his case (e.g. if something seems alien, he may say "not hitting me right now" but won't say "what a bunch of jive mothers!"). So I agree with you that the bore sitting at the table next to you droning on about things he can't begin to understand, that's just plain obnoxious and I think we all know who those people are - take them out of the equation, and you have my vote to diss them at every opportunity. But I think on the whole you vastly over-estimate the value of being "informed" in enjoying music. It works for some people, and it can add another (different, not better) facet to listening, but for others it may actually hinder enjoyment because it turns something pleasurable into (for them) work. That's why they're not musicians or critics, they are listeners.

Edited by DrJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Chaney

Bravo Tony.

I wonder if it's somewhat typical for creative people -- those producing in any art form -- to believe that only fellow creative types in their particular creative field are able to truly understand their language and feel as they do? I suppose this might also be true of the sciences as well?

Yep, the world at large is ill equipped to 'get' me and what I'm about.

Or is it sincere hand wringing? Wanting to be understood... as we ALL want to be understood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a person who strongly believes that most human behavior is intended neither as cynical or sinister but instead is the result of attempts to fulfill deep-seated, often unconscious needs - I believe it's the latter much more than the former. :tup

Edited by DrJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anyway: when my listening buddy tells me he never reads liner notes, doesn't really care if he knows all the musicians on the session, and his eyes glaze over when I start telling him the little background stories that I know about different musicians/recordings, that's cool! His opinion is still very much valid, even if not "informed" in the way you mention.

Doesn't read the liner notes and memorise personnel and dates ???? Next thing you'll be telling me he just listens to the music and thinks about it. What a bozo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo Tony.

I wonder if it's somewhat typical for creative people -- those producing in any art form --  to believe that only fellow creative types in their particular creative field are able to truly understand their language and feel as they do?  I suppose this might also be true of the sciences as well? 

Yep, the world at large is ill equipped to 'get' me and what I'm about.

Or is it sincere hand wringing?  Wanting to be understood... as we ALL want to be understood?

It is indeed the latter. It's not just "creative" types for whom this is a problem either - the world is full of "FEED ME" type pigs who want only to thoughtlessly and/or selfishly consume, and I suspect most of us feel misunderstood to one extent or another, if only because mostof us have to answer to one or more of these types somewhere along the way. Even the most self-confident among us has to get bugged once in a while because somebody just doesn't "get it".

When people expilcitly express up front that they only want to consume the results of a person's labor, and have no interest in or respect for its creation (which is quite different than expecting respect for its creator - the publicly pompous self-centered "artist" is a nuisance we can all live without; also - expecting a consumer to be interested IN the creative process is asking WAY too much, but having respect that extends beyond lip-service FOR it would seem to be a fundamental courtesy), an inevitable frustration results, especially when an attempt to correct fundamentally untrue assumptions is met with casual dismissal, as if anything that interferes with the unrestricted consumption of the results of a person's labor is self-indulgent whining or some other kind of "baggage".

YIKES! How Colonial! Would the Colonel like another Mint Julep while he's waiting for Maizey behind the woodpile?

To most of the world he's a lovable little fluffymuffin. But to the bees of the world...welcome.jpg

We got any bees in da'house?

Edited by JSngry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mnytime

So anyway: when my listening buddy tells me he never reads liner notes, doesn't really care if he knows all the musicians on the session, and his eyes glaze over when I start telling him the little background stories that I know about different musicians/recordings, that's cool! His opinion is still very much valid, even if not "informed" in the way you mention.

Doesn't read the liner notes and memorise personnel and dates ???? Next thing you'll be telling me he just listens to the music and thinks about it. What a bozo.

I stopped reading liner notes a couple years ago. First I found most of them are badly written. Especially recent notes and especially Blue Notes RVG's. I also found it affected they way I listened. I would be listening to the things the guy in the liner notes was pointing out.

Now if I read the notes it's good several months after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think on the whole you vastly over-estimate the value of being "informed" in enjoying music. It works for some people, and it can add another (different, not better) facet to listening, but for others it may actually hinder enjoyment because it turns something pleasurable into (for them) work. That's why they're not musicians or critics, they are listeners.

It's not a question of enjoyment (or the lack thereof) that I was addressing. That is totally beside the point. A person's gut reaction to music (or pretty much anything else) needs no justification, nor can it be attacked - to be ultra-simplistic, it is as reflexive as breathing, and must be accepted as such.

But I think you'll agree that there is a major difference in the opinions "I don't like this" and "Mr. X doesn't know what he's doing". The latter opinon presumes that the opinionholder knows both what Mr. X is trying to do, and more to the point, what he SHOULD be trying to do. And at least 50% of the time, I'll wager dollars to donuts that somebody who says this don't know jackschitte about either.

Similarly there's a difference, although not quite a big, between "I don't see what all the fuss is about" and "this is over-rated". The first is again a totally personal expression of opinion, albeit one sprinkled with just a wisp of confrontationality. The latter is again based on a presupposition - that the holder of the opinon is the arbiter of what and how things should be rated in the first place. Now, that's a gig I'd like to have! :g

There are no "right" or "wrong" opinions on matters of taste, on this I agree. But to apply this principle across the board to all manners of expression of all maners of opinions is requires a generosity and tolerance that I'm both afraid and glad that I don't have. All opinions are NOT equal! The further they stray from expressions of strictly personal, subjective reactions into objective statements of fact, the more they are open to challenge.

Now, for the first time, it's time to get personal! ;)

You say that Sonny Rollins has basically been lost for the last 30 years. This is your opinion, so cool. And you have qualified that opinion by saying that it is based solely on recorded evidence (although I must ask what the most recent Rollins albums you've heard are. The last 3 (+3, GLOBAL WARMING, & THIS IS WHAT I DO are VERY good!)), which is a major qualification in the case of Rollins. But I would ask you to to expound on that opinion by answering the following questions.

  • If Sonny has been "lost" for the last 30 years, what would/should he have been doing if he had been "found".
  • Is the answer to the first question based on an intimate knowledge of the man's life, or is it an expression of what you personally would like to be getting from him?
  • Have you heard the SILVER CITY set?

Ok, the third question is easy, but the first two cut to the heart of the matter. If you say that Sonny has been lost for the last 30 years, then I'm going to ask you what qualifies you to make that assertion. "It's just my opinion" ain't gonna cut it, because unless you have the factual, firsthand information to back up such a statement, your opinion don't mean shit (animated, friendly barroom banter, not an expression of anger or challenge, btw) in this instance. "I don't like it", "I don't get it", "It sounds like crap to me", anything like that, THAT I have to accept, but I don't have to accept that you or anybody else knows what is "right" for Sonny better than he does without seriously challenging your qualifications to make that statement.

Now, you may continue to hold on to the "it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it" position as a matter of principle or a matter of pride, but I'm not buying it. I've often questioned a lot of things Sonny's done over the years myself, and actually found a few things to be totaly meritless (when I heard THE WAY I FEEL, I wanted to send the cat a sympathy bouquet and a get-well card...), but I would never be so bold as to assume that I knew better than him what he should be doing. That's a whole 'nother trip than "I don't like it"! All I know is that Sonny Rollins is a notoriously "complicated" person whose massive achievements in the past have come at the cost of great personal struggle. That's not "tortured artist" hype, that's basically how it is, and there's numerous firsthand anecdotal evidence to back that up. So out of respect for both his historical accomplishments (of which I have much awareness) and what went into their creation (of which you and I alike probably have but an inkling), I'm going to hold off any grand pronouncements about how the cat has lost his way or any other such expressions of omniscience. #1, the live shows, both through recordings and reports I've heard, don't support it, and #2, the records are NOT uniformly bad and aimless. There are moments on most of them that are QUITE good in fact, at least in my opinon, and SILVER CITY collects some but not all of them. Why they aren't all mo'betta is a fair question, but "Sonny has lost his way" is an answer I'll only accept from somebody who knows him really, REALLY well, and even then that acceptance will not go unquestioned.

It's not like we're talking about Phil D. Phenom here, you know, some kid who pops up, makes everybody cream their jeans for a few years, and then just can't do it anymore. And yeah, some guys do lose their way. Pharoah Sanders did in the mid-70s (again, firsthand anecdotal evidence), and he's not alone. Actually, some people were saying this about Sonny after EAST BROADWAY RUNDOWN. I think the Down Beat review of it found it a fascinating but ultimately disturbing album, and fwiw, Sonny took another sabbatical shortly thereafter, gave up music completely, went to India, and studied Yoga intensely.

But he came back, and he's stayed back, longer than ever. If only for this reason, I'd have to question the "lost his way" position. but beyond that, again I ask - what SHOULD he be doing, and who are YOU (or anybody ele) to say what that is? Again - "that's just my opinon" ain't gonna cut it. You've gone beyond expressing a totally personal opinion into the realm of presupposing that you know what is best for somebody else. There are times and places for lettting anything that comes out of somebody's mouth go unchallenged, and there are people who are willing to do so. I'm oftimes one of those people, but not this time and not this place. It's your lucky day! ;) (and besides, it'll be my turn someday, I'm sure!)

Seriously, that's a pretty heavy thing to say about ANY human being, don't you think? Unless you believe that it's cool to say anything about anybody under any circumstance (and I don't think you do), then I'd ask you to perhaps consider refining your opinon and the expression of it. No, I'm not the "opinion police". I'm just a guy who thinks you can and should do better, and I do this kinda thing every so often just to keep in touch with my inner bitch. :g:g:g

Edited by JSngry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If Sonny has been "lost" for the last 30 years, what would/should he have been doing if he had been 'found'."

Hey, man, that's hardly my role to decide as a listener, you know? That's for him to know and me to find out! If there was ever a time for the phrase "I'll know it when I hear it," this would be it. I know some people (maybe you) think it's bullshit, but there is little question in my mind that one can actually "hear" it when someone has their heart in the music, when they are "in the groove" and locked in to some sense of meaning/purpose (abstract as it often is in music - I'm not talking about someone playing a line and saying "I just commented on the South African situation" there). This is true in pop, jazz, classical, whatever, and it separates lifeless crap from real music. What separates, for example, the first couple of Pixies albums from their later ones - inspired, laying it all out there playing versus merely good. I'm sorry, but for ME, some of Rollins' recorded output over the last 25 years or so has been lifeless crap, more often merely fair to good, and very rarely great. I emphasize - this is how it all hits ME. Your mileage may vary.

I think it's pretty clear (or at least thought it was) I'm a relatively "big-eared" listener and am more than willing to do my part of the work to try and meet the artist where they are at. So to make it unequivocally clear: I am not saying to Sonny or anyone "Play me what I wanna hear," but rather "Play me something that will make me WANT to hear it." Big, HUGE difference there. That's the whole enchilada in this debate, maybe even: I DON'T HAVE A CLUE what other alternative directions Rollins might have taken his music in that would have struck me more favorably, I'm just sorry I never heard them.

Now to hopefully put this whole opinion issue to rest: when I state an opinion about someone's recorded music, I figure it's a given that I'm talking about my own outlook - hey, who the hell ELSE could I be quoting? Of COURSE I am not saying "Sonny Rollins has lost it for everyone - people, get out of that club/record store line, put your money back in your wallets, and go home and listen to SAXOPHONE COLOSSUS because I can GUARANTEE you won't find anything appealing to hear in this man's work now...the great arbiter of musical opinion has spoken (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain)." ;)

Come on Jim, YOU can do MUCH better than to think that's what I was trying to say. Give me a break! If that "just doesn't cut it" for you, well, I never intended it to, YOU were the one who the opinion happened to chafe. I never said everyone was going to feel the way I do about Rollins, but I do personally (just me personally) happen to know a lot more folks who feel that way than feel otherwise regarding his more recent music when TAKEN AS A BODY OF WORK (there are certainly individual exceptions for me). You may know a different crowd. Fine. But enough of the badgering about a really very articulately stated outlook. You get it, you just don't like it! :g

"Is the answer to the first question based on an intimate knowledge of the man's life, or is it an expression of what you personally would like to be getting from him?"

See my comments in a prior post, where I admit that I (like everyone) project a whole lot of myself into my listening. Impossible not to, and anyone who says they come to music "objectively" is a big fat Al Franken book title excerpt. But still, that is not the crux of the issue. I like to be surprised; refer back to thoughts above.

Within that unavoidable limitation: I'm not "expecting" anything from Sonny except him putting his heart and soul into his playing. And to anticipate another debate: it may not seem fair but I actually DO expect a whole lot more in that department from someone like Rollins than from a merely excellent musician. Rollins IS a giant, my opinions about his later work notwhithstanding. He has reached heights most musicians never dream of reaching, and I deeply dug that and admired that he took chances and did the immense work it no doubt took to get to the point where he could do it (because I'm sure it was 90% perspiration).

When my ears (I trust 'em - perty good crap detectors, to borrow a phrase from critical reading) don't hear the same effort, the same drive, well, I can't help but be disappointed. For another musician who never WAS the kind of restless pioneer that Rollins was, well - it would be less much less disappointing. How's that for a big fat slice of relativism, bane of philosophers everywhere? But there it is, FOR ME.

And therein lies what I feel is a big tendency for people who push the envelope (in music, in any art) to want to have it both ways. They're quite happy when they're in the vanguard, pushing boundaries, critics' darlings, etc...but when living on that razor's edge gets kind of exhausting and they'd like to have an actual LIFE for a while and they ratchet back on the intensity, and the music inevitably SOUNDS like they've ratcheted back (flat even), and the fans and critics call them on it, then suddenly it's THE FANS AND LISTENERS' FAULT for just not being hip enough to appreciate their "later period." COME ON! Give me a break folks. I've used this quote of Neil Young's before, coined back in the 80's rock period: "Every wave is new until it breaks." So there are times when I would like to tell certain artists who were once avant garde darlings but have, well, by my ears (crap detectors) lost the edge amd/or are casting around for a sense of relevance and purpose, "You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Please don't whine about people calling you on it when you've descended from the heights to mere mortaldom."

Note that some former pioneers do age more than gracefully even when, in one sense, coasting. Louis Armstrong was a great example for me. Over time I have come to appreciate his later work and there are days where, removed from the whole "historical perspective" mindset, it exceeds his earlier work for me. Why I think has to do again with intent and heart and soul, and with my crap detecting ears - Louis may have played the same songs over and over again, but he just kept putting heart and soul into them and his actual playing never suffered - it just kept sounding more and more like Louis, less and less like such mundane considerations as trumpet plus accompaniment, you know? Not that he didn't have his off days, but there were stunningly few based on recorded evidence.

To emphasize, your ears (crap detectors) may be calibrated differently than mine. They're both up to code, just different.

"Have you heard the SILVER CITY set?"

Creaming off the relatively few excellent tracks from a 25 YEAR PERIOD and saying it's a strong set is fine and well, but to extrapolate that as an accurate representation of the period as a whole, well...let's just say the scientist in me really balks at that kind of methodology! :lol:

Edited by DrJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument about opinion concerning music as between musicians and non musicians looks a bit different if transported to another world. Lets say, the movies. Now, I do know how to play an instrument, but I don't know jackus shittibus about making a movie. Even knowing nothing about it, I tend to know what I think about movies. Moreover, if someone who had made a few movies told me x was great (x being regarded by me as so much poo) I would tend to take no notice. I think we'd all agree on this. Now, I don't think that analogies between the arts can be easily made, but I wonder how the analogy would work in this case. I wonder why this is such a difficult matter to grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...