Which version of "Forest Flower" do you like best?

[Guy Berger]

Haven't heard the 1964 version, but had to include it for completeness. Anyway, I have to go with 1968 because it has such a strong groove and Keith gets into that gospel thing during "Sunset". Charles plays best on the 1963 version, but I really don't like how the Hamilton group approaches the tune.

Guy

[GA Russell]

I voted for the only one I've heard, 1966.

Have a feeling you won't get too many votes for this one!

[JSngry]

No vote, but I do like the Hamilton group's interpretation. Kinda "West Coasty" in its vibe (in a good way), which works for the sunny, "naive" quality of both sections of the piece. Coming out of a Chico group, it kinda "rings true" in that way. It's got that virginal quality to it that works for me, and which worked for Lloyd as well, at least for a little while.

My least favorite would be the hit version. Nothing wrong with it per se, but...

[Guy Berger]

No vote, but I do like the Hamilton group's interpretation. Kinda "West Coasty" in its vibe (in a good way), which works for the sunny, "naive" quality of both sections of the piece. Coming out of a Chico group, it kinda "rings true" in that way. It's got that virginal quality to it that works for me, and which worked for Lloyd as well, at least for a little while.

I know what you're getting at... for some reason it rubs me the wrong way, a little too "cute" if you know what I mean. Though obviously this has more to do with my prejudices as a listener than anything wrong with the music itself.

Guy

[Stereojack]

The Hamilton version, hands down.

Lloyd seems uninvolved on the other versions, to these ears.

[JSngry]

I know what you're getting at... for some reason it rubs me the wrong way, a little too "cute" if you know what I mean.  Though obviously this has more to do with my prejudices as a listener than anything wrong with the music itself.

        Guy

←

Well, yeah, there's always going to be, to one degree or another, a "cute" (a word/concept I absolutely abhor in it's "pure" sense, btw) factor to anything a Chico Hamilton group does. That's what makes Chico Chico, but ususally (well, often enough) he perspectifies it in a way that it's not just cute.

But I know what you're getting at as well.

[Guy Berger]

I didn't include it because in the poll because it wasn't recorded in the 60s, but Lloyd's recording of this tune on Voice in the Night (late 90s) is really good -- I think it captures the good aspects of the original Chico version without the "cuteness" of the original. And unlike the late 60s versions, there isn't the "uninvolvement" that Jack W was talking about. No Keith/Ron/Jack locking into a tight groove though...

Guy

[SEK]

I've heard the versions on "Forest Flower", "Soundtrack", and "Voice in the Night". I chose the 1966 version, because of its ubiquity over many decades.

[Chuck Nessa]

I voted for Discovery only 'cause after this disc and a couple of Hamilton sides, I quickly lost interest in his work. He's obviously a fine musician but not my "cup of tea".

[Guy Berger]

The Hamilton version, hands down.

Lloyd seems uninvolved on the other versions, to these ears.

←

I'm listening to a bootleg of this group from Oslo in the spring of 1966 -- Charles's playing on this tune (and others) is phenomenal. Focused, aggressive. I wonder why it was so lackluster on the "famous" version?

Guy

[michel devos]

I like the 1966 Monterey version, mainly for the slick job Keith Jarrett does on this disc.

[Bright Moments]

I like the 1966 Monterey version, mainly for the slick job Keith Jarrett does on this disc.

well said!