skeith Posted March 7, 2006 Report Posted March 7, 2006 (edited) I know there is another thread on this one, but not in this forum. after killing that other thread I felt duty bound to revive one here. I am warming up a bit to this cd. A few of the tunes, the opener "Malachi" and its closer twin- the solo version are nice, and I also like "Smooth" but on the whole I don't think the tunes are as strong as on his classic Blue Notes and some of the later ones. As for the soloing, I like a number of his solos and my impressions of the other guys are improving. It's not a knockout album, but has some good moments and my opinion on this cd seems to change day by day. Edited March 7, 2006 by skeith Quote
ep1str0phy Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 I'm pretty shocked that no one feels like talking about this one. Then again, this is hardly groundbreaking material--which isn't to say it's bad. Andrew's couple-decade-or-so holding pattern has allowed for a series of personal innovations, the communion of which has culiminated in a wholly original post-bop style (heck, Andrew might qualify as a "sub-genre"). That being said, the essential musical characteristics of what we're hearing on "Time Lines" have been gestating since as far back as the later Blue Note sides. It's become increasingly apparent that the tensile, explosive style of the early BNs was (more or less) a larval stage--very much a product of its time and (the artist's) personal circumstances... which is not to say that the "mature" Hill can't produce urgent, powerful works (I think the Japanese sides are a testament to this)--only that we'll never again hear the same sensibility that characterizes those "classic" 60's albums. I appreciate "Time Lines" as yet another showcase of just what a mature, venerable artist can produce--nothing monumental, but beautiful nonetheless. Leave the blood to the hungry, I'd say... it's nice to hear that the cat has "settled" into a groove. Quote
skeith Posted March 8, 2006 Author Report Posted March 8, 2006 I'm pretty shocked that no one feels like talking about this one. me too, but maybe its the "skeith effect" Quote
jlhoots Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 Well - I don't have anything profound to say, but I do like the CD. Quote
JSngry Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 I just got my copy. Listened to it about 3 times last night (with plenty more to come), and really, what is there to say? Lots, eventually, but right now, "Beautiful" is all I can say. And that's enough. Quote
Guy Berger Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 How does it compare (quality-wise) to Dusk (which I really liked)? I will probably pick this up when it gets on yourmusic. Guy Quote
skeith Posted March 8, 2006 Author Report Posted March 8, 2006 I did not like Dusk and sold my copy and now I don't remember it very well. Quote
JohnS Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 How does it compare (quality-wise) to Dusk (which I really liked)? I will probably pick this up when it gets on yourmusic. Guy Good question, I liked 'Dusk' very much and still play it frequently. Quote
ep1str0phy Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 How does it compare (quality-wise) to Dusk (which I really liked)? I will probably pick this up when it gets on yourmusic. Guy It's far, far subtler than "Dusk"--and more oblique, I'd say (it reminds me of "Blue Black" at times). Like JSngry said, "beautiful" is the functional term--it's got a lilting, lyrical quality, far less exigent than much of "Dusk" (there isn't that mutch straight-up "barn-burning" here). Quote
JSngry Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 Indeed. The overriding "feeling" here is one of melancholia, I think. But not in a "depressed" way, if you know what I mean. Then again, that's always been a big flavor in Andrew's music. But it really seems to the fore on this album, and I find it quite touching, more than usual, actually. Quote
brownie Posted March 9, 2006 Report Posted March 9, 2006 Quite a remarkable album. One of Hill's most rewarding album in years. I wish though there had been a wider range of moods. Melancholy is the word for the overall feeling on this one. If that's how Hill feels nowadays he obviously has plenty of reasons for this! That 'Malachi' tune is just beautiful. A melody that haunted me as soon as I had heard it! Anybody know why this was recorded at Bennett Studios in Englewood, NJ? Englewood is RVG's place. Wasn't RVG available? Or does this goes deeper? Quote
skeith Posted March 9, 2006 Author Report Posted March 9, 2006 (edited) interesting to me how on the head of the title track "Time Lines" (track 2) there is that repeated note for an almost absurd number of reps. At first I found this annoying, but lately I am wondering if the audacious Andrew has managed to pull it off. Some of the other heads for different tunes do not thrill me however, and that may be the weakness of the album for me, I find that the melodies from the old Blue Notes almost without exception to be very engrossing. Edited March 9, 2006 by skeith Quote
bertrand Posted March 9, 2006 Report Posted March 9, 2006 I feel like Brownie - 'Malachi', the piano solo track is gorgeous. I also wondered why RVG was not involved. Bertrand. Quote
John Tapscott Posted March 9, 2006 Report Posted March 9, 2006 (edited) I do not have the new CD yet, but in response to the RVG question, I am not all that surprised they didn't use him. I do not find the sound of his recent recordings to be as good as those he recorded in the 60's. Still OK for sure, but there are no Cornbread's or Speak No Evil's or Smokestack's, at least to my ears. Maybe the rest of the world has just caught up with (or even surpassed) RVG. Also, to me, the sound of RVG's piano is sometimes bit wonky. Edited March 9, 2006 by John Tapscott Quote
sal Posted March 10, 2006 Report Posted March 10, 2006 This is a wonderful disc. Not quite on par with "Dusk", which I consider to be a masterpiece, but still an amazing collection of music. Andrew's music is so advanced and complex and weird....I just love it. Quote
Clunky Posted March 16, 2006 Report Posted March 16, 2006 this album is quite a compelling listen. I'm still not sure what it's about- melancholic certainly. Tardy seems to get his voice heard but Tolliver doesn't seem to get my of a chance. curious certainly Quote
JSngry Posted March 16, 2006 Report Posted March 16, 2006 I know it sounds mawkish/Romantic/over-analytical/whatever, but the more I listen to this (and I've been listening a lot), the more it sounds like a "farewell letter". I'm probably just creating that impression in my own mind, but still... Quote
mikeweil Posted March 16, 2006 Report Posted March 16, 2006 Haven't had a chance to give it a listen, but the new (April 2006) Jazz Times issue has a nice feature on Andrew! And along the way they correct the recording date of the trio session in the Mosaic Select box to April 19, 1967! Quote
sal Posted March 16, 2006 Report Posted March 16, 2006 I know it sounds mawkish/Romantic/over-analytical/whatever, but the more I listen to this (and I've been listening a lot), the more it sounds like a "farewell letter". I'm probably just creating that impression in my own mind, but still... Thinking about it in that context, I can see/hear why you thought that. God, I hope that's not the case.... Quote
bertrand Posted March 16, 2006 Report Posted March 16, 2006 Mike, Is this the Chained session that is 4/19/67? Bertrand. Quote
ep1str0phy Posted March 16, 2006 Report Posted March 16, 2006 I know it sounds mawkish/Romantic/over-analytical/whatever, but the more I listen to this (and I've been listening a lot), the more it sounds like a "farewell letter". I'm probably just creating that impression in my own mind, but still... Thinking about it in that context, I can see/hear why you thought that. God, I hope that's not the case.... I'd say the session sounds bittersweet, although it's difficult not to get a little anxious... I'll try my best to extract the omen from these 'autumnal' albums; I'd like to preserve this one from the taint of 'late-period' fetishizing (which often does an injustice to the artist, the album, the aesthetic, etc.). I'm getting the similar vibes, though--more the sounds of a man who can see the road's end, if not having reached it (and, really, we all hope there's more where this came from). Quote
Guy Berger Posted March 16, 2006 Report Posted March 16, 2006 I know it sounds mawkish/Romantic/over-analytical/whatever, but the more I listen to this (and I've been listening a lot), the more it sounds like a "farewell letter". I'm probably just creating that impression in my own mind, but still... Thinking about it in that context, I can see/hear why you thought that. God, I hope that's not the case.... What a depressing thought. Get better Andrew! Guy Quote
Indestructible! Posted March 17, 2006 Report Posted March 17, 2006 I know it sounds mawkish/Romantic/over-analytical/whatever, but the more I listen to this (and I've been listening a lot), the more it sounds like a "farewell letter". I'm probably just creating that impression in my own mind, but still... Jim, I hear where you're coming from on this. I remember the last time I saw Jimmy Smith play live... it was clear to me at that moment that I was watching the man perform for the last time (in my neck of the woods, that is), and that was one emotional night for me. He still played well (not great, but good), and I probably was more focused on listening that night than I ever have been before (it was like I needed to remember every last thing about his performance)... and then I heard the news of his passing a little while later. I'll never, ever, forget that set by Jimmy... and Time Lines does have a similar feel for me... But, God, I love Andrew Hill, and I hope this is just the first of many to come in his third go-round with Blue Note!!! Cheers, Shane Quote
mikeweil Posted March 17, 2006 Report Posted March 17, 2006 (edited) Mike, Is this the Chained session that is 4/19/67? Bertrand. Yep - but sorry I misread the date - it was corrected from May 17, 1967 (on which part of a Miles Davis LP was recorded) to May 19, 1967 - Rudy Van Gelder had the correct date in his log files. Edited March 17, 2006 by mikeweil Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.