BTF 40 - Disc One

[JSngry]

I'll send you an email.

[MartyJazz]

Is your musical identity the sum total of your identity?

It is the core of it, yes. Everything else builds upon that, including how I appraoch non-musical situations (of which lately there have been quite a few). It's affected who I fell in love with & married (and why), and I can't see that there's anything more "fundamental" than that. It's at the core of everything I believe morally, politically, you name it.

Or I guess you could say that those other considerations affect my musical identity. But at this point it's probably a "chicken vs egg" thing. And every musician I've know who's worth a damn in my book is the same way. Not that they always act on their best impulses (Getz would probably be a prime example, as would Mingus, Max, and a gazillion others), but then again, I believe that when there's a "conflict" like that, it's almost always a result of somebody using the music as "therapy", of it being the one place where they can be who they truly want to be, and would be if only they could.

In the beginning was The Word, Sound. Logos. Vibration, You name it. You betcha "sound" matters, and anybody who would treat it so cavalierly as to blatanly steal somebody else's and think it's "cool" is not somebody I want to get too close to, whether it's meeting them on the street or just listening to their records. That's some seriously weird shit right there, and I don't want any part of it. They may think it's perfectly innocent fun, but if an innocent child kills its parents because they think it's "fun", does that result in any less damage? Evil works in all kinds of ways and through all kinds of people.

That's just me, though. We really probably don't want to pursue this too much further, because I don't want to give the impression that I think that anybody who enjoys this kind of thing is an accomplice to evil, or any shit like that. I don't think that at all. We take our fun where we find it, and lord knows I enjoy some pretty suspect crap myself. But I do think that anybody who regularly plays in a manner such as that is treading on very, very dangerous ground.

I find myself understanding and agreeing with you on this master originality vs. slavish/sycophantic imitation subject which is why I expressed a negative reaction to the BFT cut that spawned this subthread. But then I put on a Supersax recording and can't help but thoroughly enjoy all those saxes playing Bird's solos note for note in unison. So what's the answer? (A rhetorical question to be sure which need not be answered).

Edited September 19, 2006 by MartyJazz

[Eloe Omoe]

I find myself understanding and agreeing with you on this master originality vs. slavish/sycophantic imitation subject which is why I expressed a negative reaction to the BFT cut that spawned this subthread. But then I put on a Supersax recording and can't help but thoroughly enjoy all those saxes playing Bird's solos note for note in unison. So what's the answer? (A rhetorical question to be sure which need not be answered).

Well, it's the same feeling I had yesterday while listening to a new Sun Ra live cd on Leo, where the Arkestra plays one of its many versions of Fletcher/Horace Henderson's "Big John Special" duplicating the original solos...

luca

[mikeweil]

Let's just say that I understand study, respect, admiration (love, even to the point of "channelling") and all that. What I don't understand, and find creepy to the point of perversity (literally) is whatever it is that drives an individual to seemingly want to literally become somebody else, not in "spirit" but in exact detail.

Well, if that's creepy to you, I understand - but I see it as part of the African concept of letting another spirit "ride" you to do something in this material world. (This is an essential part of African religious ceremonies involving what is called possesion trance, and as jazz as an African-American music encompasses many African traits, I see a connection here.) I experienced something like this recently when I gave in, kind of called the spirit of my favourite timbale player, and there he was, guiding my hands. It was great. I probably couldn't repeat this, and I doubt Wilber et al could repeat this, or Walter Davis his Monk solo piano CD, or Harry Allen his Getz tribute (I heard so many things on this track that Getz never would have done, that I couldn't call him a clone). But I hear you, Jim, and I know it's a very thin line, and we all must see who we are and when to step back. I'm at the point where I'm not afraid anymore of losing my identity - giving it up to creep inside somebody else's is an essential part of finding one's own - at least that was part of my learning experience. I think they all know they're not Hawk or Getz, that's why they come so close - and don't forget what we discussed about Quinichette, who's perhaps the prime example.

Well, 'nuff said ....

But you asked me a question, Mike, and this is my answer.

Thanks for promptness and sincerity - I appreciate this a lot - although Tom bet me to it and took some of the words from my mouth.

[JSngry]

Neither Supersax, nor Ra, nor Walter Davis, nor Quinichette sound exactly like the spirits they may or may not have been chanelling. With the first two, that's sort of a given, but I bought that Walter Davis thing after hearing about it, and, no, he doesn't sound like Monk. I can hear the spirit (and hard), but the voice is still his. Quinichette? Hey, there's been any number of times where he's almost fooled me, but the key word there is almost. Sooner or later, it becomes apparent who it is, and it ain't Pres.

Now, on this Wilbur thing, it was obvious that it wasn't Hawk, but it was also obvious that the players were going beyond a simple "chanelling". This was an intentional, conscious attempt, probably even a premeditated one, to speak in somebody else's voice. Nothing spontaneous or mystical about it. An ensemble re-creation of Hawk's playing, a la Supersax, would be one thing, but to hear a sequence of solos so blatantly imitative (and in a pretty detailed, intimate way at that) is another. And irony of ironies - is Allen the one guy who's not sucking on the Hawk tip?

The bottom line in all this for me is this - are you receiving a spirit, or are you taking it? Big, big difference...

[mikeweil]

The bottom line in all this for me is this - are you receiving a spirit, or are you taking it? Big, big difference...

Well said!

[Tom Storer]

Well said indeed! This is a very absorbing and insightful dialogue Mike and Jim just engaged in. Many thanks to both of you.

[Durium]

I listened to your great compilation and thought it awfully difficult to mention some names, but i'll share some thoughts:

q. A great groovy sound

3. I thought about Ray Brown when i heard the bass

4. The trombone player shows how difficult trombone playing is 1

5. Lee Konitz?

6. Very nice - i like that !!

8. Stuff Smith?

11. We don't have so much bass clarinet players, isn't it? Is it a bass clarinet?

14. Lee konitz again?

15. Jean-Michel Pilc at the piano?

17. That's why I like vinyl !! - Sunny Side of the Record?

Keep swinging

Thanks for this great complilation

Durium

[relyles]

I am late in fulfilling my listening/commenting responsibilities and I apologize. Following are my initial impressions on the disc typed while listening to the disc on my office computer.

1. I believe that is Afro-Blue slowed down with a Latin groove. It is an infectious little groove. There was nothing about either the tenor, piano or trumpet solos that was especially remarkable, but they were effective nonetheless within the overall sound of the track. I can not identify any of the participants, but it was an enjoyable track.

2. While listening to this track I was not certain exactly how many saxophonists were playing, but I really enjoyed the relaxed maturity that they all seemed to bring to the piece. Nothing flashy or ultra advanced, but sincere. A few of the saxophonists sounded familiar, but not enough for me to attempt any identification.

3. Saxophone–guitar–bass-drums quartet. Swinging track with concise statements by the saxophone, guitar and bass. Again, nothing that on first listen makes me say “WOW”, but pleasant on its own terms.

4. Brief uptempo track with decent trumpet solo. It was over before it could make a real impression on me.

5. Other than piano, I do not have much experience listening to solo performances. This track starts off with several solo statements by sax, piano, violin, clarinet which although interesting probably require more than one cursory listen to ascertain how they fit together. The exchanges between the saxophonist and pianist that follow seem a bit more connected. Overall the track felt like something was missing.

6. Sounds like a historical recording. Not the type of thing I have had much exposure to.

7. Another track with a nice laid back groove. This time it sounds like a larger ensemble. The soprano (clarinet?) solo with support from the brass was tasty. I like the arrangement. The band sounds well rehearsed and at the same time the arrangement holds the listener’s interest. Solid track.

8. This track has a country music feel to it. That is probably a result of the violin solo that starts the track. The piano solo gives it more of a blues feel, but when the violin returns, so does the country. The violinist has an obvious command of the instrument, but this is not something I would likely be motivated to listen to again.

9. Saxophone trios always get my attention, but I was fooled by the beginning of this track. The first tenor solo sounds a little like Joe Lovano. I am not certain what the instrument is that takes the second solo. Could be a guitar with a lot of distortion. I am not feeling that sound. The bassist and drummer are playing some very interesting things in support of the soloists. I really liked the saxophonist, bassist and drummer. I think the guitarist(?) will take a few listens for me to appreciate.

10. A historical sounding track with that “chugging” swing rhythm. The tenor saxophonists sounds like some seminal artist that I should know – but I don’t. In any event, he/she is very impressive. Sounds like someone that I would enjoy listening to in more depth if I had the time.

11. I love the sound of the bass clarinet. Round Midnight. Is that Dolphy? No. Whoever it is can play. Nice sound and feeling. Great track. I want to hear more.

12. The organist got my attention within the first ten seconds. Sounds like he/she is not overly influenced by Jimmy Smith. The sound quality of this track is affecting my ability to appreciate it on first listen, but this is something I think I would enjoy listening to closer. I have no idea who any of the participants are. The saxophone and guitar solos did not say a lot to me, but the organist was very impressive.

13. I am a fan of jazz guitar, but I don’t listen to guitarists anywhere near as often as I listen to other instruments. Stuff like this requires a lot of attention in order to appreciate more than to be able to describe it as pleasant.

14. The opening reminded of Ornette and Pat Metheny’s collaboration, but obviously it is not. Surprisingly, the soprano sounds somewhat familiar. Actually as I listen closer I am pretty certain it is a clarinet. I am also pretty certain that I have heard the alto saxophonist as well. Definitely influenced by Ornette – if it is not him. Although I hear some quotes to familiar tunes, the song seems largely improvised. This one got my attention.

15. I was distracted while listening to this track. Maybe that is why I felt like it seemed to meander without really saying anything. It probably deserves a somewhat more focused listen at another time.

16. I can hear the room in this live performance. Very solid bop based alto that I can not identify. I can always find something to enjoy about this kind of music – even if it is not necessarily what I listen to every day.

17. Is the track skipping? It must be.