John Klemmer - CONSTANT THROB

[JSngry]

California, turn-or-the-decade, post-Bitches Brew "wow, let's not regurgitate" is in the air, as is the natural (as per Ted Gioa) "West Coast" disposition towards bringing "influences" to the music, in this case, electricity, "rock" (altough not really ROCK), a little bit of free and a whole lot of open-endedness as far as form goes. Phil Woods went electric w/Pete Robinson, Hadley Calliman recorded that trippy little gem Iapetus, Don Ellis & crew - of which Klemmer was one - were doing everything all the time, Shelley Manne recorded the trippy not-quite gem Mannekind, and...you get the idea. There was a vibe, and a bit of a scene, and not too many people remember it today.

This side, Klemmer's first for Impulse! is a direct product of that scene and of that vibe, and although it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it makes for a good listen or three, if for no other reason than it's a good example of "fusion" before it became FUSION and (almost) everything went sour/south/ugly/etc.

I'm going to quote the Dusty Bastard blurb here, just because it's one of their ripest ever, and also because, in its own wierd way, it really does capture what's going on/down here:

One of the hippest albums that John Klemmer ever cut -- a tremendous little set that's quite worthy of inclusion in the early 70s Impulse Records generation -- and which is far different than any of his smoother sessions from later years! Klemmer's picking up bits of Coltrane here, but he's also infusing them with some of the spacier, more cosmic modes of Lonnie Liston Smith and his crowd -- an approach to soul jazz that's still spiritual, but which also can drift along on cosmic waves as much as it can soar to the skies in freer, rocket-propelled solos! Klemmer plays both tenor and soprano sax -- but also handles some keyboards too, including some great Fender Rhodes -- plus "piano percussion". Other players include Don Menza on flute and clarinet, Mike Wofford on clavinet and Fender Rhodes, Mike Lang on piano and Rhodes, and Reggie Johnson on bass. Shelly Manne plays some surprisingly hip drums -- definitely in the mode of his Mannekind album -- and Marni Nixon sings in a sweet wordless style on one track on the set. Titles include "Constant Throb (parts 1 & 2)", "California Jazz Dance", "Neptune", "Rainbows", "Precious Leaf", and "Crystallized Tears".

Uh....yeah, ok. The point being that this ain't no "commercial" effort. It's more "populist" in aim than "popular", and the "true jazz" orientation of all concerned is never compromised. Again, not a perfect record, or even a "classic", but there's far worse by far better-known that are better remembered today.

If you're "into this kind of thing", then this is defintely one to get. If not, hey.

Edited September 14, 2007 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

Hey

[7/4]

Constant throb? I'm not gonna touch that...

[marcello]

double hey

[7/4]

The heys have it.

[JSngry]

So it seems.

I wonder if that's from having already heard the music (recently), or from thinking that they know what it's going to sound like.

If it's the latter, I gotta tell you that I was more than a little surprised in that regard, enough to comment on the album here. There's no fluff, no "smooth", no "slick". Thre is some nice, open playing of substance going on. And Klemmer fro this period was a not insignificant, if not not inconsistent, player. So if you think you know what this one's all about, you may or may not be correct. I wasn't.

But hey.

[Chuck Nessa]

I accept your errors.

FWIW, I know loads of Klemmer from the earliest days well into the '80s. I stopped then. Shoot me.

Feel no need to revisit my "youth".

[JSngry]

1971 was your youth?

[Chuck Nessa]

1971 was your youth?

Looking back to 27 seems like youth to me. How 'bout you?

[JSngry]

27...I know it happened...had to have...

Oh yeah - 12.14.82 - 12-14-83. I had known Brenda for almost one year, we had been living together in Albuquerque for about six months, still not married, definitely no kids, excruciatingly happy and free (or vise-versa)... could be either youth or what I'm hoping retirement will be like. Six of one, etc. maybe...

Otherwise, good god, we got threads out the ass herethereeverywhere screeming/creaming all over years ranging from 190X (or earlier) thru 196X (or so) by people both alive then and not. 1971 is just another year when lots of shit happened. This is some of it. Better than some, not as good as others. But not totally uninteresting nor not totally unworthy of notice.

And the beat goes on. (from 1967, definitely my youth...)

Edited September 14, 2007 by JSngry

[marcello]

So it seems.

I wonder if that's from having already heard the music (recently), or from thinking that they know what it's going to sound like.

If it's the latter, I gotta tell you that I was more than a little surprised in that regard, enough to comment on the album here. There's no fluff, no "smooth", no "slick". Thre is some nice, open playing of substance going on. And Klemmer fro this period was a not insignificant, if not not inconsistent, player. So if you think you know what this one's all about, you may or may not be correct. I wasn't.

But hey.

Tripple Hey!

I used to own it.

This one too...

Then I realized that there were a least a thousand other players that my attention required.

Then and now.

[BFrank]

4x Hey!

I had that album, too. I don't remember much about it anymore, but I liked it at the time. I seem to recall the Marni Nixon vocals being interesting, as well.

[BFrank]

Nexus for Duo and Trio (Novus)

BTW, I had this album, too. I'm going to post Yanow's AMG review because that's pretty much what I thought about that set.

At a period of time when John Klemmer had a pop hit with "Touch" and was becoming well-known for his electrified renditions of simple melodies, this double LP must have shocked some of his unsuspecting fans. The tenor-saxophonist is heard on five jazz standards with bassist Bob Magnusson and drummer Carl Burnett, and on four often-stunning tenor-drums duets with Burnett; four of the performances are over ten minutes long. Quite possibly John Klemmer's finest hour (or really two hours) on record. Five of the nine performances have been reissued on CD by Bluebird but, if you can, get the double LP (and the entire program) instead.

[RDK]

If it's any consolation, Jim, no "Hey" from me. I truly dislike later Klemmer, but I've developed a fondness for the "fusion" of this period and will keep an eye open for it in my vinyl-searching travels.

[Daniel A]

4x Hey!

I had that album, too. I don't remember much about it anymore, but I liked it at the time. I seem to recall the Marni Nixon vocals being interesting, as well.

All of the above, except I didn't even like it at the time. And I don't remember the Marni Nixon vocals.

[JSngry]

If it's any consolation, Jim, no "Hey" from me. I truly dislike later Klemmer, but I've developed a fondness for the "fusion" of this period and will keep an eye open for it in my vinyl-searching travels.

Well see, that's part of the deal for me right there. By today's standards, it really doesn't sound too much like "fusion". Not at all.

[Noj]

I'd probably like it, sounds like my bag. I really dig a Klemmer tune called "Free Soul" from one of his later efforts. But then, it's always more about individual songs than whole albums for me...

Hey now!

[JSngry]

I used to own it.

This one too...

Then I realized that there were a least a thousand other players that my attention required.

Then and now.

Well hey backatcha, I know exactly where you're coming from. My interest/whatever in this one is more from a "historical" perspective. There was a little subset of "California" players who entered the '70s apparently ready, willing, and able to make a jazz that was neither ching-chinga-ching (or the equivalent Trane-influenced slash & burnfests) nor one that had gone so far over, as it soon would, into pop and/or rock land that it lost it's core of "jazz".

Wasn't just in California, really, it was everywhere. Plenty if folks everywhere were realizing that between The Beatles, Hendrix, Miles, Trane, & Ayler, that the same-old same-old was really not... necessary, something that you just had to do in order to make "jazz", unless it really was all you knew (and more power to you if that was true for you). Of course, this had long been apaprent to the "free" players, but now, the more "song-oriented" players had begun to feel it too. Sure there was faddism, but there was also, I believe, some genuine curiosity afoot about how to move the shit along in a new but still ompatable set of directions. So there's this little..."pre-fusion" window of music that varies widely in ultimate "value", but I think is worth noting as a whole as something that did happen for some very fundamental reasons. What brought those reasons to the fore, as well as what happened pretty quickly after that particular door opened, has been pretty well discussed right now. Less discussed is this short period, an instant, almost, when the main thrust was on the creation of the music, not of the product.

This album, in retrospect, is certainly not "heavy" or anything like that. But I do think that compositionally, structurally, and..."feel"-wise that it offers something that is, if not exactly unique, then at least "different" enough to be of interest to, as I said, those who are into that type of thing.

Edited September 14, 2007 by JSngry

[marcello]

No, it wasn't really "fusion" and what attracted me to him is that the music was saxophone based, but not in the Soul Bag, ya know?

Now maybe if he took the concept futher and developed it, it may have been more interesting.

He was one of the rare 'jazz" artists who could sell our auitoriums ( on the West Coast especially ) and I think that stuffed up his head.

I went to his website and his current music is smooth as a creek rock.

The long race shows where a person is really at.

[JSngry]

The long race shows where a person is really at.

Now that I'm not so sure about...

In some cases, yeah, but in others...seems like the whole "before and after" thing is fair.

[JSngry]

No, it wasn't really "fusion" and what attracted me to him is that the music was saxophone based, but not in the Soul Bag, ya know?

Now maybe if he took the concept futher and developed it, it may have been more interesting.

Exactly, and there's any # of other things from that time you can say that about, I think.

But seeing as how you can't go back in time, the best we can do now is point out what was, what might have been, and say hmmmmm....how about that? Or how about that! as the case may be.

I just don'tthink it's right to ignore it completely, though. Some things went right (like Iapetus), some things almost went right (or went almost right), some things were noble failures, and some shitjust plain sucked from jump. But the New Orthodoxy has it that everybody abandoned The One Truth Faith alla t once to become Rich & Famous Rock And Roll Whores. The reality, though, is far more complex - in both time span and motivations - and seeing how/when/where/why it played out back then might be useful to people today who are again trying to bust out of The Official Orthodoxy with a populist take on things.

[RDK]

If it's any consolation, Jim, no "Hey" from me. I truly dislike later Klemmer, but I've developed a fondness for the "fusion" of this period and will keep an eye open for it in my vinyl-searching travels.

Well see, that's part of the deal for me right there. By today's standards, it really doesn't sound too much like "fusion". Not at all.

No, I think i know what you mean by fusion in this case and that was actually what I was responding to. Don't know enough of the musical lexiconography to explain it further, but there's a certain late 60s-early 70s style that I've been digging these days, where rock and pop became more influential but before, as you say, it all "went South."

[felser]

I liked Klemmer from this period quite a bit. Was really interesting to me until 'Touch' (and I actually think the title track on that one is stunningly beautiful, but have no particular use for the rest of the album). Anyone who has preconceptions of Klemmer's pre-Touch work based on familiarity with his post-Touch work would do well to instead give it a listen. It's very different than what you would expect. It has it's flaws, but also it's substantial merits. From about '69-'70 to about '73-'75. fusion had some wonderful moments, seemed like it was a true breakthrough, not the commercial formula it soon degenerated into. Weather Report, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, Corea solo, Stanley Clarke solo, Miles, Larry Coryell, Klemmer, Soft Machine, Ian Carr & Nexus, even Frank Zappa, even Chuck Mangione that early, all were doing really interesting and exciting things in the arena. It was, as Whitney Balliet had coined about jazz, "the sound of surprise" (it shortly would become anything but). The very success of what they were doing seemed to bring about the doom of the sub-genre. As Jim layed out earlier in this thread, iconoclastic fusion became formulaic Fusion, and it was over. Klemmer was one of the self-inflicted casualties, and is largely only known for his later commercially successful genre compromises rather than for the challenging stuff he did before that.

Edited September 14, 2007 by felser

[BFrank]

most of this thread is dumb, no offense.

Offense taken.

Thanks.

[mikeweil]

It can be just as dull - or inspiring - to listen to the umpteenth date from the early 1970's fusion or late 1960's hard bop scene, so don't blow your cool.