Woody Shaw

[DMP]

"The Price..." and "Black Messiah" would have made good single albums. As for Shaw, don't think you can go wrong with any of his albums, beginning with the Contemporary titles. I have always been a little underwhelmed by his Columbia period - not an issue of being "dated," but they didn't seem to have the fire of the Muse albums. Think "Woody lll" is my favorite Columbia, there's no accounting for taste.

[Eric]

Or is corny.

And none of that shit sucks, or is corny.

Damn straight!!!

I don't think of it as a "dated 70s sound" as much as a "cool 70s vibe". I love all that Woody Shaw stuff. Of my 30+ Mosaic sets, that is the one (i.e Woody Shaw Columbia) I listen to the most. Desert island stuff for me.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Eric

[7/4]

hmmm....dated?

[Niko]

i've had times where my listening preferences were more conservative than the Marsalis agenda (which didn't mean i felt an urgency to call stuff non-jazz or anything, i just didn't feel like listening to it) but these days i think i am rather open to seventiesish stuff, Fender Rhodes, percussion, whatever...

Well, that's another thing that sticks in my craw (and again, this is nothing personal). "rather open to...", like it's some sort of controversial...moral issue or something like that. Fender Rhodes, percussion...OOOOOHHHH, DO WE DARE????? What about vamps & chants? LET"S LIVE ON THE EDGE!!!

I mean, damn, the shit happened, and it happened lots. Some of it was really really good and some of it wasn't, but saying that one is "rather open to it" in 2007 is like saying that one is "rather open to" the use of electronic keyboards on pop records...

No idea how old some y'all are, but I'm telling you for real - If you're getting into jazz these days, you're gonna hear a lot of bullshit about what it "is" or "isn't". And you're liable to end up thinking that a freakin' Fender Rhodes is something to be looked at with a combination of fear, dread, and if you got some heretic in you, something to scandalize the elders with.

Hey - this is 2007 - it's a fucking Fender Rhodes. Nothing else.

i was not talking about where i see or saw the boundaries of jazz (this question hardly interests me) but about which sounds i like or liked to have around me, "rather open to" was just a (somewhat ironic and not particularly well-formulated) statement about my personal development concerning musical tastes, trying to indicate that i don't think my problem with Rosewood is that it's from the 70s, besides that, all in all i like rosewood quite a bit); it did take me several years to learn to like Fender Rhodes, i started with Benny Goodman in 1994, had my personal bebop revolution in 1996, and always knew that i knew almost nothing about recent musical developments (which i do feel a little bad about sometimes, but not much)

[JSngry]

Like I said, nothing personal.

Keep listening, there's a lot of different sounds to hear!

[Niko]

Like I said, nothing personal.

Keep listening, there's a lot of different sounds to hear!

admitted, my post reads like i took it personal, can't even remeber 10 minutes later...

[Peter Friedman]

Let me put it this way - if I get to choose two Cannonball albums to go into eternity with, and the choices are Waltz For Debbie, Know What I Mean?, The Price You Gotta Pay To Be Free, & The Black Messiah, I'm taking the last two, hands down, not because they're "better", but because, faults and all, they're further along Cannonball's path to finding his own true voice, whereas the first two, great as they are, also represent a level of "comfort" that, as fine as it is, and as rewarding as it is on its own terms, just doesn't "raise any questions".

Now I know that not everybody likes for their music to raise questions, but I'm a fan of it, just because that's how I've always gotten moved along in life - questions come up, things get examined, and whether or not any final answers are forthcoming, you know more than you did beforehand. And I like that, always have. On the whole, I'd rather have questions to answer (and answers to question) than not, although I defintiely reserve some room for a Zen-like acceptance of all that is good, just because.

But that's just me.

Jim,

I respect your right to make those choices. It probably won't surprise you to know that my choices would be the opposite of yours. A key factor for me is the ultimate quality of the music (which of course is a matter of opinion). In my judgement, the Cannonball albums after a certain point in time lost their "true essence". Rather than Cannonball moving to find " his own true voice", my interpretation is that Cannonball was looking for the commercial hooks to sell records and gigs. He was jumping on the currently "hip" bandwagon and no longer being true to his deepest jazz essence.

This is just a personal opinion that you seemingly don't share, and that's ok.

In looking over the entire discography of Cannonball, or any other musician, a key for me is to identify the very best musical performances. I don't focus on whether they are trying to forge new directions, or digging further into the rich lodes of what has proven to be the style in which the player has been most comfortable over time. What music has the most depth, and what do I emotionally and/or intellectually respond to the most.

[Daniel A]

I may use the expression that a recording sounds "dated", but what I mean by that is that the standard of the actual sound recording is decreasing my listening pleasure. Now, a recording from the 30s or 40s may be technically limited without disturbing me, and a less old one may sound "worse", so to speak. Strangely enough, most recordings which I think are really bad in this respect are from the early to mid-70s (a prime example would be Charles Tolliver's "Impact" on Strata-East (not the Enja album of the same name). I'm not sure why this is; maybe engineers started to use multi-channel recording without really knowing what they were doing.

[marcello]

Where's John Grandy when we need him? Jim has filled in for him quite well, indeed!

Anyway... Woody Shaw's music (and trumpet playing) is always interesting and exciting. His compositions have a lot of harmonic movement and are always swinging at the same time. A difficult achievement, to say the least.

I spent a couple of hours this last Sunday at Maxine Gordon's home with their son, W3. I have to say that he wishes that his father's music was held in higher esteem today than it seems to be to him. That's the same cross that his father had to bear in his time, by the way. W3 has hopes to someday organize a tibute band like a Mingus Dynasy to keep the rich musical legacy that his father left us alive.

The Moontrane is still one of my favorite recordings.

PS: By the way, I always thought that WS's contribution to Dexter Gordon's Homecoming was the best part of the album.

[mikelz777]

Maybe it's the flux of music/fusion of that time or the production values reflective of that time which make it somewhat unappealing to me.

Do you listen to other musics from other eras with similar considerations in mind? Do you know enough about them to do so? And if not, how much of this "hearing" is reflective of a perhaps unconscious post-Marsailis "70s all bad, me save jazz!" revisionist attitude affecting how you hear what it is you hear.

I mean, jesus, you want to talk about "stiffness" and "sweetness", hell, there's any number of albums from the 50s & 60s that are full of that, there's any number of "classic" hard bop sides that swing by default rather than by inspiration, and let's not even get into the much-beloved (including by me) organ-group genre which if if you know what you're hearing is chock full of "stiffness" and "sweetness".

Not that it matters, but it seems that 70s music gets tabbed as being somehow unique in this regard, and I'm here to say that that's just so much falseness. Rosewood is no more "stiff" or "sweet" than any number of medium/medium large ensemble records of any other day, and the core material & playing is a lot hipper than most of those. Any time you get "charts" involved, you better get skilled section players in the mix, or else have a lot of rehearsal time. I don't think that they had either on Rosewood, and that accounts for the less than wholly relaxed/organic execution. As for the arrangements, yeah, ok, matter of taste, but if any of this stuff is "sweeter" in style or content than, say, a typical Tadd Dameron or Al Cohn arranged date, then we have fundamentally different definitions of sweet...

Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just challenging you to listen beyond what you you think you're hearing to what actually may or may not be there. In these dyas, when so many are coming to the music "after the fact", I think it's important to set aside preconceptions, especially those of the "conventional wisdom" type that have popped up over the last 25 or so years, and get a grip on what was really going on at the time, and why certain things sound like they sounded (the Joe Henderson Milestone sides are another case in point here - "forefront of jazz" none of it is, but if I hear anybody say "dated" again about it, I ain't responsible for the cleanup...). Again - ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED. If it doesn't then it's because "you" don't have enough of a frame of reference to realize it.

Again, not trying to bust your chops, just trying to get people in general to get out of this....cloud that "70s jazz" is any more (or any less) "dated" than any other era. Stuff's gonna sound like it sounds, and there's always a reason, be it from 1926, 1976, or 2056. And it is possible to understand what those reasons are, if you wanna do the homework (and if you don't, fine, but expect to get called on it by an asshole like me every once inna while ) and figure out what the deal is/was/always will be. So let's look at specifics rather than catch-phrases that really don't mean shit.

That's all I'm sayin', ok?

Whatever it is that makes this music and its kind less appealing to me is not adequately described by whatever label we want to put on it whether it be "less timeless" or "dated" or whatever. I can't seem to adequately put it into words and I haven't yet read input by anyone else that would accurately describe it either. What you quoted me saying above is just my feeble attempt to try and describe what it is about Rosewood that doesn't totally work for me. It's not some kind of philosphy or filter I use to measure all music. The "unconscious post-Marsailis "70s all bad, me save jazz!" revisionist attitude" that you refer to isn't even remotely a factor in choosing what I listen to. Choosing music to buy or listen to is not as complicated as that for me. I listen to it and if I like it, I like it and if I don't, I don't. I don't put a bunch of analysis into it other than whatever mood might hit me whether it be a piano dominated trio, a sax/trumpet quartet, big band, etc., etc. That makes me an equal opportunity sifter. If I like it, I like it and if I don't, I pass on it because of that and not on the basis of whatever decade it comes from. I've passed on a lot of music from every decade of jazz from the 20's to the 00's. I'm never going to buy music because it's considered important, a milestone in the evolution of jazz or because of the skillful execution if I don't actually enjoy it. For example, one of my all time favorite groups is the Crusaders. It's their early to mid-70's material which first attracted me. I don't own or want to listen to any of their material from mid-70's "Free As The Wind" or beyond because it isn't enjoyable to me. It's the point where Wayne Henderson left the group but besides that, their sound changed for the worse for me. They seemed to become more slick, calculated and rehearsed sounding and like they were over produced. I don't know if it was the result of the influences of the 70's or what but it happened to occur in the 70's. It's the sound that was less appealing to me and not the fact that it was the 70's.

That being said, the charge that 70's music is somehow unique in its general regard is a prevalent enough in general thought (whether it be false or not) that it shouldn't be ignored or totally dismissed. As to why, I don't know and can't explain it. It would make an interesting study. Again, I don't actively choose music based on when it was made but on what is appealing to my ear. As it turns out, I am very much like a large bulk of jazz listeners in that the vast majority of my collection comes from the 50's and 60's. (By far.) The rest by decade in order of most to least in my collection would be the 70's, 80's, 00's, 40's, 90's and the 20's/30's with the 3rd place 70's and what follows about 23% or less in total number from what I have from the 50's and 60's.

Your challenging me to listen beyond what I think I'm hearing to what actually may or may not be there or that I set aside preconceptions or "conventional Wisdom" is rather presumptuous of how I should listen to music or how I actually listen to music. I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that "ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED." There's music that is 50 or more years old that still sounds fresh, exciting and new. There is a timeless quality about them that makes them equally appealing now as they were when they were recorded. They seem to transcend the limitations that some would set on them based on their time or era even if they are readily identified to that era by listening to them. By the same token, there is music that does not transcend and is "stuck" in time and thus, for lack of better terms, "dated" or stale.

Ultimately, it comes down to one's personal tastes. If it so happens that it leads a lot of people to music other than what was done in the 70's (or whatever eras) then so be it. It doesn't make that music any less valid, it's just people's personal tastes.

Edited November 1, 2007 by mikelz777

[JSngry]

Your challenging me to listen beyond what I think I'm hearing to what actually may or may not be there or that I set aside preconceptions or "conventional Wisdom" is rather presumptuous of how I should listen to music or how I actually listen to music.

Sorry you took it that way. But I think it's a good idea of how to approach, not just music, but life in general. I't a challenge that was made to me long ago by any number of pretty "wise" people, and it's proved to be a blessing for me. Like all blessings, I try to pass it on. If there's nothing there for you, so be it, and that's that, case closed, show's over, let's all go home, dinner's getting cold,

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that "ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED." There's music that is 50 or more years old that still sounds fresh, exciting and new. There is a timeless quality about them that makes them equally appealing now as they were when they were recorded. They seem to transcend the limitations that some would set on them based on their time or era even if they are readily identified to that era by listening to them. By the same token, there is music that does not transcend and is "stuck" in time and thus, for lack of better terms, "dated" or stale.

I totally agree, but I posit that that has everything to do with the spirit of the music, how it "feels", and little or nothing to do with how it "sounds". And many people, I think - and not necesssarily you, since I have no idea about your overall tastes & procliviities - can not separate "feel" from "sound", be it recording quality, musical devices, general "styles"whatever.

Ultimately, it comes down to one's personal tastes. If it so happens that it leads a lot of people to music other than what was done in the 70's (or whatever eras) then so be it. It doesn't make that music any less valid, it's just people's personal tastes.

If it were always that pure and simple (and it often enough is), then yeah.

But also often enough...

To use just one example - I've known lots of "jazz fans" who get turned off by, for lack of a better term, "Afro-Centric" elements in the music - percussion, vamps, chants, etc. They say that it's just a musical choice, but spend enough time with some of them (more of them than not, in my experience), and you find that for whatever reason - intrinsic prejudice, lack of exposure, whatever, they're "uncomfortable" with the notion of black people who don't fit a certain...."social mold". Their discomfort with those musical elements and those social elements would certainly seem to be of a piece.

That's certainly not a 100% thing, but I've seen it happen more than a few times. And in those cases, it becomes a case of using the "it all comes down to personal taste" argument at the service of a specific social attittude, one that, yeah, I'll say it, I find recessive and less than positive. And then again, sometimes it really is just personal taste. So who knows?

But unless you're just going to live life without engaging in exchanges of ideas (including challenges of same), then you bring the matter up from time to time and from place to place, and a forum such as this seems as good, safe, and fair a place as any.

Now, if you or anybody else just wants to be "left alone", hey, fair enough. It's certainly neither my goal or pleasure to harass anybody. But until that desire gets made known, engagement in a discussion, even/especially if it's to "challenge" an apparent or conceivable position is fair game, wouldn't you say?

[connoisseur series500]

Woody was a beast on the trumpet. I love ROSEWOOD a lot, and really dig the Woody Shaw Mosaic. It's interesting, Marcello, but it seems that WIII shouldn't have to be concerned about keeping his father's music alive. It can do that all on its own. "Theme for Maxine" is a great tune, btw.

I remember when I was first seriously checking into jazz how people would warn me about 70s stuff. Heck, 70s stuff most often falls into my favorite time period for jazz. Maybe it has to do with my age or something, who knows?

[JSngry]

I remember when I was first seriously checking into jazz how people would warn me about 70s stuff.

Now that's what I'm talking about - lots of reactionary revisionism - in music as well as in culture as a whole - been going against people who don't know any better, and who come into a post-Marsailis jazz environment, and I've had enough, even though it's probably too late to do anything about it and as a result, I'm really not caring all that much any more except just to be a bitch about it 'cause I've been cranky. Even the 70s is old and over by now, just like the beloved 50s/60s.

Nevertheless, the next time anybody "warns" you about any music in such broad terms as this, go on ahead and waste their ass, right there on the spot, and then call their woman up and laugh about it.

It's the right thing to do, standing up for truth is.

[AndrewHill]

I remember being struck by Woody's playing on several occasions, as a sideman alone: The Jody Grind, The Complete Is Sessions, 'Bout Soul, Demon's Dance, Passing Ships. No matter where he played, he made the record something special. In short, Woody Shaw was a grade A badazz.

[John L]

When Wynton Marsalis and others ranted about the 70s in the early 80s, it was wrong. But there was still something vaguely compelling about it then. After all, the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s came before the 70s, and they were arguably more important, successful, and dynamic decades for jazz. The jazz profession and many jazz musicians were also suffering financially, which didn't bode well for attracting the best and brightest young musicians. Making artistic compromises for commerical success seemed to become much more common.

So people seemed to be saying "Let's get back on track. Maybe we got lost somewhere along the way? So let's go back a bit and look for that good road that we may have passed up."

Now that we have had the 80s, 90s, and beyond, it no longer sounds compelling at all. Take me back to the 70s. PLEASE!

Edited November 2, 2007 by John L

[Kyo]

Interesting discussion. I share the dislike for some 70s production values but also agree

that way too much jazz from that era is not taken seriously per default just for the time

it was created in. The Joe Henderson Milestone Years box is an excellent example of music

with a strong 70s touch that at its best (I feel) is no worse than many 50s and 60s classics.

Regarding Woody Shaw I recommend the two disc set "Last of the Line" if you can find a copy - it continues his self-produced debut album Cassandranite (with Joe Henderson on tenor and Herbie Hancock or Larry Young (!) on piano depending on the track) and the later Love Dance album recorded for Muse records.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Kyo

[JSngry]

Interesting discussion. I share the dislike for some 70s production values but also agree

that way too much jazz from that era is not taken seriously per default just for the time

it was created in. The Joe Henderson Milestone Years box is an excellent example of music

with a strong 70s touch that at its best (I feel) is no worse than many 50s and 60s classics.

Exactly!

A lot of the recording techniques used then sound...."funny" today (but then again, lots of people can't handle the sound of 78 era material, & even RVG's style sounds odd to some of todays ears). And certainly there were any number of attempts at "commercialism" and/or a "contemporary" sound that were ill-advised (and even more illy-executed...).

But, and this is my main point - you get all of that in all eras of music. That's just how it goes.

What's interesting to me about the "70s" as it pertains to jazz is that in previous eras, a ot of the production choices were made to "whiten" the music. Even a seemingly benign choice such as programming a set of standards instead of originals could - could - be a move to appeal to a broader (i.e. - "whiter") audience. Monk's first two trio albums for Riverside were explicit attempts to do exactly that. Monk!

The 70s, especially the earlier 70s, were often the opposite of that. Afro-centrism, Black Power, etc. were very potent social forces at the time, and plenty of African-American musicians felt empathy with a lot of this, even if they might have been of an earlier musical generation . so yeah, things got mixed in, and with mixed results, but the "attempt" here was to make the music appeal less, not more "white".

What I find myself unable to totally disabuse myself of is the notion that at some level this whole "70s backlash", at least as it is played out in uncritical, non-specific blanket criticisms/dismissals of the music(s) made then is as much a rejection of the social impetus behind these moves as it is any musical considerations. What complicates it even moreso is that there are a lot of young listeners now coming to the music (hell, to life!) who have no real sense of what was going on with the various African-American "movements" of the time, how positive and how necessary so much of that was then (and how much the underlying need that motivated it then it still remains, even if the specifics have morphed over the years...). Between the legacies of Reagan & Marsailis, it's too easy for too many to just assume, often unaware, that things were a certain "way", accept the excesses as the norm, smirk, dismiss, and move on.

A dangerous choice, that is...

But no matter. It really bugs me that past historical moves to give the music a "whiter" appeal are frequently accepted uncritically (and often unconsciously), whereas moves to do the opposite fall under the umbrella of 70s Phobia.

Never mind that Hard Bop was originally pretty much a militant music...

Edited November 2, 2007 by JSngry

[mikelz777]

So we're all in agreement then? That 70's music sucks? ..........Just kidding!!

Well, I checked out everyone's recommendations (thank you) as much as I could and found a lot of my decisions were made for me because of price and availability on a lot of Shaw's CDs. I wasn't able to find sound samples for some of the recommendations and some that I liked could only be had for prices I wouldn't be willing to pay.

It looks like my Woody Shaw acquire/wish list for the near future will include Little Red's Fantasy, Lotus Flower, Imagination, The Real Thing (Louis Hayes) and possibly The Moontrane.

What are people's thoughts on the 4 volume live dates on Highnote?

[Rooster_Ties]

What are people's thoughts on the 4 volume live dates on Highnote?

I've got 1 and 2, and have been meaning to pick up 3 and 4 for ages.

Perhaps they ain't perfect, but I love 'em. And as live documents of a working band, they're priceless.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Rooster_Ties

[Free For All]

What are people's thoughts on the 4 volume live dates on Highnote?

Highly recommended.

[alocispepraluger102]

yes sometimes "dated" is a nice way of saying "sucks"

rosewood doesnt suck.

it's kickass to these ears.

[alocispepraluger102]

Perhaps the term "dated" is not the most appropriate one to use in describing music from an earlier time period.

I am not referring here to ROSEWOOD, but have no hesitancy in saying, that for my personal taste, the rough period of the late 60's and the 70's, when many jazz players put aside the acoustic piano and bass and switched to electric piano and bass, did not produce much jazz I find appealing. There are of course a few exceptions.

Let me be clear, I am not referring to all the jazz of that time period, but just those sessions where the electric piano and bass were involved. There is nothing inherently wrong with electric piano or bass, and some listeners find them highly enjoyable. But my ears greatly prefer the no-electric versions. It is interesting to me that a large percentage of those musicians who switched to electric piano and bass eventually switched back.

i agree, with the exception of a few like kiliminjaro.

bill evans and paul bley and jarrett, among dozens.

Edited November 9, 2007 by alocispepraluger102

[Eric]

yes sometimes "dated" is a nice way of saying "sucks"

rosewood doesnt suck.

it's kickass to these ears.

I wasn't saying that I think it sucks, I agree it kicks ass!

[sal]

What are people's thoughts on the 4 volume live dates on Highnote?

Highly recommended.

[jlhoots]

What are people's thoughts on the 4 volume live dates on Highnote?

Highly recommended.