Jazz at Massey Hall

[shawn·m]

Maybe I’m about to enter label hell, but…

It wasn’t until recently that I started getting into “bebop.” It was just too frenetic for my taste, but understanding and appreciation do change. I already had Savoy’s 3-CD collections of Parker and Gillespie, but when somebody asked the board about bebop, and The Quintet: Jazz At Massey Hall was overwhelmingly recommended, I went out and picked it up. It came as a surprise.

All this time I’d thought Brownie/Roach, Art Blakey and Miles were the fathers of “hard bop.” At least, that’s what I kept reading. But from my non-musician’s point of view, Massey Hall seems to be archetypical hard bop preceding the others’ recordings. The treatment of “All the Things You Are” and “A Night In Tunisia” make for good case-in-points with some minor chord movement and their relatively restrained solo contours.

Of course, Max Roach is on Massey Hall, but I can’t help wonder why Parker, Gillespie and Powell don’t take top honors as the originators of hard bop.

Any ideas?

[jazzbo]

Powell and Diz and Bud and Max (not really Mingus, sorry Charlie) SHOULD be considered fathers just because of the severe influence they had on the musicians that were putting out the first "hardbop" stuff (no matter who we agree those are practically!) . . . . and Bud and later (in my opinion) Diz were on the hardbop bandwagon too, as that became something to talk about and get a gig based on. . . .

Not sure that I myself would call the music at Massey Hall "hardbop". . . . This labeling thing is hard to define and communicate. . . it was more like "fully-flowered bebop by badasses"!

Edited September 15, 2003 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

This stuff bobs and weaves rhythmically and harmonically much more than hard bop. Two examples come readily to mind - Bird's solo on "Perdido" where he constantly plays on the beat and against the beat, starting and stopping where others would be stopping and starting, his lines often curling around themselves to say hello to them saying goodbye; and Bud's comp on "All The Things..." which is just plain WACK. You'd never hear, say, Horace Silver playing like that behind a soloist. Hell, you'd not hear ANYBODY playing like that behind a soloist for that matter. But the point is, these guys were virtuosos of the very highest level, geniuses, and what they did and are doing here just could not be done by but a small handful of musicians. It's just too damn involved to make a personal style out of it without simplifying it. And that's what hard bop is, a smoothing out of the most extreme complexities of bebop, keeping the heat (well, much of it anyway), and bringing in a populist bent that bebop kinda tried to avoid, somewhat. You know, the "gospel" flavors and all that.

But on the other hand, you CAN hear a change afoot here. The tempos are not nearly as up, and Max has already smoothed out his playing a big bunch from where he was in the 40s. So yeah, you can hear the change in the air in some important aspects here.

Speaking of Max, try this one sometimes:

Early 1953, and much more hard bop than bebop. Hank Mobley's jazz debut too, I think, so definitely a harbinger of things to come.

Edited September 15, 2003 by JSngry

[shawn·m]

Not sure that I myself would call the music at Massey Hall "hardbop". . . . This labeling thing is hard to define and communicate. . . it was more like "fully-flowered bebop by badasses"!

Hmm, maybe so. That’s one of the things that make genre labels so pesky; they conjure different archetypes and boundaries for each listener. For me, there’s such a strong tie between Massey Hall and Clifford, Miles and Blakey that they all fit nicely under the same heading.

Is the mid-50s work of Clifford, Miles and Blakey more bebop than hardbop?

[JSngry]

For me, there’s such a strong tie between Massey Hall and Clifford, Miles and Blakey that they all fit nicely under the same heading.

Then leave well enough alone!

Seriously, there are differences, evolutions actually, between the hard bop of the 50s and the earlier bebop, but don't sweat looking for them like it's a Cappy Dick "Find The Differences" game or anything like that . Just dig the music, and listen closely for a long time. Listen for the commonalities of the languages but the differences in the dialects, as well as new phrases being coined along the way. Eventually you'll sense it yourself, and taht will prove to be the best education of them all in a lot of ways.

[shawn·m]

Speaking of Max, try this one sometimes:

Early 1953, and much more hard bop than bebop. Hank Mobley's jazz debut too, I think, so definitely a harbinger of things to come.

I have Plays Parker included in Mosaic’s set (some of my favorite Mobley; sometimes he has trouble keeping up, but it’s a kick to hear him in a piano-less setting), but Wow! I didn’t know about that one!

See, there’s that label-trouble again. I tend to think of Horace’s work as straddling the line between hard bop and soul jazz. I do take your point about Parker and Gillespie’s virtuosity, though.

[JSngry]

See, there’s that label-trouble again. I tend to think of Horace’s work as straddling the line between hard bop and soul jazz. .

Dude, one thing leads to another, and the only time labels TRULY apply is when somebody's trying to capitalize on a trend, and who cares by then?

Horace is also cited by Cecil Taylor as a formative influence, and if you don't believe it, listen to some of early Cecil's barking left hand. Now, is Horace considered to be a father of the avant-garde by the label makers? Not that I know of. But there it is.

Really, you can trace broad trends pretty reliably, but once you go to getting TOO specific about labeling the innovators and their first wave or two of followers, you're usually going to find a LOT of overlap. Music evolves orgainically (at least it used to), and by the time one genre gets SO clearly defined that it has practitoneers that can be placed SOLELY in that camp without any real noticable outside influences, the shit's done moved on to something else already. At least that's how it used to work. Nowadays, the labels seem to serve as columns from a combination meal menu for cats to mix and match as they find their "own" "style". I guess that gets some players excited, to make a "hard bop" album, then a "soul jazz" album, and then play in an "avant garde band". Myself, I think it's kinda silly - be who YOU are and be who YOU are NOW, not who somebody else was at some other time, which, if you're insisting on learning and playing a "style" as anything other than basic training, is exactly what you're doing. But that's another matter entirely.

[shawn·m]

No question about overlap and influences, and I think we’re talking about a prime example. What specifically got me thinking about this was Parker’s Savoy/Dials, Massey Hall and The Messenger’s Café Bohemia. Ok, hardly a definitive selection to try and generate/differentiate genre labels from, but still…

If Parker’s Savoy/Dials is bebop and Blakey’s Café Bohemia is hard bop and Massey Hall’s overall character is, to my ears, so very much closer to Blakey’s work than Parker’s early stuff, then I can’t help but wonder. Not that I’m concerned about labels, you understand, it’s just that I find the evolution and it’s credit interesting.

I suppose it’s too early to ask when more Quartet Out stuff will become available?

[P.D.]

I suppose it’s too early to ask when more Quartet Out stuff will become available?

Wiil that be the Bop Out, Hardbop Out... or maybe they will add a banjo for a more traditional slant.

[shawn·m]

Banjo? Toss the band a chordal monkey wrench and wouldn’t they have to change their name to Quartestosterone Out?