Hank Mobley Tribute Article

[JSngry]

Maybe they weren't readily available, but most, if not all, were available on Japanese LPs. If someone was going to write an article on Hank Mobley, that person should have at least made an effort to hear those records before making a blanket dismissal of them. Then again, for all anyone knows, perhaps the author had heard them and just didn't like them.

Here's the exact evaluation - "Few of these dates, however, are considered among Mobley's best." "Are considered", as in "you ask 10 people what the Hank Mobley records are and these are not likely to be among them" And from my experience, that would be accurate. Hell Marchel Ivery, who grew up in that era and dug the shit outta Hank, always talked about the Soul Station and beyond albums. Everybody I knew did. And truthfully, as great as those '50's sessions are, is anybody really going to seriously say that the '60's sessions, especially up to and including Dippin' aren't more refined in terms of both Hank's solo voice and his group concept?

And Japanese LPs? In 1986? You're expecting a guy to locate a source (considerably easier now than then, believe me!) and spend big big bucks just to write an article the pay of which probably wouldn't cover the cost of those albums? Uh....yeah...sure.

Just as we need to be able to listen "in context" of the times, so should we be able to read.

[paul secor]

Maybe they weren't readily available, but most, if not all, were available on Japanese LPs. If someone was going to write an article on Hank Mobley, that person should have at least made an effort to hear those records before making a blanket dismissal of them. Then again, for all anyone knows, perhaps the author had heard them and just didn't like them.

Here's the exact evaluation - "Few of these dates, however, are considered among Mobley's best." "Are considered", as in "you ask 10 people what the Hank Mobley records are and these are not likely to be among them" And from my experience, that would be accurate. Hell Marchel Ivery, who grew up in that era and dug the shit outta Hank, always talked about the Soul Station and beyond albums. Everybody I knew did. And truthfully, as great as those '50's sessions are, is anybody really going to seriously say that the '60's sessions, especially up to and including Dippin' aren't more refined in terms of both Hank's solo voice and his group concept?

And Japanese LPs? In 1986? You're expecting a guy to locate a source (considerably easier now than then, believe me!) and spend big big bucks just to write an article the pay of which probably wouldn't cover the cost of those albums? Uh....yeah...sure.

Just as we need to be able to listen "in context" of the times, so should we be able to read.

I don't disagree with most of what you say. I just think that if he was familiar with them, those records shouldn't just have been blown off. And if someone was going to write an article and blow them off that readily, one would assume that he had heard the music.

Just checked my 50's Mobley Japanese LPs - one of them still has a Tower price tag on it - $10.99. LPs went for what - $7 or so in the 80's? So that's not way out of whack - especially if you wanted to hear early Hank Mobley back then.

[JSngry]

You found Japanese BNs for $10.99] in 1986? Oh yeah, Tower. Well, that explains that then!

You, sir, were a very lucky man, at least relative to many!

[JSngry]

And I really don't think he was "blowing them off". "Few of these dates, however, are considered among Mobley's best" is a far cry from ""Few of these dates, however, are considered to be worth a shit" or something like that.

I mean, "Someday My Prince Will Come" is a dandy Miles side, but how often do you see it "considered among his best"?

[paul secor]

Didn't mean to get into something. You read it one way and I read it another. 'Nuff said.

[srellek]

Thanks for posting, Jim. Always great to get more info...

It's a shame that so often Hank's music is discussed primarily in the context of Sonny and Trane, in the context of what it isn't. As Nica Koenigswarter paraphrased Mobley in the notes to the Mosaic box, he wished for "Somewhere to play where people aren't just comparing you to someone else!" It shouldn't be a contest. No doubt, we all have our personal preferences. It is always the burden of those artists' whose work is really more subtle. The distinctions between Mobley and Coltrane are quite apparent, especially in the context of the Miles group they both played in -- or on the tracks they recorded together over the years. The genius of Coltrane is more obvious or accessible than the genius of Mobley, in my opinion. Although, stiller waters do sometimes run deeper; and it can require a lot more attention to notice and appreciate that. In time...

The old saw about Mobley in Miles' group 1960 - 1962 is one I could never understand. Think I'll start a thread about that to get some of your thoughts on it as well...

[sjarrell]

Sad but nice article, BTW. Clearly written in the days before it became a cliche to call Mobley "the middleweight of the tenor sax."

Who started that middleweight thing anyway? Blumenthal?

Leonard Featherweight.

[sjarrell]

****THE REASON COLTRANE AND MOBLEY DRIFTED DOWN SEPARATE PATHS C. 1959 IS ONLY BEACUSE COLTRANE IS THE ONE WHO GOT MINDFUCKED BY SUN RA, AND MOBLEY DIDNT. THATS WHY COLTRANE STARTED ALL HIS CRAZY COLTRANE SHIT, AND THE MOBE KEPT IT REAL****

Against my will I have to say..."Hell Yeah!"

And I've got to second that. Surely the end-times are upon us.

[Dan Gould]

The old saw about Mobley in Miles' group 1960 - 1962 is one I could never understand. Think I'll start a thread about that to get some of your thoughts on it as well...

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...4&hl=Mobley

[Dan Gould]

Here is a short piece in Jazz Times, dated April 1999. Some other recollections from Don Sickler about Hank's last years.

[take5]

It shouldn't be a contest.

Maybe, but part of the genesis of bop was the cutting competitions, so for better or worse, direct competition is an element of modern jazz.

[srellek]

It shouldn't be a contest.

Maybe, but part of the genesis of bop was the cutting competitions, so for better or worse, direct competition is an element of modern jazz.

Anyone would acknowledge the role of cutting in the development of jazz – and not just "modern" jazz, but from its genesis: N.O., the Harlem stride battles, Kansas City, etc. What I was referencing more specifically was the critical perspective that frames the analysis and appreciation of jazz as a zero-sum game, i.e., in order to praise Coltrane, we diminish Mobley. If one is the heavyweight champ, the other must be the middleweight champ, etc. A lazy approach. Too limiting. Too boring. I can recognize and enjoy the genius of Sonny Rollins' work side by side with the different genius of Hank's work, without having to say one is better or rank them in some fashion.

And that, I think, is what Mobley himself was saying when he wished for "...somewhere to play where people aren't just comparing you to someone else!" I think the point was directed to the audiences and critics, not other musicians, among whom Hank enjoyed quite a reputation (pace Miles) from what I've read. Didn't Paul Gayten hire him on Brownie's recommendation alone, without ever having heard Mobley play? And I think it's a point well taken...

[Dan Gould]

It shouldn't be a contest.

Maybe, but part of the genesis of bop was the cutting competitions, so for better or worse, direct competition is an element of modern jazz.

What I was referencing more specifically was the critical perspective that frames the analysis and appreciation of jazz as a zero-sum game, i.e., in order to praise Coltrane, we diminish Mobley. If one is the heavyweight champ, the other must be the middleweight champ, etc. A lazy approach. Too limiting. Too boring. I can recognize and enjoy the genius of Sonny Rollins' work side by side with the different genius of Hank's work, without having to say one is better or rank them in some fashion.

I think you misunderstand the "middleweight champion" label. It didn't have anything to do with "laziness" "limits" or perceived "boredom" or any implicit or explicit derogation of Hank's talent. It was about Hank's tone, which was neither heavy nor light, which Hank called a "round sound".

I'm also not sure that the critical perspective is as "zero-sum" as you assert. Coltrane and Rollins became the best known saxophonists of that era, and maybe Hank paled in comparison. But any evaluation of Hank in that manner became less and less common as the CD reissue era surely brought about a critical re-evaluation of Hank's music.

[srellek]

It shouldn't be a contest.

Maybe, but part of the genesis of bop was the cutting competitions, so for better or worse, direct competition is an element of modern jazz.

What I was referencing more specifically was the critical perspective that frames the analysis and appreciation of jazz as a zero-sum game, i.e., in order to praise Coltrane, we diminish Mobley. If one is the heavyweight champ, the other must be the middleweight champ, etc. A lazy approach. Too limiting. Too boring. I can recognize and enjoy the genius of Sonny Rollins' work side by side with the different genius of Hank's work, without having to say one is better or rank them in some fashion.

I think you misunderstand the "middleweight champion" label. It didn't have anything to do with "laziness" "limits" or perceived "boredom" or any implicit or explicit derogation of Hank's talent. It was about Hank's tone, which was neither heavy nor light, which Hank called a "round sound".

I'm also not sure that the critical perspective is as "zero-sum" as you assert. Coltrane and Rollins became the best known saxophonists of that era, and maybe Hank paled in comparison. But any evaluation of Hank in that manner became less and less common as the CD reissue era surely brought about a critical re-evaluation of Hank's music.

No, I understand the label. It's one that tries to put a kind of quantitative box (i.e., "middleweight") around a qualitative impression (i.e., "round"), even if it is a positive one. I just don't like it. And although it may not have been intentioned by Feather, the term "middleweight" in the context of how our language uses adjectives like "heavyweight" vs. "lightweight" (which does have connotations of worth or seriousness), can give the sense of middling, average, or mediocre. In any event, I don't argue with the gap between the popularity or recognition of certain artists. That is what it is. Good critics help bridge that gap though by writing about artists in their contexts and also more importantly on that artist's own merits, techniques, achievements, etc.

My point (and Hank's, if you read the quote) is simply that an artist should be judged on what his art is, not what (or whose) it isn't.

And to be clear about my earlier post, the "lazy approach" is that of the critics who settle for shorthand rather than more detailed effort, which is "limiting"; and the "boredom" is mine entirely with that approach...

[mjzee]

you gotta post that photo,..

Who is the fellow in the upper left corner?

[Chuck Nessa]

Cecil Taylor.

[bertrand]

I don't think I have the version of the CD, so I'm pretty sure I've never seen this weird photo before. It's from '85, bit it looks like it was taken in the 70s.

Let's ID all nine:

Top row, left to right: Cecil Taylor, Freddie Hubbard, Bobby Hutcherson

Middle row, left to right: Michel Petrucciani, Herbie Hancock, Lou Donaldson

Bottom row, left to right: ? (not Mobley), Jackie McLean, Jimmy Smith

Bertrand.

P.S.: Taylor is almost unrecognizable. The one on the bottom could be Stanley Turrentine, I suppose. Looking at the discography of who was at the gig, I don't see who else it could be.

Edited April 14, 2008 by bertrand

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I don't think I have the version of the CD, so I'm pretty sure I've never seen this weird photo before. It's from '85, bit it looks like it was taken in the 70s.

Let's ID all nine:

Top row, left to right: Cecil Taylor, Freddie Hubbard, Bobby Hutcherson

Middle row, left to right: Michel Petrucciani, Herbie Hancock, Lou Donaldson

Bottom row, left to right: ? (not Mobley), Jackie McLean, Jimmy Smith

Bertrand.

P.S.: Taylor is almost unrecognizable. The one on the bottom could be Stanley Turrentine, I suppose. Looking at the discography of who was at the gig, I don't see who else it could be.

The one on the bottom has a cross on bling. Was Stanley a Catholic?

MG

[mjzee]

I think it's Stanley, from the shoulders.

[Chuck Nessa]

And the smile. Stanley, no doubt.

[mjzee]

Another photo from the CD booklet:

[mjzee]

All right, a few more:

[mjzee]

[johnlitweiler]

A very nice piece, with a little more "personal information" than I've seen elsewhere.

Jim, thanks for finding this article. In the '60s Hank got on a plane for Chicago, to play w/Kenny Dorham at a Joe Segal concert. After they got up in the air he demanded that the pilot return to NY because he'd forgotten his saxophone - so the plane returned! He never did get to Chicago that time.

In the 10 months or so that Hank lived in Chicago (about 2 blocks from me) he had quite a quintet, with Muhal, Wilbur Campbell, Frank Gordon, and I believe Rufus Reid. But they didn't play often. For one thing Joe Segal booked them to play every Tuesday or Wednesday at the Jazz Showcase, but Hank didn't show up and Joe had to fire him. Hank also sd he was going to write arrangements for Muhal's big AACM band. Too bad he didn't. I liked the little-big-band pieces Hank said he composed (while in prison) for Thinking Of Home (Duke Pearson got sole arranger credit, as I recall).

Yes, Hank was a very nice, smart guy. No doubt some of his lady friends mothered him. Jim, about the simplification of his phrasing that you mention in Dippin' and his last LP - I think that was probably just the result of his being drunk at the sessions. That's because I've heard him, live, play very well and fluently while high one time and play w/difficulty while more drunk another time.

I like some of his solos on Miles' Blackhawk CDs and esp. on the Carnegie Hall concert. Give him a medal for putting up with Miles for 2 years.

That Down Beat article was published a month or so after Arlene broke up with Hank because of his drinking. She's a good, big-spirited person and I've long been sorry that I wrote that stuff about their being engaged.

[sidewinder]

Hank also sd he was going to write arrangements for Muhal's big AACM band. Too bad he didn't.

That's interesting - the new book mentions these arrangements actually being written during the Chicago sojourn. Thanks for the clarification.

Edited April 21, 2008 by sidewinder