John Tynan

[BillF]

British expression.

[clifford_thornton]

I like Jemeel Moondoc just fine.

[JSngry]

I like Jemeel Moondoc just fine as well, no way I'd call him a BS-er, that's waaaaaay harsh (and not true) but.... I'd like him a lot more fine if he'd clean up his fingers just a little bit. The ideas are definitely there, and the execution is too about 95% of the time, but it's that 5% that bugs me, since it sure seems to me that it's shit that could be cleaned up w/o too much trouble. Sometimes you fumble just 'cause your mind gets ahead of itself. Can't do too much about that other than chase it and see if you can eventually catch it. But sometimes you fumble just cause your fingers get just ain't fully conditioned. And that you can fix, just by practicing. Trust me, I speak from plenty of experience about this...

[AllenLowe]

well, Roswell Rudd told me Archie Shepp had similar problems when they worked together in the 1960s, he always sounded like he needed to practice a little more - sometimes it's a condition (and I say this from personal experience) related to things like day jobs and not playing full time, and/or having significant non-musical or non-performance interests -

[JSngry]

All well, good, and certainly understandable, but I believe that if you're going to put your name on something as a leader, then you should be as ready as you can be. Anything less, I dunno, it just seems a bit of a vanity effort to put something out just because you can. I mean, ok, you're old, sick, just out of jail, whatever, in the process of discovering something heretofore unknown (oops, wrong century!), something like that, hey, it ain't gonna necessarily be "prime". Understood. But sometimes I hear people and I think, hell, know, that a month, hell, even a few weeks or so of heavy shedding would have made things so much better. And yeah, I know, sometimes things pop up at the very last minute, but still, that don't happen all that often. Not for a cat to get together a leader date.

But then again, these are very trying times. But then yet again again, all the more reason to try to get it right, w/o excuses or fallbacks.

[Chuck Nessa]

Shepp in the '60s was about as good as he got technically. The late '70s and beyond be something else. Not that this stuff was without interest.

[fasstrack]

British expression.

[fasstrack]

I saw a trilogy of plays Shepp wrote at Brooklyn College in 1970 and remember hearing him play live around that time. I didn't know enough to judge it and have long since forgotten what it sounded like. I also heard an interview that impressed me. My friend Burt Eckoff played in his band in the late 70s and dug it. I think he has a hell of a mind and a lot of energy. One drag: he used my friend, the late C. Sharpe on a record date and profiled over his solo. C's wife China was singing "I Got it Bad' and to my knowledge it was the only recording this beautiful couple made together. (Two of my all-time favorite people). The record was called "Poem for Losers' or something like that. I'm glad Archie gave them a shot, but he kept playing over C's solo to really annoying effect. C. hardly recorded and this didn't exactly help.

I do dig Shepp, though, among that type player. I've heard him sound great and heard cats put him down unfairly.

[AllenLowe]

I like a lot of Shepp's stuff, but I gues Roswell thought that, on the day-to-day gigs, he was lacking - and sometimes things come out, recording-wise, that are not perfect but expressive - but than, that's the whole problem with the recording world, even the creative music side. Everybody records too much to often, primarily because of the nature of the business, gotta keep 'em coming and gotta get somebody's attention. Even in the small small small world of jazz/new music -

as for the later Shepp, I have mixed feelings, but I thought that on the Shepp Plays Bird session (I think it was that - it was a duo with N.O. Pedersen, maybe on Steeplechase?) he showed some different and interesting chops. And Dick Katz told me that, on the festival circuit when he heard Shepp practicing, he sounded like Don Byas!

Edited March 31, 2009 by AllenLowe

[ghost of miles]

British expression.

"Tuppence a bag!" (From Mary Poppins "Feed the Birds"...that's how I know the expression. And I still dig Duke's take on the soundtrack.)

[clifford_thornton]

I've only more recently been able to get into Shepp's later bag and though it's hit or miss, there are some gems - esp. among the Steeplechase dates.

I totally hear what you're saying about Moondoc, though his records have given me a lot of joy. They certainly are a bit raggedy and "just - almost -" y'know? I feel the same way about Spearman, though he could BLOW.

[fasstrack]

British expression.

"Tuppence a bag!" (From Mary Poppins "Feed the Birds"...that's how I know the expression. And I still dig Duke's take on the soundtrack.)

"Feed the birds...."

I'm still in love with Julie Andrews, I cop to it. Can we do something about that goddamn Blake?

[Fer Urbina]

A few years back I did a series of interviews about Bird. George Avakian surprised me with this:

...and never became a real fan. When Ornette came along, I related much more to his playing

On the programme about 1959 jazz (BBC 4, last week), Avakian spoke about Ornette's debut in NY (Five Spot?) and how it was the first time ever he felt surrounded by the musicians in a club.

The programme was about Kind of Blue, Mingus Ah Um, Time Out and The Shape of Jazz to Come. Not bad at all.

F

PS Ghost, exactly my situation re: Jazz Masters of the 50s. For ever in the back of my mind, but never got around to buy it.

[blajay]

Jazz Masters of the 50s is good. I read it a couple years ago out of the local library. It's kind of like a 50s version of John Litweiler's The Freedom Principle. Those two and David Rosenthal's Hard Bop book together do the period relative justice, for those third party perspective musician profile types of shorter books.

[AllenLowe]

JazzMasters of the 50s is excellent (as is Dick Hadlock's Jazzmasters of the 20s)

The Rosenthal book I remember having problems with - lotsa mistakes -

[Fer Urbina]

JazzMasters of the 50s is excellent (as is Dick Hadlock's Jazzmasters of the 20s)

Funnily enough, got the Hadlock, second hand, couple of weeks ago in a bookshop near home (Wimbledon), together with Sudhalter's Bix.

I've borrowed the Goldberg from a library in the past.

F

[fasstrack]

Jazz Masters of the 50s is good. I read it a couple years ago out of the local library. It's kind of like a 50s version of John Litweiler's The Freedom Principle. Those two and David Rosenthal's Hard Bop book together do the period relative justice, for those third party perspective musician profile types of shorter books.

Wow. That title takes me back. When I first discovered jazz as a teen I went to the library and read all I could. also read liner notes as I listened. That 'Jazz Masters' series I was glued to then. Turned out listening alone would've been sufficient, as I developed an unrealistic image of what good music was according to these writers, and in some way tried to play that way, probably---in youthful naivete. Also the more musicians I met that knew the subjects, the more they tended to scoff and say this or that about so-and-so was BS. I took their word and am glad now I did, if only to develop a sense of critical evaluation and not believing everything in print. Writing by musicians themselves, as Bill Evans' thoughtful liner notes for Ben Webster/Joe Zawinul: Soulmates, can be quite illuminating. But I'm admittedly prejudiced.

I currently read only autobiogs or biogs, or musician interviews. The facts of someone's life, craftfully and entertainingly told (Paul Desmond's writing, for example) can be very much worth reading. I especially like gig stories, they can be fun. Of course, musicians themselves have been known to be disingenuous, so the same caveat applies. FWIW I don't seem all that interested in musical analysis by professional writers, as I find myself shaking my head a lot. They seem to get it wrong too often.

The critics/historians aren't useless at all, but can take you down some wasteful musical roads, especially while young. But we all have to learn by trial and error. However, I wouldn't mind reading some of this stuff again, knowing what I know now. Good stuff in there, no doubt.

Edited April 3, 2009 by fasstrack

[AllenLowe]

Hadlock is still around, lives in SF. I know what you mean, but a good critic is an artist - witness our own Larry Kart.

Jazz Masters of the 20s is just an extremely insightful book; Hadlock (whom I believe is a clarinetist) not only knows the music well but he knows how to write about it.

Martin Williams was a major help to me when I was first learning about the music, but the best, in those days, I thought, was Dan Morgenstern (and I never dreamed, as a 14 year old, that I would ever get to know him) -

Edited April 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[fasstrack]

I know what you mean, but a good critic is an artist

I like Stephen Holden on cabaret a whole lot. I used to like John S. Wilson and the late Whitney Baillett (in the New Yorker, not the NYT). Elvis Mitchell and A.O. Scott are very good on movies. The NYT also had some excellent TV commentary 10-15 years ago by John J. O' Connor and John Corry. Richard Sandomir is tremendous on a lot of subjects. I think their jazz reviewing went downhill from Peter Watrous and especially with Ben Ratliff. Ratliff isn't really a holding writer to me---rather weak, actually---aside from disagreeing with his taste and analyses. Actually, the Gray Lady has been sinking generally IMO for some time. Edited April 3, 2009 by fasstrack