Underutilized Mobley Songs

[Popkin]

From looking at Allmusic.com and searching on Youtube I've come to the conclusion that the Mobley tunes that jazz musicians most like to play and record nowadays are:

This I Dig of You

Dig Dis

Funk in Deep Freeze

However, by far my favourite Mobley tunes are:

Ultramarine

East of the Village

High Modes (which Mobley never recorded personally, as far as I know)

I'm wondering what makes the first three songs such popular choices for musicians and why hardly anyone's playing my favourites. Also, are there other more egregious examples of Mobley tunes being ignored?

[Chuck Nessa]

From looking at Allmusic.com and searching on Youtube I've come to the conclusion that the Mobley tunes that jazz musicians most like to play and record nowadays are:

This I Dig of You

Dig Dis

Funk in Deep Freeze

However, by far my favourite Mobley tunes are:

Ultramarine

East of the Village

High Modes (which Mobley never recorded personally, as far as I know)

I'm wondering what makes the first three songs such popular choices for musicians and why hardly anyone's playing my favourites. Also, are there other more egregious examples of Mobley tunes being ignored?

Hank did 'em. Can't do better than that. Why do we need some "validation" by recordings by others?

I'm more than tired of current "artists" building careers by mining the '50s and '60s.

Celebrate the triumphs of the past and move on.

[Popkin]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the songs in question required "validation" by being played by others.

[Michael Weiss]

Celebrate the triumphs of the past and move on.

Amen on that...after you learn how to play! (But until then) Hank's tunes are great models for original tunes with strong melodies, chord progressions and form.

Before I started writing and performing my own material I used to play a number of Hank's tunes:

Straight Ahead (The Turnaround)

Third Time Around (Straight No Filter, Caddy For Daddy)

Pat n' Chat (The Turnaround)

The Breakthrough (Dippin')

Up, Over and Out (Reach Out)

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

mobleys songs didnt become standards becasue songs after 1950 dont "become" standards. people who try to do this to straight, no chaser or so what, are idiots

[CJ Shearn]

Aric, you're an idiot.

[Free For All]

In my teaching experience, Mobley tunes tend to be popular with students. They're melodically and formally interesting and often have a few harmonic curve balls thrown in while remaining accessible.

I agree, there are several that should be played more.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Free For All

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

no, i do not think that tainting the pool of standards is healthy.

[Free For All]

[JSngry]

no, i do not think that tainting the pool of standards is healthy.

If you're saying that the great pool of "jazz originals" was created at least in part by a healthy motivation to create a language reflecting a reality that spoke to its creators more immediately, directly, and truthfully than did Broadway show tunes and other such items, then I think you have a point of no small validity. To equate, say, Monk, with, say, Gershwin is to miss the distinctively & directly relevant points of each at least as much as it is to appreciate their common ultimate greatness.

In this case, if it feels good, don't do it. And if it doesn't feel good, then trust your instincts.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

you are the Higgins to my Eliza-

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

i didnt mean to lash out against mobley, with his songs not becomming standards// but i mean, i want hanks music to transend BEYOND the jazz-subset of things....ive always held hank's records served a greater purpose- i mean "A Caddy for Daddy"? This is a record destined for the stars! Too bad Hank wasn't on Liberty sooner maybe they could of let him do his thing in cali. and we could hear him backed by Jack Nitzche's orchestra and have A Slice of The Top Goes To The Moon

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

this is what it would look like!

[Free For All]

you are the Higgins to my Eliza-

[Popkin]

no, i do not think that tainting the pool of standards is healthy.

Assuming that "standard" just means performed and recorded a lot, are you really suggesting that jazz musicians shouldn't be playing and recording Mobley's songs (or Monk's or Davis's or any others written after 1950)?

[clifford_thornton]

I've often had trouble with the word "standard" as it applies to compositions written in the bebop/post-bop era and played by "current" musicians. What do I call "Epistrophy," if not a composition or a tune written by Monk? I know we critics are always looking for blanket terminology, so help is much appreciated.

[Dan Gould]

I always thought we had "jazz standards" and "popular standards". So Monk or Davis or Mobley tunes that get played a lot are "jazz standards".

[Peter Friedman]

I don't understand the argument against playing some of the good tunes by jazz musicians from the 50's and 60's.

It strikes me as equally valid to play a good jazz tune from that period as compared to one of the Great American Songbook tunes by Berlin, Kern, Porter, Gershwin and Arlen.

In fact it seems a shame for some very fine jazz tunes to be ignored when other tunes are played over and over and over.

The other point is that in my view, many jazz tunes being written today are not very interesting. A friend refers to something he calls "the writer gene". Some musicians have it and many others don't. I would personally rather hear musicans play many of the fine jazz tunes by Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Gigi Gryce, Benny Golson, Horace Silver, Jimmy Heath, Hank Mobley and others rather than some of the dull uninteresting tunes I hear much too often. In fact, I tend to be suspicious when a newly

recorded CD has all originals on it. This does not mean I want to hear "Round Midnight", Straight No Chaser" and "So What"

which are played frequently. Rather I enjoy it when the many forgotten gems by musicians are "rediscovered" and played.

[fasstrack]

Celebrate the triumphs of the past and move on.

Amen on that...after you learn how to play!

And that takes years.

Might as well never play Porter or Berlin while we're at it.....................

I understand what he means, though. Better to learn the standards and Duke and Strayhorn. Do that before learning these cats, even Monk. That's where they came from. They'd be the first to tell you, I guarantee it. Anyway, no musician will work much without knowing 'bread-and-butter' tunes.

[clifford_thornton]

I always thought we had "jazz standards" and "popular standards". So Monk or Davis or Mobley tunes that get played a lot are "jazz standards".

Works for me - and the term "standards" could be used to abbreviate either.

[Chuck Nessa]

Not to mention musical standards.

[mjzee]

I don't understand the argument against playing some of the good tunes by jazz musicians from the 50's and 60's.

It strikes me as equally valid to play a good jazz tune from that period as compared to one of the Great American Songbook tunes by Berlin, Kern, Porter, Gershwin and Arlen.

In fact it seems a shame for some very fine jazz tunes to be ignored when other tunes are played over and over and over.

The other point is that in my view, many jazz tunes being written today are not very interesting. A friend refers to something he calls "the writer gene". Some musicians have it and many others don't. I would personally rather hear musicans play many of the fine jazz tunes by Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Gigi Gryce, Benny Golson, Horace Silver, Jimmy Heath, Hank Mobley and others rather than some of the dull uninteresting tunes I hear much too often. In fact, I tend to be suspicious when a newly

recorded CD has all originals on it. This does not mean I want to hear "Round Midnight", Straight No Chaser" and "So What"

which are played frequently. Rather I enjoy it when the many forgotten gems by musicians are "rediscovered" and played.

Good point. And to the extent that a musician is an interesting thinker, the listener might actually be able to hear that better if the musician is playing a recognizable tune. In that way, the listener would have some "signposts" to better understand what the musician is doing.

[JSngry]

Yeah, I mean, some people do have home theaters in their log cabins.

[fasstrack]

I don't understand the argument against playing some of the good tunes by jazz musicians from the 50's and 60's.

It strikes me as equally valid to play a good jazz tune from that period as compared to one of the Great American Songbook tunes by Berlin, Kern, Porter, Gershwin and Arlen.

In fact it seems a shame for some very fine jazz tunes to be ignored when other tunes are played over and over and over.

There's a reason they're played 'over and over': They're good. And they speak to people, so they listen. Nothing wrong with jazz tunes, or any other kind of tunes. But don't expect people to love or understand you if you don't play anything they can relate to. Maybe play the standards first, then your favorite jazz numbers, obscurities or your originals. Anyway, it works for me. Edited May 12, 2009 by fasstrack

[fasstrack]

I've often had trouble with the word "standard" as it applies to compositions written in the bebop/post-bop era and played by "current" musicians. What do I call "Epistrophy," if not a composition or a tune written by Monk? I know we critics are always looking for blanket terminology, so help is much appreciated.

How about 'music'?