Dave Holland Octet: Pathways

[B. Goren.]

Dear friends,

any opnion on this new Dave Holland's release???

[Van Basten II]

Bought it this weekend, just listened to it once so far, so it has not yet grown on me, but if you enjoy his quintet, you'll be in familiar ground, Holland as usual leaves room to his sideman to develop their ideas, nothing groundbreaking though but a solid effort.

[tranemonk]

I caught them last night in Boston. It was the quintet but included several tunes from this CD. As huge as fan as I am of Dave... this performance was a bit disappointing. Nate Smith (the drummer) just seemed to bang anyway... As my wife said.. "No sense of nuance...." I have seen Dave and his band probably over a dozen times.. and this was below standard...

As for the CD... I've ordered the limited edition from his website and I haven't received or listened to it. I did like the tune "Ebb and Flow" last night...

[king ubu]

Has Holland decided to use the same cover for all his discs now?

The music to me has sounded somewhat same-ish anyway for a while now

[Bluerein]

I think it's a strong effort. Because it's live it has more punch than the studio albums.

[WorldB3]

If you liked Critical Mass and Pass it On from his own label Dare2 Records I would say Pathways is better.

There are other places I would start if your new to his recordings but if your a fan of the recent stuff you won't be disappointed.

[B. Goren.]

Thank you all. I have everything Holland recorded as a leader (and I love it) so I've ordered this one too.

[tranemonk]

Just got it and listened to it last night. Much better than the performance... Don't ask me why... :unsure: :unsure:

[nail75]

I think it's a strong effort. Because it's live it has more punch than the studio albums.

I noted that with some ECMs. I do not understand why Holland's bands sound so much better live than in the studio. Maybe it is the lack of alcohol? j/k

By the way: What label is this?

Edited April 26, 2010 by nail75

[Chuck Nessa]

I've seen both large and small groups from Holland in the last few years, and they all seem "safe for the audience". This is not to my taste. Good to see he gets a nice paycheck - that's all.

I am disappointed.

[nail75]

I've seen both large and small groups from Holland in the last few years, and they all seem "safe for the audience". This is not to my taste. Good to see he gets a nice paycheck - that's all.

I am disappointed.

Have you listened to studio and live versions of the same songs, like for instance on "Extended Play" and on "Prime Directive/Points Of View"?

If so, would you argue that there is little difference between the respective versions of the music live and in the studio or that there is a significant difference?

Edited April 27, 2010 by nail75

[David Ayers]

I've seen both large and small groups from Holland in the last few years, and they all seem "safe for the audience". This is not to my taste. Good to see he gets a nice paycheck - that's all.

I am disappointed.

Have you listened to studio and live versions of the same songs, like for instance on "Extended Play" and on "Prime Directive/Points Of View"?

If so, would you argue that there is little difference between the respective versions of the music live and in the studio or that there is a significant difference?

I'm guessing Chuck doesn't care for either!

There is a big middle-of-the-road in contemporary jazz, digestible and safe (and not just in contemporary jazz). 'Sophisticated', yes, but not thrilling from the point of view of aesthetic innovation. Dave Holland was right up in the mix of innovation, there, one time. Now he leads effective, serious and (within the limits of jazz) 'commercial' bands. Good musician and no-one can doubt that he makes his choices with a full and clear view of all the alternatives.

[Stefan Wood]

Middle of the road? When I saw his group play at the Library of Congress a few years ago they were on fire. No easy listening that night.

[nail75]

I'm guessing Chuck doesn't care for either!

I think Chuck is perfectly capable of answering himself. Or did he ask you to respond to the question that I asked him?

There is a big middle-of-the-road in contemporary jazz, digestible and safe (and not just in contemporary jazz). 'Sophisticated', yes, but not thrilling from the point of view of aesthetic innovation. Dave Holland was right up in the mix of innovation, there, one time. Now he leads effective, serious and (within the limits of jazz) 'commercial' bands. Good musician and no-one can doubt that he makes his choices with a full and clear view of all the alternatives.

Your statement suffers from a very narrow perspective and is extremly one-sided. It would take considerable effort to examine all the problems in detail. In short, your understanding of "mainstream" is silly, your concept about "innovation" is seemingly unrelated to place and time and your idea about commercialism in jazz does not really merit further discussion. Worst of all, your ignorance about David Holland and his music is spectacular. Your attack falls flat, because it bears no resemblance to what Holland is actually doing on stage. Your statement only exhibits your prejudices, which is fine for you I guess, but does not make for an interesting conversation. I doubt that you have seen him live during the last 10 years. If I am wrong, I would like to know where you have seen him.

I actually have seen him and I totally agree with Stefan Wood that Holland is not on stage to play "digestible and safe" music. He does not play free jazz, if that is what bothers you, but he really never did as a leader. However if he attempts to be as middle-of-the-road, he is doing an awful job, because his playing and his music are quite demanding, which probably explains, why he has not make it to the top of the UK-charts. And finally, I would be very pleased, if you told me, where the "big middle-of-the-road in contemporary jazz" can be found. Especially the "big" one. Which jazz act today is big? Now, I do not know how the situation is in England, but I would consider a jazz concert with 500-1000 people to be pretty big. There might be a handful of jazz musicians that can draw so many people, usually the familiar big names. Dave Holland is not among them.

Edited April 27, 2010 by nail75

[David Ayers]

Hm, a strident but anonymous person on the internet. Well I never.

In fact Dave Holland sold out a concert at the QEH here in November - that's nearly 1000 seats, I'm guessing. If it is true that he is unable to draw even 500 in the States then I'm surprised.

[nail75]

Hm, a strident but anonymous person on the internet. Well I never.

Oh, you thought you could elegantly bitch-slap Holland by misrepresenting his performances and then slip away like a thief in the night? Tough luck!

Edited April 27, 2010 by nail75

[king ubu]

Take it easy, guys!

Holland is certainly one of the bigger names in today's jazz scene, no denying that!

I don't care much for his more recent music, regardless if it was recorded in studio or live (and have hence never been willing to pay 50-100$ which would have been what it had taken to see him live here).

Anyway, I don't want to debate what's "mainstream" and how "innovation" can/should/must be defined.

But Holland, to me, certainly has not been innovative for several decades by now. His quintet with Wheeler/Priester was kind of great though, but what has followed since, I guess, can indeed be described as mostly "playing it safe". And there's nothing against that - he can do as he likes, and if he enjoys a good life thanks to that, that's good for him and I'd be the last to judge him on that!

But the main point is that he seemed to have quite some promise early on, and for some longtime jazz fans (and more than mere fans), I guess his development as a whole can be viewed as a disappointment. Again, there's no judgement in that... he may do as he likes, but there's no obligation on our side to continue liking what he does - it's all a matter of taste, in the end.

[ATR]

Can't say I've even heard Pathways, but I've felt for some time that Holland's music has been lacking in something essential that makes me enjoy listening. It's not that it isn't free, per se. And it's undeniable that he's a virtuoso who attracts good young musicians. I just liked him better in the 70's and 80's is all. I feel like his music is simultaneously sophisticated entertainment and jazz pedantry. It doesn't grab me emotionally, even though I know how good the musicians are. I don't know, maybe it's the compositions. Funny, but I like McLaughlin's Heart of Things band which employs similar strategies and tropes. So it could be the sound. Maybe Dave should plug in if he's going to play like this, but he certainly doesn't have to just for me.

[David Ayers]

what has followed since, I guess, can indeed be described as mostly "playing it safe". And there's nothing against that - he can do as he likes, and if he enjoys a good life thanks to that, that's good for him and I'd be the last to judge him on that!

Ah well thank you for that. In fact I wouldn't go so far, since as I've begun to say in a few other threads I am interested in questions regarding the presentation of music (not only jazz) to large audiences, and I am not really convinced that all such attempts 'sell out' an avant-garde moment which could otherwise be serenely sustained. So I don't see Holland's idiom as a commercial project, by any means, though it seems to me that the process of reaching a public with a stabilised (TWA) music involves a certain, um , qualification, not to say, uh, psychic mutilation. To paraphrase John Stevens, 1.2.Habermas-Adorno.

Two favorite record titles of all time: '1.2.Albert Ayler' (had it, sold it); 'History of the Last Five Minutes' (never heard it - wouldn't want to spoil the title).

While we're at it, what is the Pathways premium edition box set...?

Edited April 28, 2010 by David Ayers

[king ubu]

[...] and I am not really convinced that all such attempts 'sell out' an avant-garde moment which could otherwise be serenely sustained.

I guess the above is the gist of your point - and that's an interesting and probably true observation.

Possibly all artists ought to die before being able to get back in line?

Not sure what to answer in seriousness. I certainly don't disagree, but I hope and wish many musicians will sort of stick to their ideals and visions or whatever it is that's guiding them... and will go on being explorative in their mindsets etc. And that, I do miss with Holland.

On the other hand, someone like Wayne Shorter came back in full glory, playing awesome and challening music after a long while (well, I don't want to be unfair... I don't know late WR and most of what Shorter in those years from about 1977-1997 or so).

[nail75]

I've seen both large and small groups from Holland in the last few years, and they all seem "safe for the audience". This is not to my taste. Good to see he gets a nice paycheck - that's all.

I am disappointed.

Have you listened to studio and live versions of the same songs, like for instance on "Extended Play" and on "Prime Directive/Points Of View"?

If so, would you argue that there is little difference between the respective versions of the music live and in the studio or that there is a significant difference?

I am still waiting for an answer!

Anyway, I don't want to debate what's "mainstream" and how "innovation" can/should/must be defined.

But Holland, to me, certainly has not been innovative for several decades by now.

You cannot argue that Holland has not been "innovative" and refuse a discussion about the definition of "mainstream" and "innovation". That is a pointless argument and you know it.

I don't care much for his more recent music, regardless if it was recorded in studio or live.

I think that there is a huge difference between his live concerts and his records and I originally wanted to discuss that. Unfortunately most people here seem not to be interested, but instead are fond of displaying their prejudices. That is fine, we all have our prejudices.

Edited April 30, 2010 by nail75

[tranemonk]

Two things...

1) I have seen Holland probably over 1 dozen times since he created this quintet (e.g, Potter, Eubanks, etc.) and its variations... I am finding a "sameness" to his music (both live and in the studio). I will say I thought the big band was MUCH better and interesting...

2) Regarding the premium edition... VERY Disappointing! I was hoping for some extra music (like another CD).. You basically get some artistic postcards and a signed t-shirt... Really not worth it...

While we're at it, what is the Pathways premium edition box set...?

[nail75]

Two things...

1) I have seen Holland probably over 1 dozen times since he created this quintet (e.g, Potter, Eubanks, etc.) and its variations... I am finding a "sameness" to his music (both live and in the studio). I will say I thought the big band was MUCH better and interesting...

I think if you saw Peter Brötzmann a dozen times live, there would be a certain sameness too. I have seen him live once just for the record (both Brötzmann and Holland that is).

So my question to you is:

Have you listened to studio and live versions of the same songs, like for instance on "Extended Play" and on "Prime Directive/Points Of View"?

If so, would you argue that there is little difference between the respective versions of the music live and in the studio or that there is a significant difference

Edited April 30, 2010 by nail75

[king ubu]

Hey, sure, but Brötzmann isn't innovative at all either... maybe he was in his early days, but that has long ago stopped. He is playing the same old, same old...

As for Holland on disc vs. Holland live... I've heard plenty of live dates (radio, never saw him in concert as I mentioned). I can see the difference, but I still don't like his live sets much better than his discs. It's just mostly music that doesn't really move me, grabs my attention, makes me stop whatever I'm doing and listen more closely. (That again, of course, has more to do with personal taste than with the amount of "innovation" found in the music.)

As for your point about my statement on innovation: ok, ok... not sure if irony is called for, but here's a nice little bit of Karl Kraus, from "Der Fortschritt":

Jetzt erst erkenne ich den Fortschritt als das, was er ist, – als eine Wandeldekoration. Wir bleiben vorwärts und schreiten auf demselben Fleck. Der Fortschritt ist ein Standpunkt und sieht wie eine Bewegung aus.

[Die Fackel: Nr. 275-276, 22.03.1909, 10. Jg.. DB Sonderband: Die Fackel 1899-1936, S. 13640

(vgl. Fackel Nr. 275-276, S. 34)]

What I'm saying is not that "innovation" and "progress" are the same... but that the whole concept is very difficult and honestly I'm not capable of making to-the-point sensible statements about it right now.

[Niko]

nail75, looks to me that most of those you perceive as Holland-haters have a point of view like "after conference of the birds anything seemed possible with holland and compared to that his later career was a disappointment..."

would you say, his current band is live and/or in the studio "at the level of" conference of the birds?

having not heard the band live: what is (roughly) that big difference you are talking about?

can we all agree, that hollands recent output is more exciting than, say, recent Chick Corea, McCoy Tynr and Herbie Hancock albums?

sorry for typos - can't really see what i'm typing due to IE

Edited April 30, 2010 by Niko