Dave Holland Octet: Pathways

[Hot Ptah]

It is an interesting point, when an artist chooses to play in a style not as challenging as he could play in--what does this mean for his artistic merit?

I saw Christian McBride's group last weekend, with Steve Wilson, Peter Martin, vibest Warren Wolf, and Carl Allen. The music was unrelentingly melodic, pleasant, tasteful, swinging, happy in mood. It was not challenging, did not take the listener to places he or she was not expecting, did not push back the boundaries of anything, did not enter any sort of avant garde realm even a little. The audience seemed to find it appealing. McBride did not include any pop content or include smooth jazz elements, and his music was not as catchy as say the Cannonball Adderley group in its prime.

By comparison, Terrance Blanchard's group, which I saw a year before, was much more avant garde and thought provoking.

McBride's bass solos were fast, cleanly executed, and very skillful. They reminded me of eating only candy. They were so bright and pleasant, all the time.

But if this is what Christian McBride wants to present, if this is what he feels musically at this time, does this make him a lesser artist than if he included "difficult" content into his music?

By comparison, Dave Holland's group makes more use of dissonance and the solos are much wilder, than in McBride's group. Is Holland thus a "greater" artist than McBride, even if Holland is disappointing to many here?

In 2010, can a jazz musician just make nice, pleasant music, easy on the ear, and played expertly, and be considered a meritorious artist?

[king ubu]

Well, you might find those that say that all Holland does is but "easy on the ear" nowadays (I guess I'm one of them...)

To answer your question, I'd say: no

Well yes, sure s/he can, but to a truly interested listener, it won't ultimately be very satisfying.

I've got a friend who doesn't dig "free jazz" but he loves Dolphy, Andrew Hill... and I try to gradually lead him to widen his horizon. I've got some pretty interesting (and for my part challenging) discussions with him very often, about stuff that is scratched on here, too.

[nail75]

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.)

Nobody has to like what Holland does, but I think there is a fairly large difference between the aforementioned live and studio albums. I am glad that you agree with me on that.

[nail75]

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?

Interestingly I gave my CD of Conference Of The Birds to a friend recently, who is a casual jazz listener. And he said that he thought that it was too noisy and that it annoyed him at times. Next time I will meet him, he will get "Extended Play" and it will be interesting to hear what he says. Interesting to me at least.

The difference with your question about "level" is that "Conference Of The Birds" is unique in the sense that the presence of Braxton, Rivers and Altschul he made a record that is pretty far out by his standards (and ECM's standards) than his remaining output. I do not think that Holland ever was very much into free jazz, so to say that everything that came later was a disappointment is a judgment that is more based on one's wishes than even a faint notion of reality. In terms of musicality, I would argue that his current small group is as good as the band that recorded "Conference". I certainly enjoy them as much as I enjoy "Conference".

Read more about it here:

http://www.regioactive.de/story/7477/gefeierter_auftritt_das_dave_holland_quintett_live_in_ludwigshafen.html

The difference that I see between his studio records and the live album is that the live album is much more lively, much more "on fire", much more enthusiastic. It seems that the band loses some of its energy and passion in the studio. I do not know why, but maybe it has to do with ECM/Eicher or with the fact that Holland needs an audience to get him going.

[7/4]

Interestingly I gave my CD of Conference Of The Birds to a friend recently, who is a casual jazz listener. And he said that he thought that it was too noisy and that it annoyed him at times. Next time I will meet him, he will get "Extended Play" and it will be interesting to hear what he says. Interesting to me at least.

The difference with your question about "level" is that "Conference Of The Birds" is unique in the sense that the presence of Braxton, Rivers and Altschul he made a record that is pretty far out by his standards (and ECM's standards) than his remaining output. I do not think that Holland ever was very much into free jazz, so to say that everything that came later was a disappointment is a judgment that is more based on one's wishes than even a faint notion of reality. In terms of musicality, I would argue that his current small group is as good as the band that recorded "Conference". I certainly enjoy them as much as I enjoy "Conference".

Now that's just silly. He played in Circle and the Braxton group of that time with Braxton and Altschul. Plus a bunch of albums with Rivers. This is the kind of music he was playing at the time. Certainly his writing at the time of Conference Of The Birds is a bit different than what he was composing later.

[ATR]

Interestingly I gave my CD of Conference Of The Birds to a friend recently, who is a casual jazz listener. And he said that he thought that it was too noisy and that it annoyed him at times. Next time I will meet him, he will get "Extended Play" and it will be interesting to hear what he says. Interesting to me at least.

The difference with your question about "level" is that "Conference Of The Birds" is unique in the sense that the presence of Braxton, Rivers and Altschul he made a record that is pretty far out by his standards (and ECM's standards) than his remaining output. I do not think that Holland ever was very much into free jazz, so to say that everything that came later was a disappointment is a judgment that is more based on one's wishes than even a faint notion of reality. In terms of musicality, I would argue that his current small group is as good as the band that recorded "Conference". I certainly enjoy them as much as I enjoy "Conference".

Now that's just silly. He played in Circle and the Braxton group of that time with Braxton and Altschul. Plus a bunch of albums with Rivers. This is the kind of music he was playing at the time. Certainly his writing at the time of Conference Of The Birds is a bit different than what he was composing later.

Isn't that the entire point with the people who don't care for what Holland is doing now? That it's so much less improvisatory, interactive, and imaginative than what he was playing in the 60's, 70's, and even 80's?

[JETman]

Some of those albums recorded in the 80s with the likes of Wheeler, Smitty, Coleman and the vastly underrated Kevin Eubanks were killer. Who says that music has to approximate the loft style free jazz of the 70s to be modern and creatively improvised?

[ATR]

Some of those albums recorded in the 80s with the likes of Wheeler, Smitty, Coleman and the vastly underrated Kevin Eubanks were killer. Who says that music has to approximate the loft style free jazz of the 70s to be modern and creatively improvised?

Not me.

[JSngry]

I thought that the original sextet w/Coleman, Wheeler, & Preister was one of the best bands of its time, in no small part to Coleman's input/influence. My interest has waned quite a bit since those days, but respect for all concerned is still quote high.

[king ubu]

I thought that the original sextet w/Coleman, Wheeler, & Preister was one of the best bands of its time, in no small part to Coleman's input/influence. My interest has waned quite a bit since those days, but respect for all concerned is still quote high.

Quintet, I presume?

Just bought "Jumpin' In" on LP this week, filling another hole in my Holland collection.

The latest ones I own though are "Big Band" (ok-ish) and the 2CD live set (which I played a few times three or four years ago but never put on again since...)

[David Ayers]

At the time those LPs came out people commented that the band with Coleman was more thrilling live than on LP. I don't think that's unusual though, for a jazz band to be more careful on record than live. Holland live plays the same music as on LP - the same tunes, changes, harmonies, general ideas and ethos, just with a bit more spark, at greater length, and more in the way of up-tempo crowd-pleasers - which can be wearing on record.

I notice that Holland is here in London again in a few weeks playing with a flamenco outfit...

Details - and clips - here: http://www.barbican.org.uk/music/event-detail.asp?ID=10565

Edited May 7, 2010 by David Ayers

[jeffcrom]

Well, everyone's ears/perceptions are different, but I've listened to Pathways twice now, and I don't hear it as "safe" or "easy." It's certainly more conservative than the music Holland played 35-40 years ago, but I find it exciting and challenging.

People change, and their music changes with them. Many musicians who were playing avant-garde music in the 1960s and 70s are playing more conservative music now. And the ones who aren't - well, it ain't avant-garde any more. It can be good music or lame music either way. To me, good music is music which is alive and honest. Hearing these qualities or not hearing them is obviously subjective. To me, Pathways fits the bill.

[CJ Shearn]

I bought a copy and am listening now. I agree with Jeff, I feel Holland's tunes with this band and quintet have this thing, very ostinato based, elements of funk, Latin, sort of winding harmonies. I guess the word is he's so consistent these days it's hard to find something that stands out.

[B. Goren.]

I received my copy yesterday and so far listened to it twice. My first impression is that this is very enjoyable disk but definitely not Holland's best recording.

[clifford_thornton]

I wasn't all that into his more recent ECMs; haven't heard the stuff he's put out on his label yet. As for avant-garde cred, don't forget that he was also in the Spontaneous Music Ensemble and worked/recorded with Lol Coxhill.

As to the issue of middle-of-the-road, it's pretty endemic in a music where polemics aren't really an issue any more. I find a fair amount of contemporary, vaguely inside/outside stuff to be very milquetoast, as well as some of the "free" music.

[PHILLYQ]

I received my copy yesterday and so far listened to it twice. My first impression is that this is very enjoyable disk but definitely not Holland's best recording.

When it came out I didn't pay much attention, but I was in a brick & mortar browsing and I noticed that I was at Birdland for one set on one of the nights it was recorded. It was some really good music that night but I'm not sure any of that set made it onto the disc.

[sidewinder]

Some of those albums recorded in the 80s with the likes of Wheeler, Smitty, Coleman and the vastly underrated Kevin Eubanks were killer. Who says that music has to approximate the loft style free jazz of the 70s to be modern and creatively improvised?

Just listening to 'Extensions' the other day and that one is a killer which has withstood the test of time superbly - and IMO one of the best albums ever recorded on ECM. Kevin Eubanks and 'Smitty' Smith are 'magic ingredient X' on it, for sure. I had the priviledge back in the day of witnessing a performance by this band whilst stood at the back of the stage right behind Eubanks and it brings back real good memories.

The Dave Holland Quintet performance at the Bath Festival a couple of years ago was pretty damn good too. Played to a packed house and got a great reception (for Bath).

Edited July 16, 2010 by sidewinder