Branford Marsalis blindfold test from 2002

[Larry Kart]

http://tedpanken.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/blindfold-test-uncut-from-2002-with-branford-marsalis-who-turned-51-yesterday/

[Larry Kart]

Hmm -- he thinks James Moody might be Lew Tabackin and says this of a track where the two tenor soloists are Zoot Sims and Lockjaw Davis:

"This is going to be hard, man, because it’s old guys. This is hard to identify. For instance, Don Byas when he was younger, was influenced by Coleman Hawkins, but by the time they got older and were playing together, it was hard to tell one guy from the other."

[Larry Kart]

Not the same track with Zoot and Jaws that Branford heard but from the same album:

How could Mr. In the Tradition mistake either man, especially Jaws?

[JSngry]

But it’s like having a center who can run a forty in 4.2. [That's a good thing.] It’s a good thing, but ultimately his job is to sit in the trenches and kick people’s asses, not to run out for a pass. [it's also to lead the runner.] Centers don’t lead runners. Guards lead runners. [Centers do lead runners.] Centers don’t lead runners, dude. [Kevin Mawae leads runners.] Oh, yeah, when they’re going up the gut. But it’s not his speed; it’s his strength.

We don't need it until we need it, but we should never have to need it except when we will, and we won't.

Except for when we do.

[Steve Reynolds]

great - they all get 5 stars except Seamus Blake gets 4 for using effects.

he HATED Evan Parker with John Edwards and Mark Sanders - he thought it might be George Garzone!!!! LOL

plus it was maybe the greatest track on The Two Seasons - Winter VI - If I am correct that section is mind bending, dynamic and contains some of the greatest tenor saxophone ever recorded by anyone - but of course it ain't like Trane to Branford.

you know it aint anything like Trane - but the old doesn't go anywhere, BLAH fucking BLAH - you have no ears for free music as you never even heard it - he's British, right?? Is he a new guy I thought I would hear next - like Gary Giddens a few years back? Evan Parker who he!!?!?

fuck you Branford,,,,no bass solos are good unless it's Ray Brown BS.....more blah FUCKING blah

you can't deal with John Edwards, Mark Sanders and Evan Parker

At the Vortex, baby

[relyles]

I have not read the blindfold test yet, but Steve for what it is worth I think you are being a tad bit too harsh in your assessment of Branford. Wasn't he the person that got Columbia to record David S. Ware? I think his ears (and his own music) extend a little beyond Trane and Ray Brown. I think you are responding more to his reaction to Evan Parker because you can't fathom the idea that anyone with ears would not appreciate the *great* Evan Parker.

I suppose I probably should shut up until I actually read Branford's comments.

[ejp626]

I can empathize with Branford. I cannot hear any performer's personal style, tho' perhaps if music was my living I would pay more attention. Can't tell any of them apart, and I no longer really aspire to. It definitely makes me wonder why I bother listening to the music at all (and I am 75% serious when I say this). In contrast, I can identify probably well over 100 different painters by style, color selection, etc. I guess the difference is I can have music playing at work, and I can't have a slideshow of my favorite paintings running in the background, as it would be too distracting. But I am definitely starting to re-evaluate my life and how much attention I pay to music (and the balance between jazz, classical, African/world music, rock/pop, etc.) -- and certainly how much I spend on it. It has probably been too much, given how my mind works -- and how little I care for where contemporary jazz scene is going.

[robertoart]

great - they all get 5 stars except Seamus Blake gets 4 for using effects.

he HATED Evan Parker with John Edwards and Mark Sanders - he thought it might be George Garzone!!!! LOL

plus it was maybe the greatest track on The Two Seasons - Winter VI - If I am correct that section is mind bending, dynamic and contains some of the greatest tenor saxophone ever recorded by anyone - but of course it ain't like Trane to Branford.

you know it aint anything like Trane - but the old doesn't go anywhere, BLAH fucking BLAH - you have no ears for free music as you never even heard it - he's British, right?? Is he a new guy I thought I would hear next - like Gary Giddens a few years back? Evan Parker who he!!?!?

fuck you Branford,,,,no bass solos are good unless it's Ray Brown BS.....more blah FUCKING blah

you can't deal with John Edwards, Mark Sanders and Evan Parker

At the Vortex, baby

I don't think he is really shitting on the British Free music, he even acknowledges the awesome technical accomplishments of Parker.

He's just saying the music is more of a Formalist approach, compared to the sense of sonic and social urgency he possibly hears in the Olutunji sessions.

It would be interesting to hear his response to Peter Brotzmann? Perhaps he would also identify this as a kind of Formalism as well?

I have not read the blindfold test yet, but Steve for what it is worth I think you are being a tad bit too harsh in your assessment of Branford. Wasn't he the person that got Columbia to record David S. Ware? I think his ears (and his own music) extend a little beyond Trane and Ray Brown. I think you are responding more to his reaction to Evan Parker because you can't fathom the idea that anyone with ears would not appreciate the *great* Evan Parker.

I suppose I probably should shut up until I actually read Branford's comments.

Actually I think he is saying in a reluctant way that he does appreciate it. But that he is not very interested in it.

I can empathize with Branford. I cannot hear any performer's personal style, tho' perhaps if music was my living I would pay more attention. Can't tell any of them apart, and I no longer really aspire to. It definitely makes me wonder why I bother listening to the music at all (and I am 75% serious when I say this). In contrast, I can identify probably well over 100 different painters by style, color selection, etc. I guess the difference is I can have music playing at work, and I can't have a slideshow of my favorite paintings running in the background, as it would be too distracting. But I am definitely starting to re-evaluate my life and how much attention I pay to music (and the balance between jazz, classical, African/world music, rock/pop, etc.) -- and certainly how much I spend on it. It has probably been too much, given how my mind works -- and how little I care for where contemporary jazz scene is going.

I think music is more than a living for these guys.

If it was 'only a living' they (those that dedicate their lives to the music), would have very little to say, accept whinge about the lack of gigs and bad pay when they get em. And speak of Formal concerns more exclusively.

[Steve Reynolds]

I appreciate what freelancer posted in response to my comments.

Quoted from Branford:

That took some practice. Took a lot of practice to get that together. It’s not going anywhere. It’s just sitting there. Sometimes playing out has a purpose, and sometimes it’s just playing out. To me, this is just playing out. The saxophone player has practiced a lot, and he has all this technique at his disposal. But what his band is playing is not affecting his outcome at all. He’s just playing what he plays. And it’s formidable. It’s hard stuff to play.

My comments:

Well he sure has practiced alot and it sure is formidable. As most listeners of free improvisation know, maybe the one complaint some have about Evan Parker is he can play brilliantly at will and most things recorded after 1990 or so seem to almost come too easy for him as his technique and facility on the either saxophone is unrivaled in those circles.

However, the *idea* that Sanders and Edwards are not affecting his outcome is based on an unfamiliarity of the idiom. If it *was* Brotzmann, we know that observation might be more apt or even completely accurate.

more from Branford:

It gets louder in volume, but it doesn’t change in intensity. It doesn’t build as a group. It’s just getting louder because the drummer is getting louder. He’s not getting louder.

no, Evan doesn't alter his volume once the intensity starts ramping up. He does crank up the intensity - in fact, that is where the major excitement comes for me in his extended tenor saxophone improvisations.

as far as it not going anywhere, this is just because there is no formal groove, although The Two Seasons as a whole (both long CD's which is most or all of 4 sets recorded on 2 different nights in 1998) is as groove based as an Evan Parker trio is ever going to get, and funny he mentions the drummer as this *is* Mark Sanders' greatest recorded document and the altered mashed, and invented grooves and anti-gooves he gets to throughout this recording makes this one of the best 3 or 4 Evan Parker recordings suited for a listener unfamiliar with what he does in this power trio (if you will) context.

Of course if he (or anyone else) is exposed to the music like was the case here - with little or no (have to say the answer is very close to NO in this case) experince in listening to this sort of thing, I can't imagine a response other than what was the response!

maybe ignorance is bliss or looking for more of that blues based, well you know, maybe like his brother would fall back on....

Of course it isn't anything like David S. Ware with Matt, William and Suzie. That is groove based free jazz with a pulse that is very close to traditional jazz/free jazz. This music is different - formal?!?! - not sure what that measns, but maybe as as a recent recording declares....

Gold is Where You Find It

Edited February 6, 2013 by Steve Reynolds

[JETman]

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

[robertoart]

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

Well with the 'Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' you have some of the most 'profound' sound or tone to come out of an instrument. Navigating your way through bop or even modal harmony is not the point. I always equate "poseurs" as usually from the Rock side of Modern music. In fact without the 'audience' you get the feeling the Rock Music 'spectacle' wouldn't come to life. Whereas, when you hear Ayler, Shepp or Sanders, it feels like the 'sound' each man makes from his instrument would have came to be, to quote Ornette 'of human feelings' alone.

[Steve Reynolds]

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

that is certainly true when it comes down to legends or non-legends from the 1960's. The great example was always Guiseppie Logan.

the first generation of british/european free improvisors started to change that as they came from different traditions but only included the american jazz and free jazz tradition as a part of where they were coming from. They *know* they were not americans and that whatever music they were playing was a different music that many for years wouldn't even consider it jazz or even related to jazz.

imagine hearing the Spontaneous Music ensemble circa 1973 with John Stevens, Trevor Watts, Evan Parker, and Derek Bailey with bot saxophonists squealing away on soprano saxophone and thinking jazz?!?!? - I don't think so.

but today even as Branford imediatley commented, what Evan Parker does, if not anything else, is *formidable*

so for at least 30 years, the technique and abilities of the established first generation or succeeding generations of free improvisors has not been in question.

see ICP live with Han, Misha and the rest of those briliant musicians and let me know....

[JETman]

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

Well with the 'Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' you have some of the most 'profound' sound or tone to come out of an instrument. Navigating your way through bop or even modal harmony is not the point. I always equate "poseurs" as usually from the Rock side of Modern music. In fact without the 'audience' you get the feeling the Rock Music 'spectacle' wouldn't come to life. Whereas, when you hear Ayler, Shepp or Sanders, it feels like the 'sound' each man makes from his instrument would have came to be, to quote Ornette 'of human feelings' alone.

Really? I think you may have just proven my point.

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

that is certainly true when it comes down to legends or non-legends from the 1960's. The great example was always Guiseppie Logan.

the first generation of british/european free improvisors started to change that as they came from different traditions but only included the american jazz and free jazz tradition as a part of where they were coming from. They *know* they were not americans and that whatever music they were playing was a different music that many for years wouldn't even consider it jazz or even related to jazz.

imagine hearing the Spontaneous Music ensemble circa 1973 with John Stevens, Trevor Watts, Evan Parker, and Derek Bailey with bot saxophonists squealing away on soprano saxophone and thinking jazz?!?!? - I don't think so.

but today even as Branford imediatley commented, what Evan Parker does, if not anything else, is *formidable*

so for at least 30 years, the technique and abilities of the established first generation or succeeding generations of free improvisors has not been in question.

see ICP live with Han, Misha and the rest of those briliant musicians and let me know....

Not even God is formidable if he doesn't touch you.

There are no absolutes.

[robertoart]

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

Well with the 'Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' you have some of the most 'profound' sound or tone to come out of an instrument. Navigating your way through bop or even modal harmony is not the point. I always equate "poseurs" as usually from the Rock side of Modern music. In fact without the 'audience' you get the feeling the Rock Music 'spectacle' wouldn't come to life. Whereas, when you hear Ayler, Shepp or Sanders, it feels like the 'sound' each man makes from his instrument would have came to be, to quote Ornette 'of human feelings' alone.

Really? I think you may have just proven my point.

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

that is certainly true when it comes down to legends or non-legends from the 1960's. The great example was always Guiseppie Logan.

the first generation of british/european free improvisors started to change that as they came from different traditions but only included the american jazz and free jazz tradition as a part of where they were coming from. They *know* they were not americans and that whatever music they were playing was a different music that many for years wouldn't even consider it jazz or even related to jazz.

imagine hearing the Spontaneous Music ensemble circa 1973 with John Stevens, Trevor Watts, Evan Parker, and Derek Bailey with bot saxophonists squealing away on soprano saxophone and thinking jazz?!?!? - I don't think so.

but today even as Branford imediatley commented, what Evan Parker does, if not anything else, is *formidable*

so for at least 30 years, the technique and abilities of the established first generation or succeeding generations of free improvisors has not been in question.

see ICP live with Han, Misha and the rest of those briliant musicians and let me know....

Not even God is formidable if he doesn't touch you.

There are no absolutes.

Yes there are.

And there weren't many poseurs in the Free Jazz world.

Just a lot of musicians who had some less than middle class lives and upbringings to deal with.

Hopefully they were spared having a conservative and closed minded listener like you as part of their audience.

Edited February 6, 2013 by freelancer

[JSngry]

If there are no absolutes, then there really are no poseurs and it's all interpretation, on both the sending and receiving end.

I tend to accept that, but I also tend to accept that I also have the right and ability to accept or not accept whatever interpretations are sent my way to be interpreted, and to whatever extent and to whatever ends may arise.

Not sure if that's absolute, though.

[JETman]

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

Well with the 'Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' you have some of the most 'profound' sound or tone to come out of an instrument. Navigating your way through bop or even modal harmony is not the point. I always equate "poseurs" as usually from the Rock side of Modern music. In fact without the 'audience' you get the feeling the Rock Music 'spectacle' wouldn't come to life. Whereas, when you hear Ayler, Shepp or Sanders, it feels like the 'sound' each man makes from his instrument would have came to be, to quote Ornette 'of human feelings' alone.

Really? I think you may have just proven my point.

One thing I've always found interesting about the avant-garde and free jazz spectrums: most people who comment on it equate "lack of understanding" with "genius". To me, one either connects or he doesn't. Simple as that. Frankly, I and many others have often thought of some of the practitioners of these idioms as "poseurs". It would be heresy to mention in these parts, but the Aylers, Shepps and Sanders' of this world are thought of in this way more often than not. I know that I've occasionally been left more than cold by any of the millions (!) of Steve Lacy recordings out there. Of course, nothing's black and white -- it's all about the connection.

That being said, let Branford say whatever he wants and look as foolish as he wants. It all doesn't matter -- the man can play, and that's good enough for me.

that is certainly true when it comes down to legends or non-legends from the 1960's. The great example was always Guiseppie Logan.

the first generation of british/european free improvisors started to change that as they came from different traditions but only included the american jazz and free jazz tradition as a part of where they were coming from. They *know* they were not americans and that whatever music they were playing was a different music that many for years wouldn't even consider it jazz or even related to jazz.

imagine hearing the Spontaneous Music ensemble circa 1973 with John Stevens, Trevor Watts, Evan Parker, and Derek Bailey with bot saxophonists squealing away on soprano saxophone and thinking jazz?!?!? - I don't think so.

but today even as Branford imediatley commented, what Evan Parker does, if not anything else, is *formidable*

so for at least 30 years, the technique and abilities of the established first generation or succeeding generations of free improvisors has not been in question.

see ICP live with Han, Misha and the rest of those briliant musicians and let me know....

Not even God is formidable if he doesn't touch you.

There are no absolutes.

Yes there are.

And there weren't many poseurs in the Free Jazz world.

Just a lot of musicians who had some less than middle class lives and upbringings to deal with.

Hopefully they were spared having a conservative and closed minded listener like you as part of their audience.

Fwiw, how can you call me closeminded without knowing me or what I listen to?

Also, fwiw, if you witnessed Pharoah today, I doubt you'd call him "less than middle class".

Third, don't most musicians begin from the same place?

All I was trying to say was that attaching a cool label to music (such as avant-garde) doesn't automatically make it genius. But you didn't get that because you remain laser focused on defending the merits of someone, anyone screaming into his instrument or banging wildly on a drum kit or piano keys and being convinced that it's the highest of all artistic expression.

If it is in fact the highest of all artistic expression, I can assure you it's not because it's "different". It's because of its ability to touch you. If Branford Marsalis isn't touched, what do you care? Does that make him less valid musically?

[JSngry]

Besides, absolutes are only as absolute as the belief system they serve. One guy thinks you gotta make all the changes to be "saying something", another guy thinks, no, what I have to say ain't got nothing to do with no changes, and...they're both right. One guy thinks you gotta have a steady pulse to swing, another guy says, no, swing is relative to its own internal imperatives, not some metrical snapshot, and...they're both right. One guy says says, hey, you've held that horn for three months, you have no right to make any claim of making any kind of statement, the other guy says, yes I do, I've used those three months to hone in on the exact sounds I want to make, I know how to make those sounds and since I know what I'm doing as far as what I'm doing, I have every right to make this statement, and again - they're both right.

So, these "absolutes" are only valid within the belief system that they sustain. What people have a the right (I'd call it an obligation for any "serious listener", but that's an absolute within my own belief system) is to check it all out, and decide what's what for yourself, and understand that it might be something completely different for somebody else.

Also, the "artist" needs to realize that the choices they make are just one half of the equation. The other half is on the receiving end. The guy who plays all the changes and swings and has virtuoso command can be just as obsolete and irrelevant as the guy who is still making the same three-months-on-the-instrument statement for 25 years, just because times come when peoples done heard both of those things to death and they both end up being audio and spiritual wallpaper instead of windows to new perspectives and inspirations.

Except for those for which they don't.

So...there's your absolute right there. "There are no absolutes" is an absolute itself, and that's yet another contradiction in which we find our truth.

[robertoart]

Besides, absolutes are only as absolute as the belief system they serve. One guy thinks you gotta make all the changes to be "saying something", another guy thinks, no, what I have to say ain't got nothing to do with no changes, and...they're both right. One guy thinks you gotta have a steady pulse to swing, another guy says, no, swing is relative to its own internal imperatives, not some metrical snapshot, and...they're both right. One guy says says, hey, you've held that horn for three months, you have no right to make any claim of making any kind of statement, the other guy says, yes I do, I've used those three months to hone in on the exact sounds I want to make, I know how to make those sounds and since I know what I'm doing as far as what I'm doing, I have every right to make this statement, and again - they're both right.

So, these "absolutes" are only valid within the belief system that they sustain. What people have a the right (I'd call it an obligation for any "serious listener", but that's an absolute within my own belief system) is to check it all out, and decide what's what for yourself, and understand that it might be something completely different for somebody else.

Also, the "artist" needs to realize that the choices they make are just one half of the equation. The other half is on the receiving end. The guy who plays all the changes and swings and has virtuoso command can be just as obsolete and irrelevant as the guy who is still making the same three-months-on-the-instrument statement for 25 years, just because times come when peoples done heard both of those things to death and they both end up being audio and spiritual wallpaper instead of windows to new perspectives and inspirations.

Except for those for which they don't.

So...there's your absolute right there. "There are no absolutes" is an absolute itself, and that's yet another contradiction in which we find our truth.

Seriously, how many Free players sound like they have only been thinking with and playing the instrument for three months?

Maybe somebody back in the day got some gigs or a tiny amount of attention on the momentum of a nascent Movement, and this probably pushed their development along at a faster rate than if they had been stuck in a room practicing ii/v/i's for three years. Even Sonny Sharrock went to Berklee.

[JSngry]

The "three months" thing is apocryphal. But even to this day, there's a noticeable differentiation between who knows how much of what. And that has as much to do with anything as they and/or us need for it to at any given moment.

I would find it silly, very silly, to pretend that, say Sonny Simmons and, say, Marzette Watts knew the same amount of the same thing. But after getting past that, it comes back to what works for who and why, and how much of all that matters to me and to what degree for how long - and why.

I would like to yet again call bullshit on the notion that Albert Ayler and Pharoah Sanders were just making noise or whatever. No. They were playing the saxophone, they knew exactly what they were doing and they had total control over it. If people can't or won't hear the focus and direction of what they were playing and can't or won't hear or know the difference between that and mere finger-waggling, then so be it. Those guys could play the saxophone. (point of interest, perhaps - I got a good buddy who was hanging with George Garzone - everybody digs George Garzone, right? - and my buddy says, George, how did you get to be so open to everything, and Garzone says, Albert Ayler, listen to Albert Ayler, that's the shit right there, so my buddy comes home and says you got some Albert Ayler sides, right? and I say LOL HELLYEAH BITCH, so I pull some out and he gets to listening analytically in a tenor sense and I can see his jaw start dropping further and further and he finally says, damn, this motherfucker is HEARING this shit, and I say, yeah, well, yeah, exactly, so my buddy picks up his tenor and start finger-waggling trying to make it come out - I should add that my buddy is a freaking virtuoso in every way of the traditional sense - and finally he starts laughing and says "this...is going to take some time". Which really, is what Trane was so excited about with Ayler, the whole "upper partials of energy" thing, it's not imagination, it exists, scientifically, overtones and speed of sound and all that stuff, and that's what moved Pharoah into how he played with Trane, checking out THAT thing instead of the changes thing that he started out being into. Trane would exhaust himself and then hand off to Pharoah to move into that next level of energy. And Pharoah, again, was playing very specific things, not just making random noises. So, "squealing", yeah, if that's all anybody can hear, well then, ok, that's all there is in it for you. But that's not all there is in it. Hardly. Anything but. That's really not even what it is, but..people choose what matters to them and what doesn't matter, and why or why not, so, hey.)

Archie Shepp, well, Archie could go either way, depending on how fuquitous he was feeling at any given day. And as he got older, he knew what he didn't know and set about learning it. But he was one of those guys who, what he did know, he could work the shit out if as he saw fit. "Frankenstein" (on The Way Ahead) is one tough tenor solo, no bullshit there. But the you get that Quarter/Dime thing and it's like, ok, hope you feel better now, dude.

Point being just that everybody's got freedom inside them and everybody's got limits and at any given moment, choices get made. Once choice after another, pretty soon you got a life going on, and then...be ready!

[Steve Reynolds]

I listened to free music and inside jazz for years and had my ins and out and ups and down with many musicians.

I had some periphery listening experiences with Tony Malaby until about 3 years ago I saw him live with a quartet that was Tony, Ben Monder, a bassist I forget and Nasheet Waits.

I thought for a bit then and afterword that what Malaby was doing with extended tones and completely overblowing at times beyond anything I had ever heard anyone do - both on soprano and especially on tenor with that loud band (Monder plays LOUD) - that he might have a little fakery in him.

After seeing him and hearing him maybe 8 or 10 times since, he is (as I have told him), the second *greatest*saxophonist in the world, he laughs when I told him who the *greatest* is (in my eyes only, of course), I say Evan Parker and I tell him you are kind of like Evan Parker with a groove.

whether anyone hear thinks like me or is less of an absolutist, the *idea* that a guy like Evan Parker or Tony Malaby or Albert Ayler or yes, even the late, great Papa Joe Maneri is a faker is tomfoolery at it's peak.

Isn't the faker the guy who hears Evan Parker for the first time in a while or ever and says " He's British, I know him"

DO YOU? REALLY?

I don't really think so

you knew Fred Anderson too, or maybe Edward Wilkerson or Michael Moore or Carlo Actis Dato - nah - you don't know this music - never really listened to it save for Trane - but that's only 45+ years ago - so nothing in free music can compare - GOD dies - we all know that too

I would be surpised if you ever saw Han and Misah play live - probably just know the Dolphy record when they were kids......

I guess - just cuz you signed up the David S. Ware Quartet to columbia those years back, we should give you props for supporting what some of us call *the* music.....

The last of the blue notes say hello.....ask Louis Moholo Moholo about Evan Parker and this music - you know him. HA!!

You Got Ears, You Gotta Listen - DVV

Edited February 6, 2013 by Steve Reynolds

[Blue Train]

You see anything with Marsalis and you know how it's going to end up. At least it's the least irritating one.

"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind."

- Duke Ellington

[JSngry]

I do get the wtf chuckles about not being able to tell the difference between Lockjaw & Zoot because of the tempo, or whatever left-field reason he had. That's just wack-a-doodle-doo.

I'm sure that Branford is a nice enough guy, though, and that counts for a lot away from music. But dude, Lockjaw...I could tell Lockjaw if I was deaf in one ear and couldn't hear out of the other two. Lockjaw would see to it.

[relyles]

I am looking forward to hearing Branford Marsalis in concert tonight at UCONN. There is room for everyone. Last week I heard Dave Burell in a solo performance and Gerald Cleaver's Black Host with Darius Jones and Cooper-Moore. I love it all!

[Hot Ptah]

Hmm -- he thinks James Moody might be Lew Tabackin and says this of a track where the two tenor soloists are Zoot Sims and Lockjaw Davis:

"This is going to be hard, man, because it’s old guys. This is hard to identify. For instance, Don Byas when he was younger, was influenced by Coleman Hawkins, but by the time they got older and were playing together, it was hard to tell one guy from the other."

I have tried to identify musicians in the Organissimo Blindfold Tests for years now, with a stunning lack of success (even as to albums which I own, and cannot identify when I hear them in the Blindfold Test). Unlike the live Blindfold Tests which these musicians are part of, I have the opportunity to play the Blindfold Test cuts several times and think about them at length. I still do extremely poorly.

So I am no longer hard on anyone who misses the identification of musicians in a Blindfold Test. Now granted, music is Branford's profession and main focus in life, so he should be able to do better than me. Still, I am in awe of anyone who can identify even one musician by hearing them in a Blindfold Test.

[Steve Reynolds]

I am looking forward to hearing Branford Marsalis in concert tonight at UCONN. There is room for everyone. Last week I heard Dave Burell in a solo performance and Gerald Cleaver's Black Host with Darius Jones and Cooper-Moore. I love it all!

Don't get me wrong, I think Branford is a hell of tenor saxophonist. Not a huge fan of his soprano playing but then again I havn't listened to nay of the recent recordings.

I have no issue with the music itself except that it just doesn't interest me so much as it is always the same or similar formats - quartet with sax, piano, bass and drums - same as I have little interest in the Jarrett trio for the same reasons - just not that interesting to me. I'm sure it would be a good show, but then again the Barry Harris trio is playing down the street from me - and they are great musicians - but they are playing music that is not really of interest to me - so it's a personal choice - I just find it a bit boring to be doing the same thing for 50 years as that trio would be doing - yet Harris is maybe the last bop pianist - and he grew up with the music - so he is no neobopper.

But as musicians, his current band is probably terrific as most experienced jazz musicians are terrific musicians. But I know to Branford as the name of his recording indicates, he just plays tunes.