Kenny Burrell

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

FWIW -- I found this 1995 Burrell album to be quite a snooze-inducer:

http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Lotus-Blossom/

I like that one - it's very relaxing and sometimes that's what you want/need.

MG

[robertoart]

FWIW -- I found this 1995 Burrell album to be quite a snooze-inducer:

http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Lotus-Blossom/

I think he'd made his mark well before 1995.

There is always a whiff of what Ethan Iverson calls 'the 'Ray Brown Trios' in much of Burrell's later day work, albeit through a veterans lens. But as MG say's, sometimes that what you need/want.

[Larry Kart]

Didn't say that he hadn't made his mark before then, but yes to your citation of Iverson's phrase.

[Dan Gould]

There is always a whiff of what Ethan Iverson calls 'the 'Ray Brown Trios' in much of Burrell's later day work, albeit through a veterans lens. But as MG say's, sometimes that what you need/want.

Just WTF does Ethan Iverson mean by a 'whiff of The Ray Brown Trios"?

What he better mean is "predictably excellent" but in context, I don't think so. With Gene Harris, that "whiff" is fucking heaven if you ask me.

[JSngry]

Burrell lost my interest once he got into that Helen Keane world. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not. Don't know, don't care.

But before then, he was musical comfort food for me. Never really fancy or surprising, just satisfying music that, like the man that ran over the dog, hit the Spot.

[robertoart]

There is always a whiff of what Ethan Iverson calls 'the 'Ray Brown Trios' in much of Burrell's later day work, albeit through a veterans lens. But as MG say's, sometimes that what you need/want.

Just WTF does Ethan Iverson mean by a 'whiff of The Ray Brown Trios"?

What he better mean is "predictably excellent" but in context, I don't think so. With Gene Harris, that "whiff" is fucking heaven if you ask me.

No, Iverson did not make this statement. Iverson used the term 'Ray Brown Trios' to describe younger generations of musicians being complacent with a generic standard. Of course, with a masterful survivor like Burrell, the fine line between generic professionalism and complacency can be drawn. But it is not really a fair one when taken into consideration against the longevity and age of the man. I was just listening to Up The Street And Around The Corner, and there is a fire in that very 'straightforward' music, that is to me just heaven. I assume this is recorded with the guitar and tone jimr refers too. The 'Velvet Glove' is still incendiary there. And the music has that 'post Coltrane modal vibe' - cross pollinating with the 'Lounge vibe' that I just love. It maybe changes a bit later, perhaps coinciding with the 'Ellingtonia' era for the man. and the changing times.

[mjzee]

It should be noted that those "Ray Brown Trios" (whoever they are) probably play a lot more enjoyable music than does Ethan Iverson. Every try chillin' out to The Bad Plus?

[robertoart]

This thread has got me listening to KB again a bit more. it also coincided with visiting an Antipodean equivalent of 'the County Fair and hearing my old guitar teacher play for the first time in 15 odd years. Back then he was Scofield-ised in a very learned kind of way. So it was a nice surprise to hear him last week with an L5, reminding me so much of KB (and then some). The Velvet Glove was very much in evidence. And hearing him did my heart good. He might even let me hang with him in an 'over a cup of coffee' kind of way .

So you should always be wary of making claims (sgcim), because like James Blood Ulmer said about his days on the Chitlin circuit 'there was always that 'one guy' - maybe in overalls who never left the farm much - whose guitar playing would run your ass right out of town'.

[robertoart]

WTF "claims" have I made? That I can play ONE melody close to how the composer intended it to be played? Wow. I'll be lookin' over my shoulder for that "guy in the overalls" who's sat there like JSngry and I have, with BATAT playing SM over and over again, listening for Geo. Barrows' (whom I worked with many times over a two year period) bari sax line, and studying big band derangements of SM,

and just quaking with fear and dread at the anticipation of being humiliated and handed my ass by the genius in the overalls. ; - 0

So first of all, Burrell's performance of Stolen Moments is criticised by you as such - "and though he at least tried to use some of those cluster voicings that are the essence of the greatness of that tune, he fell far short of capturing it, either harmonically or even being able to play it at the correct tempo", fair enough if that is your perception, but then for good measure you add with a hubris that I never see here from the musicians who contribute - "And if you're saying to your screen, "Oh yeah, let's see you do a better job", the answer is, "yes, I can".

Then later on Burrell's version is described by you as 'great'.

Perhaps some consistency to go with your EGO?

BTW what Burrell version are you talking about? Is it the one on Moon And Sand?

Edited March 5, 2013 by freelancer

[robertoart]

It also funny how some posters (not many if at all here) have that uncanny knack of entering into a discussion and drawing attention to themselves and somehow making the discourse all about them.

[mjzee]

Actually, freelancer, you seem to be injecting a note of hostility that wasn't here before. The guy made a statement; why not leave him alone?

[JSngry]

WWKBD?

[king ubu]

So you all like SM?

I still like it (I think), but in my experience, it was one of the most over-played and over-recorded tunes during the 80's and 90's. I had to stop listening to jazz radio at times, because I was hearing that tune three times a day.

Well, I was thinking this thread was kosher no mo' ... but I see it was just my sick mind

[sgcim]

WTF "claims" have I made? That I can play ONE melody close to how the composer intended it to be played? Wow. I'll be lookin' over my shoulder for that "guy in the overalls" who's sat there like JSngry and I have, with BATAT playing SM over and over again, listening for Geo. Barrows' (whom I worked with many times over a two year period) bari sax line, and studying big band derangements of SM,

and just quaking with fear and dread at the anticipation of being humiliated and handed my ass by the genius in the overalls. ; - 0

So first of all, Burrell's performance of Stolen Moments is criticised by you as such - "and though he at least tried to use some of those cluster voicings that are the essence of the greatness of that tune, he fell far short of capturing it, either harmonically or even being able to play it at the correct tempo", fair enough if that is your perception, but then for good measure you add with a hubris that I never see here from the musicians who contribute - "And if you're saying to your screen, "Oh yeah, let's see you do a better job", the answer is, "yes, I can".

Then later on Burrell's version is described by you as 'great'.

Perhaps some consistency to go with your EGO?

BTW what Burrell version are you talking about? Is it the one on Moon And Sand? a friend of mine had it on a CD named "Stolen Moments". As far as the "great" comment about KB's version goes, I was referring to KB's blowing on the tune, not his playing of the head, but at least KB made the attempt to play some of ON's original harmonies, which is more than I can say for Lee Ritenour, Stanley Jordan, John Basile, Jerry Hahn, and the others who have recorded it.

Let me just say in closing that KB was my first and strongest influence. I sat in my basement and copied every note of his version of "God Bless The Child" from the LP of the same name when I was a kid, along with his solo version of "Just a Sittin' and a Rockin'" and "The Shadow of Your Smile" from the Night Song LP. When I play a ballad or a blues-tinged phrase, KB is still my first and greatest inspiration.

And yes, this post is all about me; this website is all about me; in fact, the entire Internet is all about me- I invented it! ; - )

[robertoart]

Lee Ritenour's version of Stolen Moments sucks.

[Larry Kart]

Another county heard from -- the original SM recording, with Richard Williams and Jaws(!) and a nice exposed passage by Jimmy Cleveland in the ensemble:

[Jim R]

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

I think KB has gone through some definite stylistic changes over the years. I've never found any of his recordings to be bad, but his Muse and Concord material can get a bit repetetive in terms of sound and approach (still like the song material he chose, though). Personally, I think I got the least out of this recording:

Nice idea, but the writing just didn't do a lot for me.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Jim R

[jlhoots]

All of this "controversy" over one of the least controversial players ever. Ahhh - the internet.

[mjzee]

I found the thread refreshing. It's instructive to compare, to prioritize...it's important to be able to say "this recording is better than that one" or "I didn't like what he did here." Why not? As long as we've paid the price of admission, we've earned the right to state an opinion.

[Milestones]

As creator of the thread, I can only say I never expected it to hit 122 posts!

Any thoughts on Kenny's work with Coleman Hawkins? There was "Soul," and also "Bluesy Burrell (a bit less successful and Hawk was not on all the tracks). Wasn't there one more?

[Jim R]

As creator of the thread, I can only say I never expected it to hit 122 posts!

I would have expected at least 244.

Any thoughts on Kenny's work with Coleman Hawkins? There was "Soul," and also "Bluesy Burrell (a bit less successful and Hawk was not on all the tracks). Wasn't there one more?

The Hawk Relaxes.

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

Feel free to not consider those as rhetorical questions, btw.

[mikeweil]

All of this "controversy" over one of the least controversial players ever. Ahhh - the internet.

[Big Wheel]

OK, I'll take a crack. This is one of those areas where I think those with training instinctively "get it" and those without don't.

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

In most such cases, yes, it's fair to offer this kind of criticism. "Oh but this guy is a LEGEND you can't criticize his note choice or phrasing or rhythmic feel, because he's a legend for a reason" doesn't wash.

There's a long tradition of older players coming down hard on younger ones for various deviations from "authenticity" when playing. The big example that comes to mind is inattention to detail to the lyrics of standards, leading to phrasing that sounds awkward or weak when you know the original sheet music. But there's no reason this can't cut the other way too.

In this case, the essence of Oliver Nelson's writing isn't just the melody or the changes, it's the voicings in the harmony. That's the reason The Blues and the Abstract Truth is a top-100 jazz recording and every cover of it is just some dude blowing over a minor blues after playing the melody line. So unless KB (or another player) is doing something else that's equally hip on the head, it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

...adding to say, this is the same reason Larry Goldings's "Hans Groiner" character is hilarious. He's taking things to an extreme by not treating Monk's music with the same pedestrian attitude as 95% of players playing the tunes out of the Real Book. Only the gag in this case is that Groiner has thought very carefully about Monk's music...and as a result has made deliberate harmonic/rhythmic choices that are the exact opposite of what makes Monk's music tick, taking care to iron out every single quirk.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Big Wheel

[king ubu]

Any thoughts on Kenny's work with Coleman Hawkins? There was "Soul," and also "Bluesy Burrell (a bit less successful and Hawk was not on all the tracks). Wasn't there one more?

Much love for "Soul"! Very much love for that one!

.. it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

Now that's a most valid question indeed! But one that can be asked about gazillions of tune choices, I think.

Why bother to play Monk, Mingus, Ellington? Won't work in most of the cases.

The other way 'round it works just as well: why write these heady, boring, dry originals when there's that much good material around?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

OK, I'll take a crack. This is one of those areas where I think those with training instinctively "get it" and those without don't.

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

In most such cases, yes, it's fair to offer this kind of criticism. "Oh but this guy is a LEGEND you can't criticize his note choice or phrasing or rhythmic feel, because he's a legend for a reason" doesn't wash.

There's a long tradition of older players coming down hard on younger ones for various deviations from "authenticity" when playing. The big example that comes to mind is inattention to detail to the lyrics of standards, leading to phrasing that sounds awkward or weak when you know the original sheet music. But there's no reason this can't cut the other way too.

In this case, the essence of Oliver Nelson's writing isn't just the melody or the changes, it's the voicings in the harmony. That's the reason The Blues and the Abstract Truth is a top-100 jazz recording and every cover of it is just some dude blowing over a minor blues after playing the melody line. So unless KB (or another player) is doing something else that's equally hip on the head, it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

...adding to say, this is the same reason Larry Goldings's "Hans Groiner" character is hilarious. He's taking things to an extreme by not treating Monk's music with the same pedestrian attitude as 95% of players playing the tunes out of the Real Book. Only the gag in this case is that Groiner has thought very carefully about Monk's music...and as a result has made deliberate harmonic/rhythmic choices that are the exact opposite of what makes Monk's music tick, taking care to iron out every single quirk.

I'm most grateful for that explanation, which I'm sure is right, as far as it goes. But acknowledging that most listeners are like me - I have Jaws' version of 'The stolen moment' but not 'Blues & the abstract truth' - and Kenny, I feel, has always played more for people like me than for a musicianly audience, what we want is for jazz musicians to play a variety of material, some familiar, some unfamiliar, and to create thereby an entertainment for us (which may move us greatly, or not). In this, tunes are more important than the harmonies and the voicings (though there are some exceptions, such as Fats Domino's recordings, where the way the band is massed is the most important thing). Since I don't think I've heard Kenny's version of SM, (or the Nelson version on BATAT) I can't be sure whether his carrying those voicings into the head of his version would make any difference to me. But IN THEORY, it doesn't matter; us oiks have to accept what musicians offer, because we can't do it ourselves, or even know (or want to know) how it's done.

MG