Mingus Workshops 1964-65

[J.A.W.]

Just noticed that they have free shipping within the EU too over a certain amount. Looks like I'll be joining you ! These guys have definitely noticed and addressed a gap in the market.

I looked at the cost of the Threadgill and figured that the Spanish site would only save a small amount of money.

Unless tax/duty is due for direct purchases from Mosaic. In that case most sets from the Spanish store are cheaper.

[skeith]

The Monterrey sides are great performances... the sound is so so. The My Favorite Quintet stuff is great with great sound and yes McPherson really shines on these sides... but everyone is just soo good.

[sidewinder]

Wow - got hold of my box today after paying the Danegeld (pre-ordered and the box-numbering is already up to 950-something ). They even managed to damage the shipping box ! Have just listened to the first Town Hall CD so far but it is fantastic - much better fidelity than I remember. The 'So Long Eric' and 'Praying With Eric' are outstanding performances. As is Jaki Byard's intro piano feature.

Nice booklet and essays too. Sue Mingus even gives a mention to us 'non-Facebook emailers' !

Edited December 1, 2012 by sidewinder

[skeith]

what did you guys think about Mingus taking a swipe at the Avant garde in his stage announcement before "Bird Preamble" on Disc 7, then launching into a Parker medley that at times sounded like Bird Meets Ornette?

Interesting from a guy who employed Eric Dolphy.

[JSngry]

what did you guys think about Mingus taking a swipe at the Avant garde in his stage announcement before "Bird Preamble" on Disc 7, then launching into a Parker medley that at times sounded like Bird Meets Ornette?

Interesting from a guy who employed Eric Dolphy.

Mingus never did get fully on board with the free jazz "movement"...he was skeptical of, for lack of a better term, breaking the rules before you knew them. And he was ambiguous about Ornette, too, once calling him "old-fashioned" in a not-necessarily flattering way, as well as talking about "he only plays in the key of C..he's a genius in the key of C" or something like that. And the Adams/Bluiett fron line, he was on tehm about not knowing the changes, just freaking out...something like that...but he liked the energy. And remember - Dolphy was a virtuoso is the traditional sense, knew all his instruments inside and out, knew theory backwards and forwards, he "knew" what he was doing as both intellectual schematic and emotional imperative.

There's always a line between radicals from within tradition and radicals from without it. I think it's safe to say that Mingus was a radical from within, somebody who didn't feel the need to "destroy the rules" nearly as much as he did to forcibly remake them in a way that would accommodate him.

[king ubu]

Yeah, Dolphy was a Bird man ... somehow I still find it weird to consider him avantgarde. He was his own garde, firmly rooted, and I guess it's just that which allowed him to go where he went the way he did.

Love that "genius in the key of C" line, haven't heard it before (or forgot) - I think it's not too far from truth. But obviously Ornette was and remains firmly rooted just as well, albeit in a very different manner from Dolphy.

Knowing changes ... makes me think of Shepp recently, just freaking out. Why the hell play Ellington and "Yesterday" if you have no effin' clue about them changes, Sir? He also sang "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" without bothering about the meloday whatsoever ... sure, the whiteys love him, but there's really not much to it - posturing, re-appropriation, whatever ... you can explain many a thing if you want to, but it might still grow pretty old after a while.

[JSngry]

Shepp came to learn to play changes fairly well, but it was long after his initial burst of fame. And I'm not sure that it was ever going to be the first thing that he was "about".

Truthfully, I've been on both sides of that fence, and it's still hard for me to reach any hard and fast conclusion one way or the other as far as "validity" of any particular expression at any given moment goes. But I can say that the more developed a skill set you have, the more you can build past any initial momentum you might generate from sheer emotional immediacy. So the question then becomes do you want to be the jazz equivalent of a "one hit wonder", and if so, fine, one hit wonders are still wonders, and sometimes they are WONDERFUL wonders, but...you got a life to think about too, and being "in the moment" is indeed the object of the game, but moments change, that's why they're moments, and eventually they change enough as to not be there anymore, and then what?

[MomsMobley]

this can't be emphasized and understood enough: that Dolphy was a consummate musician in every possible way-- praise be Hampton Hawes Sr., Lloyd Reese, Eric's parents etc +++... There was nothing Mingus couldn't love about him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOd4TlP7MP8

And remember - Dolphy was a virtuoso is the traditional sense, knew all his instruments inside and out, knew theory backwards and forwards, he "knew" what he was doing as both intellectual schematic and emotional imperative.

[ElginThompson]

what did you guys think about Mingus taking a swipe at the Avant garde in his stage announcement before "Bird Preamble" on Disc 7, then launching into a Parker medley that at times sounded like Bird Meets Ornette?

Interesting from a guy who employed Eric Dolphy.

I laughed at that statement ... not scoffed, but genuinely thought it was funny. Dolphy was never fully "out" though ... always on the edge, but as Parkeriana aptly demonstrates, he could play the changes.

[king ubu]

Shepp came to learn to play changes fairly well, but it was long after his initial burst of fame. And I'm not sure that it was ever going to be the first thing that he was "about".

Oh, I'm sure ... I love some of his stuff. But in that concert he obviously didn't bother. It was rather painful in "Yesterday".

Truthfully, I've been on both sides of that fence, and it's still hard for me to reach any hard and fast conclusion one way or the other as far as "validity" of any particular expression at any given moment goes. But I can say that the more developed a skill set you have, the more you can build past any initial momentum you might generate from sheer emotional immediacy. So the question then becomes do you want to be the jazz equivalent of a "one hit wonder", and if so, fine, one hit wonders are still wonders, and sometimes they are WONDERFUL wonders, but...you got a life to think about too, and being "in the moment" is indeed the object of the game, but moments change, that's why they're moments, and eventually they change enough as to not be there anymore, and then what?

I hear you. But still ... I used to endorse all the freaking out and had to learn that some it grew thin after repeated hearing (George Adams partly falls into that bag for me) and I got to more and more appreciate those musicians who bring some kind of organization into play - Threadgill for instance. But it is a never-ending and ultimately open debate for me as well, I guess.

[JSngry]

But it is a never-ending and ultimately open debate for me as well, I guess.

And that is how it should be, I think...balancing "the moment" with "the timeless"...choosing to eliminate one or the other means denying spontaneous inspiration on the one hand, ongoing traction on the other. Either way you're a prisoner...

Hell, you're a prisoner in some form or fashion no matter what. But at least you should be able to decorate your cell walls!

[paul secor]

There's been lots of guys who could play changes. Not all of them could play music worth my interest.

As for Shepp: there's good Shepp, bad Shepp, and in between. - for various reasons. I listen to the good Shepp.

[skeith]

Interesting comments from everyone. And didn't you think the "Bird Preamble" was influenced by and sounded a bit like Ornette at times?

[JSngry]

Sure. It's not that Mingus was "disinterested" in Ornette or anything like that, probably more that he likely heard the genius but still harbored "reservations" as well.

Probably one of those "had to be there" things to fully appreciate in full, no doubt. Especially now, it's hard to realize just how much of a "slap in the face" Ornette originally was to a musical culture that had come to insist on technical superiority as a prerequisite to acceptance. I know I can just begin to imagine it, because it's evident to me that Ornette could play in the conventional sense, always has been evident. Same with Albert Ayler. Some of that stuff you just cannot do without some serious, dedicated, focused practice.

But I came to it all after the initial impact, and seeing the photo of Mingus, Ornette, & Kenny Dorham playing together at the Newport Rebels festival is kinda like, oh, ok, that might have been a challenge for everybody concerned for all kinds of reasons, like, KD is gonna stay in town, Mingus is gonna look to expand the limits, and Ornette isn't even concerned with gravity, and then, yeah, some perspective begins to form about what a fundamental shift Ornette was really bringing to the table, and why not everybody, even some kindred spirits, didn't jump right in and take off in the same car.

[Larry Kart]

FWIW, "disinterested" and "uninterested" are two similar sounding but very different words. The former means that one "doesn't have an interest in," as in one "is impartial, is not backing a particular side/favoring a particular outcome." The latter means one "isn't interested in" something, as in one "doesn't care about it." Baseball umpires/football referees/judges, etc. should be disinterested parties, but they certainly should not be uninterested in what's going on in front of them.

[JSngry]

Duly notated.

And I think it is accurate to say that Mingus was not "disinterested" in Ornette (was Mingus ever disinterested about anything? ), or that he was not "uninterested". He was interested, irregardless of which prefix is amended, although I'll make no claim whatsomever to be able to accurately ascertain to what degree which.

And Ornette would be, like, ok, a prefix is just a pivot tone, and Mingus would be, yeah, but you gotta know where you're pivoting from and where you're pivoting to, and Ornette would be, doesn't matter, really, because after you get there, you're already thinking about where to go next and in the end, you say what you say and it means what it means and once it's said it's already said, and Mingus would say, well in that case there's no beginning or end, really, up is down and right is left and in is out, and one is all, and Ornette would be, yeah, that's pretty much it, and Mingus would be all ERIC, HELP ME OUT HERE!!!

Thus the beauty of it all.

Edited December 12, 2012 by JSngry

[felser]

Great stuff. generates so many thoughts in me, and I'll just pull in a couple. I remember reading (I forget the source) about how Coltrane knew the in's and out's of the theory and fundamentals better than anyone ever, and used that as his foundation, and yet many in the "New Thing" held him up as proof that "you didn't need any of that theory stuff, you just play what you feel". Pharoah Sanders is another one, like George Adams, who could fall into "freaking out" as a crutch. Many of his solos in the early 70's were so formulaic ("here comes the freakout"), yet he has shown what seems to me to be a mastery of technique and ability to play changes, ballads, etc. in his later decades (to me, much moreso than Adams did, though I like Adams, but found his "inside" albums on Blue Note gimmicky). And don't get me wrong, I immensely enjoy much of Sander's 60's/70's solo stuff. His work with Coltrane, OTOH, remains almost totally lost on me, and I sometimes fast-forward through his (and Jimmy Garrison's) solos when listening. Albert Ayler, I have spent 40 years trying to decide if I think he was a fraud or not (still undecided), yet I continue to listen. Some of that is a function of time and place, but there's gotta be more to it than that (doesn't there?). I'm sure this will likely lead to several rebuttals, including where/why/how I am wrong, and I look forward to and will learn and grow from those rebuttals.

[JSngry]

Regarding Ayler, just listen to Spiritual Unity & Vibrations...there's some passages in there where he plays very fluent lines that are "traditional" in nature, like lines from etudes or some such. He plays them with an ease, a fluency, that only comes with hard work - i.e.- dedicated practice.

Pharoah's ESP side is revealing too. Made before he joined Trane, it's all change playing of varying inspirations (within the same solo, even!). But again, you can tell that the skills are there, that the work has been done to get control of the instrument.

What you can also hear in both of them is tone. Good, big, strong, controlled tones in all registers and at all dynamic levels. That type of control is not accidental, it's impossible to get there without putting in the time to develop the physical tools needed to execute like that.

What I won't say about either of them is that they were demonstrating great mastery of any type of "playing the changes". You can learn the instrument really well and still not develop change-based improvisational skills, especially if you feel a calling to do something else (like both did - Pharaoh was good, but still green, and Ayler seemed like he was primed from jump to go where he went). But the difference between Ayler, and, say, Giuseppi Logan, as far as who has really learned the traditional mechanics of the saxophone and who is just using the saxophone to their own expressive ends with no real concern for traditional mechanics is pretty obvious, I think. Not that one way has any more intrinsic and/or immediate value than the other. "Ragged but right" is a fact of life. But there is a difference, and it plays out over time far more often than not.

[jazzbo]

Interesting comments from everyone. And didn't you think the "Bird Preamble" was influenced by and sounded a bit like Ornette at times?

You know, I haven't listened in a long while and need to change that, but some of the very last recorded Bird sounded, to me, as if he were entering into a new territory not unlike the sounds on those Parkeranias, and sounding as if he were taking step towars a Colemanesque set of ideas and structure.

[skeith]

I hear Mingus's comment before Bird Preamble and then the subsquent performance as Mingus saying to the Avant-garde "I can do what you guys do, but you guys can't do what I can do."

[colinmce]

Interesting comments from everyone. And didn't you think the "Bird Preamble" was influenced by and sounded a bit like Ornette at times?

You know, I haven't listened in a long while and need to change that, but some of the very last recorded Bird sounded, to me, as if he were entering into a new territory not unlike the sounds on those Parkeranias, and sounding as if he were taking step towars a Colemanesque set of ideas and structure.

Ornette said that he felt as though Charlie Parker would have liked the Quartet's music and I wholly agree. I always wonder how different Ornette's reception in 1959 might have been with Bird's blessing.

[Chuck Nessa]

Regarding Ayler, just listen to Spiritual Unity & Vibrations...there's some passages in there where he plays very fluent lines that are "traditional" in nature, like lines from etudes or some such. He plays them with an ease, a fluency, that only comes with hard work - i.e.- dedicated practice.

Pharoah's ESP side is revealing too. Made before he joined Trane, it's all change playing of varying inspirations (within the same solo, even!). But again, you can tell that the skills are there, that the work has been done to get control of the instrument.

What you can also hear in both of them is tone. Good, big, strong, controlled tones in all registers and at all dynamic levels. That type of control is not accidental, it's impossible to get there without putting in the time to develop the physical tools needed to execute like that.

What I won't say about either of them is that they were demonstrating great mastery of any type of "playing the changes". You can learn the instrument really well and still not develop change-based improvisational skills, especially if you feel a calling to do something else (like both did - Pharaoh was good, but still green, and Ayler seemed like he was primed from jump to go where he went). But the difference between Ayler, and, say, Giuseppi Logan, as far as who has really learned the traditional mechanics of the saxophone and who is just using the saxophone to their own expressive ends with no real concern for traditional mechanics is pretty obvious, I think. Not that one way has any more intrinsic and/or immediate value than the other. "Ragged but right" is a fact of life. But there is a difference, and it plays out over time far more often than not.

[CraigP]

Regarding Ayler, just listen to Spiritual Unity & Vibrations...there's some passages in there where he plays very fluent lines that are "traditional" in nature, like lines from etudes or some such. He plays them with an ease, a fluency, that only comes with hard work - i.e.- dedicated practice.

Pharoah's ESP side is revealing too. Made before he joined Trane, it's all change playing of varying inspirations (within the same solo, even!). But again, you can tell that the skills are there, that the work has been done to get control of the instrument.

What you can also hear in both of them is tone. Good, big, strong, controlled tones in all registers and at all dynamic levels. That type of control is not accidental, it's impossible to get there without putting in the time to develop the physical tools needed to execute like that.

What I won't say about either of them is that they were demonstrating great mastery of any type of "playing the changes". You can learn the instrument really well and still not develop change-based improvisational skills, especially if you feel a calling to do something else (like both did - Pharaoh was good, but still green, and Ayler seemed like he was primed from jump to go where he went). But the difference between Ayler, and, say, Giuseppi Logan, as far as who has really learned the traditional mechanics of the saxophone and who is just using the saxophone to their own expressive ends with no real concern for traditional mechanics is pretty obvious, I think. Not that one way has any more intrinsic and/or immediate value than the other. "Ragged but right" is a fact of life. But there is a difference, and it plays out over time far more often than not.

Nicely put. And this causes me to reconsider Ayler, who I've always thought was very limited, but as you said might not have been interested in "playing the changes".

[John L]

Sure. It's not that Mingus was "disinterested" in Ornette or anything like that, probably more that he likely heard the genius but still harbored "reservations" as well.

Probably one of those "had to be there" things to fully appreciate in full, no doubt. Especially now, it's hard to realize just how much of a "slap in the face" Ornette originally was to a musical culture that had come to insist on technical superiority as a prerequisite to acceptance. I know I can just begin to imagine it, because it's evident to me that Ornette could play in the conventional sense, always has been evident. Same with Albert Ayler. Some of that stuff you just cannot do without some serious, dedicated, focused practice.

But I came to it all after the initial impact, and seeing the photo of Mingus, Ornette, & Kenny Dorham playing together at the Newport Rebels festival is kinda like, oh, ok, that might have been a challenge for everybody concerned for all kinds of reasons, like, KD is gonna stay in town, Mingus is gonna look to expand the limits, and Ornette isn't even concerned with gravity, and then, yeah, some perspective begins to form about what a fundamental shift Ornette was really bringing to the table, and why not everybody, even some kindred spirits, didn't jump right in and take off in the same car.

Yes. It wasn't only Mingus. Very few jazz giants from the 50s accepted Ornette at first. He was the really the first to break the unwritten law that required demonstrating fluency and gaining respect in the existing game before moving to new territory.

[jazzbo]

Maybe it's from a later time period's perspective, but for me the Contemporary recordings don't hide the fact that Ornette was fluent enough in the jazz that came before him. I'm not sure he "gained" enough respect. . . but it was clear he could play.

Edited December 17, 2012 by jazzbo