Gene Harris Superband

[Larry Kart]

Just for the heck of it I picked up a used copy the other day of a 2-CD compilation of two albums by the so-called Gene Harris Superband, “LIVE AT TOWN HALL” AND “WORLD TOUR 1990” — sorry for the caps but I hit that key by mistake and am not going to type it all over. 

Harris is Harris, but other soloists are heard,and the band itself is quite something. Collective personnel is Johnny Coles, Harry Edison, Michael Mossman, Joe Mosello, Glenn Drewes, James Morrison, tpts; Urbie Green, Morrison, Eddie Bert, Paul Faulise, George Bohannon, Robin Eubanks, trbs.; Jerry Dodgion, Frank Wess, James Moody, Ralph Moore, Plas Johnson, Jeff Clayton, Gary Smulyan, reeds; Ray Brown, Herb Ellis, Kenny Burrell, Jeff Hamilton, Harold Jones, rhythm; Wess, Dodgion, John Clayton, Torrie Zito, Lex Jasper (?), H.B. Barnum, Bill Berry, arrangers.

What a remarkably together band (Dodgion is listed as co-conductor, which probably means straw boss, and they did do a world tour), and the charts so far, especially Wess’ (he and Clayton did the most) are at once subtle without being clever for their own sake and right “in there.” Dodgion’s charts are also very good and quite individual, or maybe a bit Thad-like.  The lead trumpeter (Mosello?) is excellent as are both drummers, upon whom a good deal depends with a band of this general style.
 

[Dan Gould]

5 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

Just for the heck of it I picked up a used copy the other day of a 2-CD compilation of two albums by the so-called Gene Harris Superband, “LIVE AT TOWN HALL” AND “WORLD TOUR 1990” — sorry for the caps but I hit that key by mistake and am not going to type it all over. 

Harris is Harris, but other soloists are heard,and the band itself is quite something.

Emphasis mine.

Funny how three letters can change the meaning of a sentence.  So Harris doesn't help but the rest of the band is fine, am I reading that correctly?  Is it the relentlessly bluesy swing that you find monotonous or boring or predictable? Or does Harris' style not serve the music?

Just trying to get a handle on why that "but" is in there. Thanks for indulging me.

[Larry Kart]

Sorry -- maybe I didn't put that quite right. What I meant is that some (most?) people have a pretty good sense of who Harris is and think that a Gene Harris album is pretty much a Gene Harris album in flavor. I think I could say that of most Harris albums I've heard, though I certainly haven't heard as many as you have. But on this one you get to hear Harris, some interesting, even imposing, other soloists, and, above all for me, a really together, top-level big band playing some interesting arrangements. As I think you said of one of these two albums on another recent thread, for you it was a good big band album, but as a strong Harris fan you would recommend  his better small group albums first. I, by contrast, and without denigrating Harris, was more attracted by the makeup and playing of the band, and by the tasty (or better than tasty) arrangements.

[Dan Gould]

Gotcha Larry, thanks.  The only comment of yours I'd amend is that Gene's playing did change between the Blue Note years and the Concord years, with the Three Sounds being a unified band and Gene's playing being a little more subtle/varied (?) while the Concord records, particularly the ones that Gene led, were more Gene plus supporting players (and a guitarist for another solo voice). 

I always felt that Gene's playing showed more of an OP influence in his later years. Except for, you know, an actual proclivity for the blues.

There, now I've done it.