John Coltrane - OM

[jazzbo]

Yeah Jeff, I feel that immense poweful rush of feeling in the work of 1965 to the end. . . . I think the first time I felt that it might be the illnesses pain channeled/ sublimated/defeated and transformed by the music was listening to "Live in Japan" one time about four years ago. . . . I literally started thinking about my grandfather while listening to one of the pieces, who had died slowly of an

ever-increasing painful pancreatic cancer. . . I got to thinking of his pain somehow out of the blue because of the music, and did some thinking. Not sure it is valid, but I think that the pain that Trane HAD to have felt HAD to have gone somewhere because he did not give in to it til the very very end. . . .

Anyway, I do believe that his spiritual search was at least in part one of communicating the spiritual benefits I think he found earlier and found that he had to communicate and share. I think he may have been looking for a way to go beyond the known forms of music and fuse or forge some new form of direct communicating sound . . . . Uh oh here we go getting "out there" again. . . !

Edited April 14, 2004 by jazzbo

[AfricaBrass]

It's fun getting out there!

I keep thinking of the pictures of Coltrane holding his side (in pain) from his visit to Japan in '66. It looked like he was really hurting.

I think your connection is quite valid. I also agree that the spiritual aspect was probably from a previous period. I think JC knew who he was, and in his self knowing, probably knew he was dying.

[mmilovan]

Well, people,

although I am not big Coltrane fan (anyway, have much of his CDs) I think (as jazzbo pointed out) that Trane's late period from 1965. till the end was something very, very special. I would say I like THAT Trane the most. Think he was the most powerful than in any other earlier particular point in his career.

You may, or you may not accept that type/kind of free emotions that come through his instruments, but, yes it was all there! On acid (or not), knowing he is slowly dying (or not) - simply "Stellar Regions", "Olatunji Concert", and bunch of few others probably are high-end or the most interesting Trane's albums.

IMO, of course!

Edited April 15, 2004 by mmilovan

[Chuck Nessa]

Two ways to interpret the music - as music or psychology.

I say much of late Coltrane is great music, especially the duos with Ali. I think Om is "less good" music and worth investigation for serious fans.

This is an unfortunate "entry point" for the uninitiated.

[AmirBagachelles]

Its been years since I listened to Om, but I listened to the original tracks of Kulu Se Mama drivin home tonight. I love the chanting, the moods, great sound. Listening to all the '65 Coltrane end-to-end must be something like riding a rocket up through the clouds. As I type this, I am listening to My Favorite Things from Newport '63 w/ some bass-y headphones that are filling in a low-end I thought was completely absent. So the sound tonight anyway is much better than I remembered (I had the Selflessness vinyl), but it does confirm my memory of a great live MFT.

[JSngry]

Listening to all the '65 Coltrane end-to-end must be something like riding a rocket up through the clouds.

Imagine what it must have been like living it.

[mikeweil]

Remember the story how Carlos Santana listened to Ascencion while on Acid and imagined flying over Africa?

Some of that later stuff with experimental percussion is Coltrane's take on world music, in my ears. I love Kulu Se Mama, Juno Lewis is a magnificent addition to the band. OM is a litle weird. Well, it was the band on Acid .... I think Chuck Nessa nailed it pretty well when he said that it's "an unfortunate "entry point" for the uninitiated".

Edited April 18, 2004 by mikeweil

[AfricaBrass]

I think Chuck Nessa mailed it pretty well when he said that it's "an unfortunate "entry point" for the uninitiated".

It sure caught me off guard.

I listened to OM last night (for the first time in years). I was surprised at how much I liked it. I dug the first solo. I thought the piano was great. It truly is psychedelic jazz. I swear the horns sounded like they were feeding back at time. At one point I felt like I could also hear the horns themselves disintegrating. Like the metal was being shredded.

One thing I noticed. It seemed to be a scary Hollywoodized version of this subject. If you listen to Indian music, the way om is chanted is different than on this album. It almost sounds like a scary movie to me. Listening to the music also made me think that this music must have been a powerful release for the musicians. I felt like I could hear them pouring their demons out (not literally). I bet the vibe in that studio was SCARY. B)

When the whole ensemble is blasting, it's a little too much for me, but when you get down to smaller groupings, I think this album really opens up into some interesting/weird stuff.

It's a real trip to think that this was recorded only one year aftar A LOVE SUPREME.

[Simon Weil]

It almost sounds like a scary movie to me. Listening to the music also made me think that this music must have been a powerful release for the musicians. I felt like I could hear them pouring their demons out (not literally). I bet the vibe in that studio was SCARY.  B)

When the whole ensemble is blasting, it's a little too much for me, but when you get down to smaller groupings, I think this album really opens up into some interesting/weird stuff.

It's a real trip to think that this was recorded only one year aftar A LOVE SUPREME.

Well, the other thing that you can say - and I think, but can't prove - is that the change in the music reflects the change in Society that happened at about that time. I mean, in particular, the Watts riots in Summer 1965 represent a watershed - kind of the beginning of the end for the peaceful civil rights movement.

I do, myself, think there is some connection between the peace evoked by Love Supreme and the awful nature of Om and those events.

But I don't think Coltrane was any sort of Black Power person.

Simon Weil

Edited April 15, 2004 by Simon Weil

[AfricaBrass]

Simon,

You bring up a great point. I hadn't thought of that.

I don't think you'd have to be a Black Power person to be disturbed by the events of that time.

I remember the moving "Alabama" that Coltrane performed on that Ralph Gleason show. It was right after the church bombing. It was very moving.

Seeing that side of JC, to me, shows that it wouldn't be too much to accept that he was feeling what was going on in the world.

[Shrdlu]

My comments about God are not just a personal idea that I have adopted. They are based only on the Word of God. There is one God, and he is the Lord Jesus Christ. (See I Timothy 2:5 and John 1:1.) Then, there are religions, which offer the Devil's lies to try to turn people away from the truth. I have no personal monopoly on this truth. It is universally available. I do wish that people would quit reacting as if I am the only one who believes the Bible. There are millions of us believers, and posters in the United States especially ought to have come in contact with the gospel before. Now, in the U.K. and Europe, one would be less likely to hear it, as those countries are largely apostate. But even there, you come up against it from time to time. And recently, we have had several movies on TV, and at the theaters, about the crucifixion. Those ought to make people think, no matter what the motives were for the making of these films. I just saw Max von Sydow's portrayal of Jesus, and although I am already a believer, it got to me.

OM is a spiritual experience, but it's not a Godly spiritual experience. These are evil spirits at work. Satan is very clever, and well able to make a listener think that such a spiritual experience is enjoyable and good. The Holy Spirit is nothing like that.

I am sad that Trane, a musician for whom I have the highest respect, got involved with this devilish stuff toward the end of his life. (By the way, I have heard all of the released late Trane recordings, and, technically, he plays superbly on them.) John was born in North Carolina, with a Baptist Church on every corner, so he was surely exposed to the gospel as he grew up. But someone recently posted a long audio interview with Trane, and I felt sad as I heard him say things that made it clear that he had rejected the gospel. That was John's own personal testimony, not just someone's guess as to what he really believed.

There is no way that Trane saw (the real) God just before he died, as Bob Thiele reported. God is presently not on earth (though his invisible Spirit indwells every saved person). He is in the Third Heaven. Whatever John saw was related to evil spirits. Very sad.

_________________________________________________

These, and my earlier remarks, are not made with the intent of being nasty. My job is to publish the truth, and to warn against religious lies, of which there are very many. As Paul said, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16) A real friend will tell you the truth, at the risk of being disliked.

Here is the big difference between the truth and the religions. In the Bible, God offers us a free, eternal salvation which cannot be lost, without the need for any works on our part. All we have to do is agree that we are sinners in need of salvation and then believe. This was all paid for by Jesus when he died for our sins. No religion offers such a thing. All they say is, basically, that you must do a collection of good works, and, if you are lucky, God might be merciful and not cast you into hell when you die. That is simply not good enough - and not even true anyway, thank God.

Because of all this, no, I do not have any respect for any religion, Eastern or otherwise. They are lies and don't deserve any respect. But, I do respect everyone's right to believe anything that they want, without being persecuted for their religion/belief system. Also, although I hate religions, I do not hate their followers. In particular, I don't hate my fellow posters on this bulletin board. I just want to help in any way I can. In connection with this, thanks for your remarks, Mike.

[Rooster_Ties]

Both here, as well as back on the old BNBB – Shrdlu has consistently stated that his personal concepts of religion are the one and only 'true' way to view the world. The prejudice you hear in his statement is intended as such. (And to suggest anything otherwise, is to take on a loosing battle.)

See what I mean.

[Jim Dye]

This thread has turned into a Chick tract!

[jazzbo]

Shrdlu is just being true to his religious beliefs, which ARE in those scriptures as he reports.

He has faith and he is following it staunchily; I don't think he should be criticized for that, and there should be room for his postings of this nature in this large forum. He is quite respectful in my opinion to those of us whose beliefs differ (I'm a Preacher's Kid yet in those ranks).

[John L]

All we have to do is agree that we are sinners in need of salvation and then believe. This was all paid for by Jesus when he died for our sins.

This reminds me of a bumper sticker that some people put on their cars: "Christians are not perfect, only forgiven."

This is one part of Christianity that I have never understood, at least from the moral point of view. I do not subscribe to any specific faith, although I consider myself morally to be a very religious person. Central to my beliefs is the idea that we have to bear the burden of our own past sins. That is part of life. So who do such Christians think that they are? They can do whatever terrible things they want, as long as they get down on their knees afterwards and ask Jesus to forgive them? Then their souls will be saved, whereas the "ignorant," who may have always lived decent and moral lives, will all burn in hell.

The fact is, Curtis Mayfield was right about hell.

Edited April 15, 2004 by John L

[Pete C]

Disrespect for other people's religion is pretty bad, but religion is worse.

[AfricaBrass]

All we have to do is agree that we are sinners in need of salvation and then believe. This was all paid for by Jesus when he died for our sins.

This reminds me of a bumper sticker that some people put on their cars: "Christians are not perfect, only forgiven."

This is one part of Christianity that I have never understood, at least from the moral point of view. I do not subscribe to any specific faith, although I consider myself morally to be a very religious person. Central to my beliefs is the idea that we have to bear the burden of our own past sins. That is part of life. So who do such Christians think that they are? They can do whatever terrible things they want, as long as they get down on their knees afterwards and ask Jesus to forgive them? Then their souls will be saved, whereas the "ignorant," who may have always lived decent and moral lives, will all burn in hell.

The fact is, Curtis Mayfield was right about hell.

I'll admit it here.

I don't believe in Christianity anymore.

Having said that, please understand, many Christians don't hold themselves up as better or anything like that. They are taught that there is only one way to God. I can tell you from experience that it's a painful place to be sometimes. It's really tough when you frame your world through that perspective (it was for me). I saw "Christians" that I had no respect for, while there were "non-believers" who I had the utmost of respect for, but, I was in a vise. The truth was black and white. There wasn't any wiggle room. I know Shrdlu shares the gospel because he truly cares about us.

It's just a matter of perspective.

[jazzbo]

Jeff, thanks for sharing that. I feel very similarly. The "exclusionary" aspect of personal salvation (and the whole idea of personal salvation really) through Christ only just was a fit I couldn't wear comfortably.

It's interesting that this comes up in a late Trane discussion. The spirituality at the heart of the music seems to be quite evident and important. I wish I knew more specifically from Coltrane himself as to what his beliefs were, but I do thnk that we can feel some of his beliefs as they are expressed in and through the music itself.

[JSngry]

Jeff, if you have Jesus, you don't need "Christianity". Probably better off without it in fact, since far too often it's an arbitrary layer of seperation that has no justification other than to keep the patrons in line and the management paid.

Cut out the middleman and buy direct, I say. It's a significantly better deal.

Just my opinion as a Jesus-believing non-"Christian", of which I suspect there are more than might be imagined.

Maybe we should all get together and form a church!

[Shrdlu]

All we have to do is agree that we are sinners in need of salvation and then believe. This was all paid for by Jesus when he died for our sins.

This reminds me of a bumper sticker that some people put on their cars: "Christians are not perfect, only forgiven."

This is one part of Christianity that I have never understood, at least from the moral point of view. I do not subscribe to any specific faith, although I consider myself morally to be a very religious person. Central to my beliefs is the idea that we have to bear the burden of our own past sins. That is part of life. So who do such Christians think that they are? They can do whatever terrible things they want, as long as they get down on their knees afterwards and ask Jesus to forgive them? Then their souls will be saved, whereas the "ignorant," who may have always lived decent and moral lives, will all burn in hell.

The fact is, Curtis Mayfield was right about hell.

John, getting saved is not a process that is done over and over, after each individual sin. It is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. When one gets saved, all one's sins - past, present and future - are forgiven. "The blood of Jesus Christ ... cleanseth us from ALL sin" (I John 1:7, block caps mine) It would be no good unless it was all.

Salvation takes place at the one point in time when a person repents and believes the gospel. I am saved, and I don't have to ask God to save me every time I commit a sin. (I ask him to forgive me for the sin because I have displeased him, but I'm not asking for salvation, as I already have that.)

I often hear this point that "isn't this stuff then just a license to sin?" In theory, it is. I could now do anything, and not lose my salvation. But when you get saved, you get a "new nature" from God (also called "the new man" Ephesians 4:24). II Corinthians 5:17 says the believer is a "new creature". The old sinful nature is still present, alas, hence the bumper sticker, which is saying that we do still sin; don't expect us to be perfect while we are still on earth. Romans 6 talks about this very point, and says "Shall we continue in sin?" "God forbid."

Someone who is saved will not want to sin anymore, even though they will mess it up from time to time. I could take an Uzi and hose down the shoppers in a mall, and still not lose my salvation, but I don't want to do such an awful thing.

I hope that I've answered that point in this brief reply. This is a big topic and there is no room for a full discussion here.

Oh, and the other point: a person does NOT have to bear the burden for their own sins. That's why Jesus died on the cross. He paid the price for our sins, so we wouldn't have to.

[AfricaBrass]

Maybe we should all get together and form a church!

I know who I want for the band!

[JSngry]

T-Bone Burnette & Sam Phillips?

[AfricaBrass]

T-Bone Burnette & Sam Phillips?

I was thinking Organissimo with JSngry on tenor. B)

[Shrdlu]

I can't resist saying that I play tenor in Church.

[jazzbo]

Organissimo and two or three tenors? (Come on SS1!) That would be great! And we have a relief organist on the forum as well as other drummers and guitarists. . . Quite a resource!