Eric Alexander Anyone?

[Trumpet Guy]

Thank you Larry Kart!!

You've stated some beautiful truths for me--that I could never state...a type of musical honesty.

Can't wait for the book!

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I think the problem isn't with whether Alexander (or Hamilton or...) is a good player--it's just that the hype starts to get built up. A couple years back I was sent an Alexander disc for review--the title was Summit Meeting I think--& what was really depressing about it was the liner notes with players like Mabern & George Coleman anointing Alexander as a genius, when he's just tossing their own stuff back at them in a slicker form. It was an OK disc but had a macho vibe that I didn't have much time for (& it did contain an inexcusable cheesing-up of a Coltrane tune).

Eric Alexander also has a CD called "Alexander the Great". He did not come up with this title, the label did. In fact, I have heard that he was pretty upset by it but the label decided to use it and that was that. Maybe the same thing happened with "Summit Meeting"?

BTW, I'm with you on "Summit Meeting" - Not anywhere near my favorite Eric Alexander date either. I don't think I dig Idris Mohammed's drumming that much... at least that's my guess.

Later,

Kevin

[Larry Kart]

Marty -- Some young to middle-aged tenor players who seem to me to stand out are Walt Weiskopf, Mark Shim, and Tim Armacost. (In fact, if any Eric Alexander fans are willing to trust my recommendation, I think Armacost might knock you out. He's big-toned and muscular, swings like crazy, and has a self-developed harmonic extensions thing going that to my ears really works. I'd recommend "Live at Smalls" (with Tom Harrell) and "The Wishing Well" (with Bruce Barth, Ray Drummond, and Billy Hart), both on DoubleTime. BTW, on "Live at Smalls" Armacost plays Ornette's "Invisible" (on soprano) and really plays on the tune as given throughout, which is a kind of crazy thing to do but really stimulates his inventiveness. Harrell, by contrast, gets pretty hung up on that framework.

Another guy I'd urge Alexander fans to check out is Ralph LaLama. Yes, LaLama's from the previous generation, but stylistically they're probably not that far apart, and they've both been on much the same scene for a good while, long enough I think for the differences between them to be not merely a matter of age and experience. You can listen to LaLama note to note and really feel the choices being made; also, within a basically muscular, drenched in the changes style, he's often outrageously melodic, a real song singer.

In a more avant-garde vein, there are two young guys around Chicago on what might be called the post-Vandermark scene who show a lot of promise IMO: altoist Aram Shelton, who's put out several self-produced albums ("On Cortez" with his trio Dragons 1976 and "Arrive" by a quartet of that name), and tenorman Keefe Jackson, who has yet to record except as a member of an ensemble where he doesn't get to show what he can do. Jackson, if this be not blasphemy, reminds me a bit of the young Kalaparusha -- he's got that "sculptural" thing, where every gesture implies a larger context; you hear the thing that's stated and the unstated mass it's been carved from. Got my fingers crossed on him. And FWIW, free as they may be, Shelton and Jackson seem to be fully schooled players too.

About Jim's "the giants are gone" point, I guess I don't look for/expect giants on the order of Bird, Trane, Tatum, Pres, et al. these days, figuring that if they come they come, we'll all know it, and respond accordingly. What I do look for is genuineness on whatever scale, personal in-the-moment engagement with the material. Was Pete Brown a giant? Was Herman Chittison? Dave Schildkraut? Harold Land? Shafi Hadi? Joe Thomas? Tony Fruscella? Russ Freeman? The list could go on and on, through a lot of different eras. And then that thing came to be hard to come by I think, no matter what the scale of the attempt, and it seemed like we were faced with not asking for/expecting that thing, and/or pretending that we were getting it when a voice inside said that we weren't. Genuineness, as outlined briefly above, I'll hold out for -- while admitting that each of us judges that factor subjectively and admitting too that there are certain (here's that term again) post-modern ways of going about things that put genuineness through the wringer in a perhaps necessary and useful manner.

[JSngry]

Not too crazy about Mantovani either. Dig the shit outta Jimmy Rowles, though.

Go figure.

[Pete C]

The couple of times I saw Frank Catalano there was a level of excitement that was missing from Alexander, whom I've seen live 3 or 4 times.

Ultimately it's all taste. Kevin loves Alexander and doesn't get Idris Muhummad. I love Muhummad, and have seen him several times with the great Lou Donaldson rhythm section with Lonnie Smith & Peter Bernstein (the rhythm section was great, that is; Donaldson generally sucked), as well as with Ahmad Jamal.

[John Tapscott]

I guess I just don't get the argument against a guy playing in an older style. Look, Dexter, Mobley, Hendu... these guys are all dead! If a young(er) guy like Alexander can't play in this style without being called a copycat/soul-less player, than this style will totally die. No one will play that way.

I must say that I've never understood this argument, either. Let's face it, unless you're an Armstrong, Bird, Ayler, Taylor, Gillespie, or 'Trane you're almost certain to be playing in a style that was established for you and probably existed even before you were born. Just to get a personal identifiable sound on any branch of the jazz tree is challenge enough for a player without also having to give a new direction to jazz. I believe that people simply enter the tradition at a different points and play in the style that they most comfortably "hear" and "feel." And it doesn't have anything to do with age. As someone who once tried to play trombone, the style I "hear" and would play if I could is based around J.J. Johnson and some of his successors like Carl Fontana and Frank Rosolino. But someone like Dan Barrett with whom I share a near birthdate, obviously "hears' differently and finds a different place in the tradition, mostly in the dixie/early swing style. It would be foolish to say that Dan Barrett should play in a style like Manglesdorff or Moncur. Dan would not be genuine if he were to play in that style, but he IS genuine when he plays according to the place he "hears" and "feels" jazz best. And he is an excellent trombonist, about as good as anyone playing today.

You might not like their playing or even the style they play in, but I think Eric Alexander and Scott Hamilton are "genuine" players who both play jazz in the place where they "hear" and "feel" it best. If Scott Hamilton were to try to play like 'Trane he would not be honest to himself. In fact, I think Scott has a very personal tenor sound, rooted in the swing tenors obviously, but very identifiable.

Not everyone is an envelope pusher like 'Trane or Miles. That burden only comes to a very few special people.

[mike casinghino]

getting back to the original post...kevin b's take on the one for all cd, no problem, is dead on. one of the best cd's(imo)i have heard in quite some time!

Edited May 20, 2004 by mike casinghino

[montg]

but I think Eric Alexander and Scott Hamilton are "genuine" players who both play jazz in the place where they "hear" and "feel" it best

I think this point has a lot of merit...the enthusiasm these guys have is palpable, very evident in their playing.

Guys are always going to reflect their influences. Go back and look at the Blue Note liners, you'll see statements like "Curtis Fuller is starting to emerge from JJ's shadow" or "Jackie is moving beyond Bird and finding his own voice" etc. It's no surprise that EA would reflect the influence of George Coleman. The question is has he found something unique and personal to say within that language?

Edited May 20, 2004 by montg

[Dan Gould]

What John Tapscott said.

[Sundog]

Very interesting thread. Just ordered the following....

Cookin With The Mighty Burner

By: Earland, Charles

Mode For Mabes

By: Alexander, Eric

Circle Line

By: Lalama, Ralph

Wishing Well

By: Armacost, Tim

Thanks again for the recommendations.

[danasgoodstuff]

First, I'm glad I waited a day to post again:the temperture's come down a bit to where a more productive exchange of ideas can take place. For me this isn't really about Eric Alexander or Scott Hamilton, nor is it about whether players should use elements of past styles or be influenced by them. Everyone does that, to a greater or lesser degree, even armstrong, Lester and Bird. I don't think anyone here (Dan, Kevin, etc.) would make a straw man argument on purpose and I guess I can see how if they felt their personal taste were being attacked they might react as they did. Not to speak for anyone (Larry, Jim, etc.), but for me what this is about is this: Of course everyone should play in whatever style (from whatever era) speaks to them, but (like so much in life) there's a right and a wrong way(s) to do it. To try a different analogy: the right way would be like someone who peppers their speach with Biblical and Shakespearean allusions, but who makes their own points in their own style; the wrong way would be more like high schoolers who launch into their favorite bits of Monty Python whether the've really got anything to do with the conversation or not. To give examples: I think Osby has something real and personal going on, but I find J. Redman and J. Carter only intermittantly convincing. Or, to go further afield, I think Merle Hagard is one soulful mofo despite having Lefty Frizell's imprint all over his vocal chords, but I am largely unmoved by Prince's appropriation of Sly's thang. And I find W. Houston and what's-her-name (that Glitter girl)'s (over)use of melisma just grotesque, but I still love Sam Cooke and Clyde Mcphatter and Arron Neville (who draws heavily on both).

Larry: I can see why you dropped the 'spread your legs' bit, it was likely to distract more than enlighten but I kinda liked it, perhaps because it's exactly the sort of thing I would have said/written when I was younger. In that spirit, I decided to drop the metaphor I was gonna use about how some peoples' playing reminds me of certain preachers who jump up and down yelling "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" without being v. Christlike...

Hope I've added more light than heat here.

[Dan Gould]

Well, we'll still have to disagree, Dana.

Its not just responding to an attack on artists I enjoy. Larry said that Hamilton and Vache (I'm paraphrasing here) can't even get the language right from the artists they steal from. He talked about "syntax"-what exactly does that mean?

If Hamilton appropriates a Websterian-like whisper or growl or that vibrating column of air, that he does it wrong, or picks the wrong moment to do it?

I'm sorry, but that was wrong then, and its even more wrong now.

I do feel that John Tapscott got it right and put it best.

[Larry Kart]

Dan -- About Scott Hamilton and syntax, here's one specific thing I had in mind: Hamilton got the Ben Webster-Flip Phillips sound/articulation down pretty well, but it seemed to me that when it came to constructing phrases and whole solos with that sound/articulation combo, he was drawn to that 1943-45 so-called "Street Beat" approach, a kind of "Jump" thing that is certainly nice in itself. But then when it came time to play ballads, it seemed to me that what Hamilton did is take those Jump/Street Beat figures and essentially slow them down, with results that sound kind of "off" in themselves (to me) and that is not the syntax of ballad playing in that Webster-Phillips style; their phrasing on ballads is more or less rhapsodic, not slowed down "Jump." Not that Hamilton doesn't have the right to do things differently than his models, if those different ways work, but it didn't seem to me that they did work very well, and it also seemed pretty likely that his different way was based on a less than good enough understanding of how the style he liked actually worked. If I'm right, that's an example of one of the temptations/dangers of a revivalistic trawl through the past: You fall in love with one of the more immediately attractive manifestations of a prior way of doing things, and you emulate (and are often rewarded for emulating) those traits, but without grasping how the whole thing that gave rise to the traits you dig actually worked and was put together -- its syntax so to speak.

[Pete C]

I'm rather fond of Alexander's associate Jim Rotondi; nothing original, but a really nice sound. He's a much better Freddie Hubbard than Hubbard these days.

[JSngry]

As far as I'm concerned, any style is ok to use as a basis, so long as you do something, ANYTHING, interesting iwith it. This is where Alexander fails miserably in my book, but that's just my opinion. I certainly don't think that anybody has to "defend" their like of him. Geez....

Hamilton is a different matter. I very much felt about him for a good while the way I do now about Alexander - good player, but damned if I know why I should care. The world's full of good players, so freakin' what?

But about, I dunno, 5-10 years ago (I don't buy the records, I just kisten to the radio), I heard him starting to mature, and the process seems to have been continuing. To put it bluntly, he started being interesting to me, he made the case as to why I should care. Not profoundly or overwhelmingly, but enough to where when I hear his name on the radio, I now listen in anticiparion rahter than in dread.

That's what I need - a personal connection, something in the music that speaks to me personally. Mr. Alexander has yet to hit that mark. I hear enormous amount of practice time in his playing, but next to no life, and believe me, that's a difference I can appreciate. It all sounds like shop talk, and he's not telling me anything I don't already know or in a way that gives me a reason to care.

Hamilton has. No, he's not playing anythig new. But he's developed a voice that has developed enough nuance that even though he's telling the same old stories, he's doing it with enough of a personal twist that I enjoy hearing his take on them.

\

That's good enough for me!

[jlhoots]

Whatever stance you're taking, this is all pretty subjective.

Some of these posts sound like there's some way to quantify who's "better".

I just don't think that's possible.

[Jim Alfredson]

I like Eric Alexander. Not everyone can be an innovator, nor would we want them to be. Innovation for the sake of innovation is as vaccuus as repeating Bird licks ad nauseum.

[Dan Gould]

Dan -- About Scott Hamilton and syntax, here's one specific thing I had in mind: Hamilton got the Ben Webster-Flip Phillips sound/articulation down pretty well, but it seemed to me that when it came to constructing phrases and whole solos with that sound/articulation combo, he was drawn to that 1943-45 so-called "Street Beat" approach, a kind of "Jump" thing that is certainly nice in itself. But then when it came time to play ballads, it seemed to me that what Hamilton did is take those Jump/Street Beat figures and essentially slow them down, with results that sound kind of "off" in themselves (to me) and that is not the syntax of ballad playing in that Webster-Phillips style; their phrasing on ballads is more or less rhapsodic, not slowed down "Jump." Not that Hamilton doesn't have the right to do things differently than his models, if those different ways work, but it didn't seem to me that they did work very well, and it also seemed pretty likely that his different way was based on a less than good enough understanding of how the style he liked actually worked. If I'm right, that's an example of one of the temptations/dangers of a revivalistic trawl through the past: You fall in love with one of the more immediately attractive manifestations of a prior way of doing things, and you emulate (and are often rewarded for emulating) those traits, but without grasping how the whole thing that gave rise to the traits you dig actually worked and was put together -- its syntax so to speak.

Thanks for your explanation, Larry, but I do feel you are wrong here.

I mean, Hamilton's story was that growing up, these were the records that his father had, and he loved the style so much, they formed his major inspiration. He's clearly a technically skilled musician, so it seems unlikely that he would make the kind of "mistake" you describe.

I guess different ears hear different things. But maybe a listen to a more recent Hamilton CD would surprise you.

Anyway, Hamilton meets the Sangrey standard, and that's good enough for me!

[JSngry]

The thing about Hamilton that I think bugs/bugged some people (and DEFINITELY bugged Martin Williams, who as I remember it, was the most vocal exponent of the "he's not understanding the language" criticism), was that Hamilton appropriated the surface of the older style, but showed no real interest, not that I could hear, in it's finer points. So, yeah, if you were expecting a thoughtful examination of the essence of Ben Webster, et al, he was not your guy, contrary to the hype (which I think that he himself bought into for a while).

What was Hamilton's "dirty little secret" (or perhaps it was Concord's) was that Scott Hamilton's REAL roots weren't in the Swing Era, but in R&B. This explains a lot of things about a lot of things, especially why Hamilton didn't really dig deep into the vernacular which he was appropriating, as well as why those who WERE conversant with it found him sorely lacking.

A real ear-opener for me (and possibly a sigh of relief for Hamilton) was Duke Robillard's SWING album, a collection of music that was "jazz" in surface but R&B in style and intent. Hamilton seems to have felt a LOT more comfortable playing this stuff than he did trying to channel the then still-living Flip Phillips. Ever since then, it seemes like a bit more relaxation has crept into his playing, and a bit more stylistic signifying has crept out.

Although he's not on my "favorites" list, I do find him to be an enjoyable listen on the radio, at parties, in restaurants, etc. Pure "entertainment", if you will, nothing more, but nothing lesseither.

I like entertainment when it's right, and over the years Hamilton has gotten right to my ears.

[Larry Kart]

Jim S wrote: "What was Hamilton's "dirty little secret" (or perhaps it was Concord's) was that Scott Hamilton's REAL roots weren't in the Swing Era, but in R&B. This explains a lot of things about a lot of things, especially why Hamilton didn't really dig deep into the vernacular which he was appropriating, as well as why those who WERE conversant with it found him sorely lacking.

A real ear-opener for me (and possibly a sigh of relief for Hamilton) was Duke Robillard's SWING album, a collection of music that was "jazz" in surface but R&B in style and intent. Hamilton seems to have felt a LOT more comfortable playing this stuff than he did trying to channel the then still-living Flip Phillips. Ever since then, it seems like a bit more relaxation has crept into his playing, and a bit more stylistic signifying has crept out."

OK, that's pretty much what I was picking up on when I heard Hamilton live with Rosemary Clooney way back when but without taking the next logical step and thinking that there was, or would be, a literal R&B connection, probably because, as you say, the ambience that Concord and others wrapped around him was so "Thank God, we've turned back time -- Here's a young guy who plays like the guys we loved when we were young." Anyway, that Street Beat/Jump thing was a proto-R&B sound in the hand of some players (the early Lockjaw, Jack McVea, etc). P.S. Have you heard my new band, the Squirrel Nut Beiderbeckes?

Also, I didn't know that Martin Williams wrote about Hamilton along those lines. I do remember Martin, about 20 years before, slamming Jack Sheldon on just that basis -- referring to West Coast trumpeters who copy Miles Davis but "put the climaxes in the wrong places." But, hey, in that case I'd say that Martin was wrong -- Sheldon did do some funny things along those lines, but I think that was because Sheldon had an impish/eccentric/even surrealistic musical sense of humor that was his alone, not because he was a Davis copyist who had only grasped his model's surface gestures.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Why this thread has morphed into a Scott Hamilton thread...

Regarding Hamilton's playing style, I can attest that as he was "packaged" (maybe "boxed in" might be a better term?) by Concord, really made him some money. I can't blame the guy for playing the way he does if he truly likes playing that way because he's made a living playing Jazz. I recently caught Hamilton live in Boston and I have to say, the average age of the crowd was probably 75 and it was friggin' packed. The guy makes a living channeling Ben Webster, he's enjoyable enough, so what's the problem? I have no problem at all with the guy's playing.

FWIW, I have several Hamilton CDs but I rarely play them during any "serious" listening times. He's great to spin at dinner. My wife loves his ballads CD... oh yeah, and his Christmas disc? One of the best of the genre. His buttery tone just seems perfect for "Chestnuts roasting by an open fire."

BTW, anyone else catch that Hamilton turns 50 this year? Wow, time flies. When I saw him, he must've smoked 3 cigarettes between sets. He won't be around too much longer if he smokes like that.

Kevin

[JSngry]

Larry -

My commments about Martin Williams were based on non-specific rememberances of several critics' comments of the time coupled with a very specific rememberance of hearing Williams speak in 1980 as part of a panel before a Fred Hersch trio gig at some bookstore in NYC. Williams was absolutely LIVID about Hamilton, threatening to go into a John Cleese-like apoplexy at any second. It was freakin' HILARIOUS. I mean, I'm hanging out here on my first trip to NYC, getting ready to catch some free jazz by an up-and-coming young pianist whom I had been casually conversing with thanks to the introduction of the guy I was staying with, who had jammed w/Hersch a few times, and in the middle of it all, there's this old man, not just any old man, but MARTIN FREAKIN' WILLIAMS, about to blow innards all over the walls over this young tenor saxophonist that nobody I knew thought of at the time as too much more than a laughable novelty (at best). It was surrreal!

Hamilton (or maybe, again, Concord) kept his R&B background well under wraps for quite a while. but little by little stories came out in dribs and drabbles, even from the man himself. What progress he's made over the years (and I might be one of the few who hears it, but by crickety, I DO hear it), seems to me to quite plausibly be from dropping the charade of being a Swing Kid and just shutting up and playing some blues, regardless of what tune (or type of tune) it is.

That's good advice, more often than not...

[JSngry]

When I saw him, he must've smoked 3 cigarettes between sets.

Just 3?

What a pussy.

[JSngry]

Have you heard my new band, the Squirrel Nut Beiderbeckes?

Featuring Frankie Tromboner on C-Meddling saxophone and necktie selection?

Sure, all the cool kids have!

Cigarette?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

When I saw him, he must've smoked 3 cigarettes between sets.

Just 3?

What a pussy.

Oh, Jim, it was worse though. 3 cigarettes in about 10 minutes, plus he hacked between solos and his teeth... man, if I had just his teeth alone, I would quit in minutes! The guy had black teeth. I tell you, I took one look at the guy and figured "smoker" and in between sets, I figured I'd shake his hand and talk about his music so I went out into the bar area, figuring that's where he disappeared to between sets (when most other guys just hang around the stage) and sure enough, he was trying to suck down as many cigs as he could.

Jim, it sounds like you smoke too? How does that affect your playing? The way Hamiliton hacked it up between solos, I imagine there are times that he has that "I gotta cough" feeling during a solo too, right?

Kevin