Wayne on KELLEY GREAT

[7/4]

  Joe said:

Bertrand -- this same John Eaton is now a semi-well-known contemporary composer. He was also one of the first musicians to experiment with analog synthesizers; I believe he dubbed his own (pre-Moog) invention the Syn-Ket.

As a jazz pianist, he billed himself as "Johnny Eaton". IIRC.

John Eaton? Wow, check that shit out. I think he lives in or near NYC now.

[Larry Kart]

I think -- though this may be obvious -- that one of the things that puzzled us (though I'm only speaking for myself here) at the time about VeeJay Wayne vs. early BN Wayne was his apparent "submission" to the prevailing Trane weather front. It seemed like Wayne on VeeJay was on an alternate path -- that having already taken full account of everything Trane was up to, he had decided, "No, I'm going to go this other way." And not only was there then this sense of "going back" on Wayne's part (though because VeeJay Wayne was the first recorded Wayne, I guess we didn't have anything but anecdotal evidence plus sheer likelihood [we knew that they'd played/practiced a lot together] to back up the feeling that Wayne already knew his Trane close to inside out), but also their paths were pretty different or so it seemed: Wayne's wide-eyed, fully conscious play with angles of style and stance, a la Rollins' taste for the sentimental absurd (Sonny's "In the Chapel in the Moonlight," "I'm An Old Cowhand" etc. vs. Wayne's "The Moon of Manakoora," "June Night," and "Mack the Knife"), while Trane on the other hand climbed night after night toward ecstasy and release. Not that it could or should have been otherwise, but is there a moment of humor in Trane's music? That Wayne the magical trickster (or so we thought) should for a time have become similarly solemn was at the time a puzzlement.

[Lazaro Vega]

Larrry: "Not that it could or should have been otherwise, but is there a moment of humor in Trane's music?"

Little Old Lady (?)

[Larry Kart]

"Little Old Lady"? Maybe a bit, but then there's no Trane solo on that track. Do you think the coy/droll mood of that theme statement would have lasted if he'd soloed? Actually, in her liner notes to "Coltrane Jazz," Zita Carno detects some "almost Monkish humor" in the theme of "Harmonique," but then says that Trane "goes right into his 'typical Coltrane blues stuff.'" Actually (Part Two), these brief touches of humor may have something to do with the title of another track from the album, "Like Sonny." Also, later on, there's something a bit impish in the theme statement of "The Inchworm," but that's probably built into the tune (and/or its associations), and again I don't think it lasts through Trane's solo.

[Brad]

I, for one, must also progress ignorance about it being his first date AND I've got the darn box. I'll have to go back tonight and pull it out and listen to it again, having Larry's description rambling through my head.

[MartyJazz]

  DrJ said:

Funny, I would agree with you Jim about PAGE ONE, I've never quite understood why everyone goes so ga ga over that one when OUR THING and even moreso IN 'N' OUT and INNER URGE followed and had so much more on display of Henderson's artistry.

But with NIGHT DREAMER, I wouldn't call it tentative or timid, just more quiet, maybe even subdued, but in a very appealing way. Oh well, to each their own, and I do get what you're saying for sure.

When was the last time you listened to "Jinrikisha" from PAGE ONE? That's Joe at his best right from the git go, or "Page One". The way he develops tension and resolves it in that piece always makes that particular track a tremendous joy for me every time I hear it.

[mikeweil]

  JSngry said:

  mikeweil said:

We better ask who of us was aware that it was his first "official" record date...

Surely I'm not the only one here who buys Mosaic sets AND reads their liner notes, am I?

But who of us was aware of it before he read the Mosaic liner?

[JSngry]

I'm getting the impression that people who read the liners still didn't know it.

Either that or nobody's reading them, which I can kinda understand, because Bob Blumenthal's "just the facts" style doesn't hold my interest for very long either.

[couw]

  JSngry said:

I'm getting the impression that people who read the liners still didn't know it.

Either that or nobody's reading them, which I can kinda understand, because Bob Blumenthal's "just the facts" style doesn't hold my interest for very long either.

facts are stupid things right?

[JSngry]

Not necessarily stupid, but when offered straight-up w/o any insight, original or otherwise, incredibly boring. Not as bad as being stupid, but definitely more irritating.

[couw]

  JSngry said:

Not necessarily stupid, but when offered straight-up w/o any insight, original or otherwise, incredibly boring. Not as bad as being stupid, but definitely more irritating.

methinks the selection of facts to present already shows an insight.

And I think you're being a bit too harsh on Blumenthal, it's not as if he's a cold sod that writes in mathematical formulas. And even then, there is utter beauty to be found in those as well. Why not enjoy the story for the events instead of their ultimate meaning in some grand scheme of things. Different approaches that I for one can enjoy both.

[JSngry]

Oh, Blumenthal's cool. It's just that I like for the notes for "historical" sets to have more depth and insight than he usually offers. I like how he told the VeeJay story, how they branched off into jazz, and all that. But when it comes to the sessions themselves, he doesn't add very much that's not either in the discography or is readily apparent from listening.

Now, you take Cuscuna's notes to the Monk BN Mosaic, for example. THIS guy digs up all sorts of anectodes and facts (including the only rendering that I'm aware of about the life of Danny Quebec West!), and it makes for pretty interesting reading apart from the set. Blumenthals' style is basically like a radio play-by-play guy doing TV - the picture's already there, so there's really no need to tell us what we already can see (hear). But it's a perfectly valid style, and lord knows, the guy gets lots of gigs doing what he does, so hey.

Difference in styles and tastes, that's all. Some guys take a liner note assignment and create a seperate work that stands on its own, whereas others go for the straight rundown, more or less, and if you're away from the music (or sometimes even if you there with it), there's really no compelling need to read it. To each their own.

Edited June 15, 2004 by JSngry

[DrJ]

  Quote

MartyJazz Posted: Jun 11 2004, 05:36 PM 

QUOTE (DrJ @ Jun 11 2004, 09:57 AM)

Funny, I would agree with you Jim about PAGE ONE, I've never quite understood why everyone goes so ga ga over that one when OUR THING and even moreso IN 'N' OUT and INNER URGE followed and had so much more on display of Henderson's artistry.

But with NIGHT DREAMER, I wouldn't call it tentative or timid, just more quiet, maybe even subdued, but in a very appealing way. Oh well, to each their own, and I do get what you're saying for sure. 

When was the last time you listened to "Jinrikisha" from PAGE ONE? That's Joe at his best right from the git go, or "Page One". The way he develops tension and resolves it in that piece always makes that particular track a tremendous joy for me every time I hear it. 

Oh Marty Jazz, please don't misunderstand - PAGE ONE is a stone classic, no question. But Joe was Joe, and his genius was such that he actually TOPPED that amazing debut, IMHO, with his next few sides. Let me put it this way, PAGE ONE definitely set the mold, but then OUR THING cracked it, IN 'N' OUT broke it, and finally INNER URGE melted the damn thing altogether.

So my comment was simply meant to reflect that these later releases don't seem to get the due or respect I think they deserve, next to the almost knee-jerk kudos showered on PAGE ONE.