Miles - "Blackhawk"

[skeith]

JSangrey and Clementine,

Sorry but I guess the impact of 9/11 on a person apparently has a lot to do with how close you were to it. As someone who watched it from 5 blocks away and know several people who were directly impacted, I guess I have a different perspective. And as for telling people to get over it, Clementine, maybe you would like to tell that to some of the kids who are missing parents or some of the people who were until quite recently going periodically to a refrigerated morgue to take home the body part of a loved one. Glad you are over it, but please don't lecture the rest of us. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox.

JSangrey,

I have seen Sonny Rollins live at least a dozen times since the mid 70's and I agree for the most part, allthough I would not compare it with 9/11, with a lot of your comments about the transforming power of a good live Rollins concert.

I have one quibble with your analysis of personality relating to one's music. It seems to me that often times there seems to be an inverse relationship. A good example might be Johnny Hodges, if you have seen film clips of the guy on the bandstand, or read stories about him, he seemed to have been taciturn, or perhaps not particulary emotional as to his facial expression, body movements, etc. But man, he seems to me to be one of the more expressive players when it comes to the sound that came out of his horn.

I can think of other examples.

[shawn·m]

I simply can’t resist a good tangent.

Most of the clips I’ve seen probably came from Ken Burns’ Jazz and that Hodges’ thing caught my attention, too. Johnny seems to have an almost palpable let’s-get-this-BS-over-with attitude. Was Johnny always so… peevish? It’s interesting to see him step up to the mic, turn in a perfectly acceptable solo and one that doesn’t appear to reflect his current state of mind, then fume his way back to his seat.

[skeith]

As to personality and its relation to one's music. I have read that Paul Desmond was a rather wild person in his private life, but I would say that his solo style is by intention rather restrained.

Back on the Soapbox:

Clementine, you were not surprised that two jetliners were hijacked in this country by mostly Saudi nationals living in this country and flown into the WTC and they collapsed. Jeez, you may be the only person in America, wish you had alerted someone.

By the way, included in my definition of a hero is anyone who goes into a burning building to save someone's life he or she doesn't even know. I am not aware that any member of the NYFD has killed anyone, black or otherwise. And yes those 400 firefighters (a number of whom were black) and other uniformed service people, including the cops who put their lives on the line to help others but died on 9/11 are heroes in my book.

What am I missing here? In hasn't the war on terrorism produced a frightening cache of materials by terrorists, showing plans of the NY City subway system, landmarks, bridges, etc.

You aren't grateful, the US military is rounding up a lot of these guys?

I guess you are not happy they caught the guy who was planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge? Wasn't that just last week? Oh I am sorry, you have already managed to get over it.

[JSngry]

Now, I do know how to play an instrument, but I don't know jackus shittibus about making a movie. Even knowing nothing about it, I tend to know what I think about movies. Moreover, if someone who had made a few movies told me x was great (x being regarded by me as so much poo) I would tend to take no notice. I think we'd all agree on this.

Well, I'd DISagree on this!

I would (and have, and more than once!) been in similar circumstances, not just with film, but with other "arts" and other non-arty occupations. If somebody tells me that there's more to something than meets the eye, ear, nose, pallate, groin, whatever, and I know them well enough to know that they ain't just blowing smoke, and that they aren't just flavor-of-the-month trendmongers, I gotta allow for the possibility that there's more there than I'm getting. Of course, that's not going to make me change my mind about how I subjectively feel about it, not right away, but whereas I might have beforehand said, "this is a big load of crap", respect for those who DO know more than me about whatever the medium/occupation in question is compels me to modify the expression of my opinion to a somewhat less more "all-knowing" stance, at the very least to "this seems like a big load of crap to me, but people who know the field better than me say otherwise, so who knows?" or something like that. Just admit that what I know isn't all there is, even (ESPECIALLY!) what I know of and about myself. And, make the occasional effort to figure out what it is that they see in it. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I get some of it, sometimes I never get it. But I feel better for having tried, and I feel better knowing that there are still things that I don't readily comprehend. That means there's still room for growth and it ain't time to die (that's how my mind feels anyway. How my BODY feels these days is another matter entirely... )

As for Desmond & Hodges, all I can say is that reconciling their personalities with their music can and should be done. It's one of those things that is well worth the effort, and probably more instructive than graduate level psychology courses. It's "in there", but finding it require challenging most everything you think you know about the predictability of human nature.

Now Tony, this has been a fun-but-serious discussion so far, thank God, and hopefully it will continue to be, but Dude, THIS business here REALLY perplexes me: And therein lies what I feel is a big tendency for people who push the envelope (in music, in any art) to want to have it both ways. They're quite happy when they're in the vanguard, pushing boundaries, critics' darlings, etc...but when living on that razor's edge gets kind of exhausting and they'd like to have an actual LIFE for a while and they ratchet back on the intensity, and the music inevitably SOUNDS like they've ratcheted back (flat even), and the fans and critics call them on it, then suddenly it's THE FANS AND LISTENERS' FAULT for just not being hip enough to appreciate their "later period." COME ON! Give me a break folks. I've used this quote of Neil Young's before, coined back in the 80's rock period: "Every wave is new until it breaks." So there are times when I would like to tell certain artists who were once avant garde darlings but have, well, by my ears (crap detectors) lost the edge amd/or are casting around for a sense of relevance and purpose, "You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Please don't whine about people calling you on it when you've descended from the heights to mere mortaldom."

What the HELL does that have to do with Sonny Rollins, one of the most notoriously NON-comfortable-with-the-critical-and-public-fuss in the history of the music? This is a guy who has a legendary distrust of the media and an equally legendary dislike of hype and publicity. And this dates back to the 50s, btw. I think a reading of the jazz press over the last 40-50 years will fail to turn up any indication that Sonny Rollins was EVER thrilled or delighted by the hype he recieved in his percieved heyday. In fact, you'll find just the opposite. So leave Neil Young to those for whom it applies, ok?

If you can believe what he says the few times he speaks in an interview in terms outside of his usual set answers, his life has been at least as much about reconciling the demands of functioning in the public arena with what for him is a very personal, spiritual even, act. "Get over it" might be a reaasonable enough answer to that (and I suspect it's one that Lucille Rollins has proffered more than once...), but we all have our quirks, no? Let him who has never been cast be the first stoned, or whatever that line is...

One could argue that this is a dillemma that every artist faces, and that others have found a way to deal with it. Yeah, and so what? I could argue that every "compromise" one makes for the public presentation of such personal matters adds a layer of "artificiality" to it and means that the public is being sold a representation of the real thing, not the real thing itself. I DO in fact hold this position about a lot of music, but don't necessarily view it as a "bad" thing - the veneer's been around so long that it's become part and parcel of the thing itself, something that automatically gets factored into the equation. And sometimes, as in horace Silver's work, the veneer is where the substance actually lies (in my opinion). But DAMN do I love it when somebody has the balls to either ignore it or attempt to subvert it, even to the point of stubbornly (but knowingly) producing work that is ALL veneer, just to make the point that "product" is not the be-all-and-end-all of things like music.

Of course, this whole matter of subtext is of little or no interest to many "fans", and so be it, c'est la'vie, c'est la guerre, etc. Everybody makes music for their own reasons, but the "system" isn't set up to provide everybody with whatever audience might be suitable for them. Therein lies the basic "art vs. commerce" bugaboo that has been around ever since music began to be something besides a wholly communal, ritualistic, folk activity. Those who for whatever reason choose not to be aware of or contemplate that are well within their rights, of course, but refusing to acknowledge something does not make it disappear, any more than being aware of it means that it should be front and center in everybody's perception. Like my college buddy Don Coleman used to say, "There it is if you like it, there it is if you don't like it".

BTW, Tony, I'm glad to see you backed off, if only implicitly, of the whole "Sonny's been lost for the last 30 years" position. That really was over the top, and not at all justified by ANY evidence, recorded or anecdotal. You can say that Sonny's been a LOT of things over the last 30 years, but "lost" is not one of them. I spent last night on my job (data entry, YIPPEE! ) repeatedly listening to +3, GLOBAL WARMING, & THIS IS WHAT I DO, and if THAT'S lost, well, would that we were ALL so lost! And Creaming off the relatively few excellent tracks from a 25 YEAR PERIOD and saying it's a strong set is fine and well, but to extrapolate that as an accurate representation of the period as a whole, well...let's just say the scientist in me really balks at that kind of methodology! while a joke that I get and appreciate also points out an inherent conflict between jazz and "rational" thought and linear reality.

The question of what the true nature of any music is, especially jazz, and to what extent recordings capture and/or distort that nature, is as old as recording itself (and has morphed into the music video debate as well). Many have debated if Sonny's dislike (some have called it a phobia, others a hatred) of recording, live or otherwise (and this too goes back to the late 50s) is a stubbornly courageous holdout against the corruption of an all but lost "original purity of intent" that deserves commendation, albeit laced with INCREDIBLE amounts of frustration, for staying true to what he (and many, MANY other more pragmatic individuals) feel is the ultimate "truth" of the music; or if he is just a brilliant but naive holdout against the inevitable nature of the world to get a taste of a good thing and move on/into it until it consumes/subsumes/assumes it as its own, and if he is a fool for resisting (although, again, the last 3 albums show that an internal compromise might FINALLY have been reached). Or if he is in fact both.

The Winnie The Poohs of the world will have an easy and predictable answer, but the rest of us...

Edited July 1, 2003 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Which is EXACTLY why comparisons of this type are so ill-formed and irrelevant when used for either praise or for dismissal.

Ok, I see the merit in them on a superficial level, but they ultimately don't lead to the truth. They don't necessarily lead to a lie, but they don't lead to the truth. Sorta like "we" like to say about certain players - ""They don't NOT swing..."

Anyway, Tony's right about one thing (well, actually LOTS of things, even if his take on Sonny isn't one of them ) - I DO have a personal attatchment to an issue like this, and if my telling y'all that you're missing the point and y'all keep telling me that it's a valid point from a listener's POV, is a recurrent theme, then that's all well and good. No doubt there are things involved in musicmaking that really SHOULD be known or of interest only to those who make it. It's just hard for me to filter that stuff out in public discussion, for hopefully obvious reasons. It's what I know, my POV.

It doesn't, and I can't stress this enough, make my opinion about how I FEEL about anything more valid than anybody else's. However, I do think that when musicians (and there's more than a few on this board) talk about the circumstances and processes that go into the production of the music, that it's worthy of more than casual dismissal by any but the most casual fan. But maybe that's just me - I tend to be fascinated by the "whys" and "hows" every bit as much as the "whats" (I very much enjoy watching INSIDE THE ACTORS STUDIO, MONSTER GARAGE, and other "look inside" shows, superficial as they are. That's just me).

Anyhow, I stand behind everything I've said in this thread, even if the "tone" is more, uh, "up front" than usual. Nothing personal, but the further one gets from home, the more either realises its importance or its lack thereof. In my case, it's been the former. If the comparison had been between Joe Lovano and George Garzone, I'd likely have just let it slide becasue although I dig both those guys VERY much (especially Garzone!), I don't have the lifetime investment in them like I do Mobley & Rollins. And my secondhand investment in their lives totally pales to their firsthand living of them (duh! ).

So a guy makes a perfectly legitimate-in-the-context, if ultimately meaningless-in-the-broader-picture, comparison, and I feel compelled out of love of God & Country to speak up/out, if for no other reason that when things go wrong in bunches everywhere you live, and you maybe see a chance to maybe stop one more thing from maybe going wrong (at least wrong by the rules of the world you live in, the world where everything's going DEFINITELY wrong), then you do.

Hey, best laid plans, and all that...

Edited July 1, 2003 by JSngry

[David Ayers]

My question about judgement (which come from a professional in the area of aesthetic theory and therefore should be attended to according to Jim's theory;)) is just a suggestion that it is hard to work out and properly theorise the difference between technically-expert and non-technically-expert judgements. Judgements of beauty which are purely receptive are clearly different from judgements which are through technical knowledge in some way identified with the process of artistic production. Anyone who has ever produced art of any kind knows that more is about feel than anything else, even if the technical means must be in place, they are ONLY in place in order to achieve the aesthetic result. Incidentally, this is why some improvisers play only themselves, not self expression simply but also the technical limitation of having evolved only to play the music you have decided to play.

What I also think is that it is important in life not to get bogged down attending to things that are just OK on the grounds that yo might be missing something. call what is OK pants and move on. Be bold in your rejections. Concentrate on the sublime and don't settle for less. You can always come back and check out what you passed over. Oh and don't fall for the overworn spiritual-musical 'journey' metaphor. Have you ever been on a train?

[skeith]

Jim,

So why don't you take a crack at reconcilingl the personalities of Hodges and Desmond with their music? I can't make the connection and am interested in your theory.

And by the way, I don't think you should have come down so hard on Tony for making comparisons with Mobley and Rollins. We all do it. I seem to remember a while back you were spilling a lot of cyberink comparing Stan Getz to Joe Henderson.

And yes, I think recommeding Silver City seems rather faint praise- I mean it is only 2 cds from about 30 years of work. I expected you to recommend the individual cds.

I have most of them, and frankly it is not my favorite Rollins period and the sidemen are not always of high quality but there are a fair number of good solos.

My biggest problem with Silver City is that when I look at the tracks chosen for that compilation, I often think that I would have made other choices.

[JSngry]

Judgements of beauty which are purely receptive are clearly different from judgements which are through technical knowledge in some way identified with the process of artistic production.

Well, there you go - I FEEL great beauty and power in a LOT of Sonny's later work. After I feel it, I can rationalize why I feel it, but only up to a point. I feel the life in the music, the joy, the experience, the wisdom. It ALL stems from receiving those feelings.

It starts, as it does with any music for me, with the sound, the tone, the vibe(rations), if you will. When THAT hits me right, I don't care if a cat plays whole notes for an hour! (in theory, anyway... ) Or, as is sometimes the case w/Sonny, somewhat cliched (for him) lines. The lines don't matter to me, because that's not where the story is being told - it's being told in the tone! Now when the lines are happening, and they often are, that's just icing on the cake. But there's more stroies in that cat's tone alone than there are in many people's most impassioned outpourings. At least for me there are, and I'm not insane enough to be TOTALLY imagining it, nor am I alone in hearing it. Seemingly in the minority, sure, but NOT alone!

But how do you intellectually explain an emotional reaction to a tone? I sure can't. I can explain the rudiments of how he gets that tone, but I can't explain WHY. There is no intellectual explanation for that, thank God! And as far as all the nuances and shadings he puts on that tone, forget about it! Again, the "how" is meaningless compared to the "why", and it's the "why" that captivates me and holds me in its spell. That's why there's only one or two Rollins Milestones that I can honestly classify as flat out boring in terms of HIS playing - that tone is usually telling me something that I can't resist, even if everything else is imminently resistable. A LOT of those albums, especially in the 70s and 80s are erratic, and often annoyingly so, but that's quite different from being boring. At least it is for me.

Hey - I've said what I have to say on this matter, and I realize that it just don't make sense to a lot of people, so I'm gonna let it slide for now. But just let me say in closing that there is a LOT of life (in the truest sense) in Sonny Rollins' later music, and its life of the sort that we can all learn from, if we are so inclined. Get it if you want it, ignore it if you don't, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it's not there to be had. It is.

[JSngry]

I seem to remember a while back you were spilling a lot of cyberink comparing Stan Getz to Joe Henderson.

If I remeber right, and that's a big "if", I was comparing their stylistic similarities and differences, not comparing their, for lack of a better word, "essences". Big difference, at least in my mind. On is purely technical and can be noted "scientifically", the other purely personal to each player and not at all quantifiable, which is what I objected to, even though I doubt that was Tony's real intent. But rightly or wrongly, that sort of comparison strikes a nerve with me. I think it's fundamentally wrong 9.9 times out of 10.

[David Ayers]

Jim

I wasn't (at all) arguing with what you were saying, and I certainly do realise that it is hard to argue a judgement. I also think you are correct to describe your judgements and to query the judgement of others. And I also think that, in general, when you think someone has missed something in whatever way it is a good idea to point them back at what they might have missed (in the same way am I always urging people not to overestimate particular things. I think all of this is called criticism and is legitimate. I prefer any amount of this to the routine disclaimer and false modesty which states 'this is my opinion and it is purely subjective', because when people say that what they mean is 'this is my opinion and for me it is absolutely true, it lies only inside my head and can't be interrogated by YOU, YOU, or YOU - because I am the consumer and I have final authority'. So to absolutely validate subjectivity is simply to misrecognise the world - the world in which what one subjectively thinks counts for very little. But this analysis doesn't end here...

Edited July 1, 2003 by David Ayers

[JSngry]

And yes, I think recommeding Silver City seems rather faint praise- I mean it is only 2 cds from about 30 years of work.  I expected you to recommend the individual cds.

OK:

• NEXT ALBUM (unhesitatingly recommended)
  
• IN JAPAN (ditto)
  
• Side One of THE CUTTING EDGE
  
• NUCLEUS (takes some "getting used to", but worth the effort, at least it ws for me)
  
• DON'T ASK (ditto)
  
• G-MAN
  
• DANCING IN THE DARK (for Sonny alone)
  
• FALLING IN LOVE WITH JAZZ (gets stronger to these ears with every hearing, even after a lot of years!)
  

as well as bits off of all but HORN CULTURE, THE WAY I FEEL, REEL LIFE, & OLD FLAMES (not sure about the last one, but it has yet to grab me even slightly)

and more unhesitating recommendations for the most recent 3:

• + 3
  
• GLOBAL WARMING
  
• THIS IS WHAT I DO
  

And if you come across a grey-market thing caleed JUST ONCE, grab it immediately. It's "live" in the way that none of the official stuff, even the best ones, are. WHOOEEEE!!!!

Edited July 2, 2003 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Jim,

So why don't you take a crack at reconcilingl the personalities of Hodges and Desmond with their music? I can't make the connection and am interested in your theory.

Simply put (GOT to get to bed!) - Desmond is the nerd who secretly is boning all the cheerleaders but puts up the geeky facade so the jocks don't kill him. He gets more action with less hassle that way. His tone and endless mindgames reveal a deep physical affection for and intellectual appreciation of sensuality it its plushiest manner.

Rabbit - the guy with a heart of gold who ain't gonna let anybody get the best of him, ESPECIALLY his bandleader! Play by his rules and he's the sweetest guy ever (he actually travelled with his wife on the road quite a bit!), but try even one fraction of a trick on him and he'll freeze your ass out harder and faster than humanly possible, and good luck waiting for a thaw. What you hear in him is fire and ice in equal measure, and if they don't exactly cancel each other out, they coexist in a harmony that can only come from a lifetime of indulging and testing each equally and equally deeply.

There's people like this in all our lives, right? These guys just happened to be brilliant musicians.

G'night!

[DrJ]

I want to address one point you raised, in response to my comment about people in the vanguard, once toast of the town, sort of falling from "grace" of the critics, fans:

"What the HELL does that have to do with Sonny Rollins, one of the most notoriously NON-comfortable-with-the-critical-and-public-fuss in the history of the music?"

YES, I agree. I wasn't very clear there, so can't blame you for your question. I was talking in Sonny's case about some of his most ardent fans and followers basically experiencing the same kind of "you just don't get me" head trip vicariously! There are certain performers that bring out that kind of reaction in their faithful, and Sonny's one of 'em. Had meant to make that connection but didn't. I hate to say this lest I trigger more debate, but to be honest I think your position on all this, and reaction to an innocuous and not unusual post really smacks of this sort of proxy emotional response, almost a case in point. I don't know exactly why this occurs and why it's so much more common for certain performers than others, but it happens. One thing I'm pretty sure about, it says a lot more about the devotee than about the person they are defending (even in cases where there is no reason to be on the defensive!). You basically admitted there were extenuating personal life issues involved here, and that's what I am picking up in the tenaciousness of your dogging of this one simple, benign illustrative comparison. Somehow my criticism of Rollins has been construed as a criticism of you.

Regardless, what you're basically saying is that despite my inner crap detector vibrating like a chain saw, I should just ignore it and say "Well, I'm sure old Sonny really is on to something." It's like you're takin' my viewpoint way more personally than Sonny would, which is kind of weird honestly. I can't ignore my instincts any more than you could, nor should I.

I also agree with the person who called you on making comparisons between performers. We ALL do it, it's one of the most fundamental devices and I'm not buying your semantics in justifying why it's OK when you do it and not when I did it. If you go back and look at my original comparison of Hank and Sonny, again I think what I said is perfectly reasonable AND very nonjudgemental about anyone's "essence." My point was mainly to question the party line about Mobley somehow being a second-line player, and secondly to point out an interesting difference I find holds true between many pioneer/innovator types and the more "steady excellence" performers like Mobley - when the innovators go for the gusto, they only reach it sometimes and generally their body of work is more uneven (not necessarily less interesting, or less "good," things I never said, but undoubtedly more unneven). I don't know how to say it any clearer.

Another thing I think is odd: you, my friend, just recently spent more than a few lines incredibly casually dismissing huge amounts of another Sonny's work - Sonny Stitt's - in another post, accusing him of "coasting." I could have raised many of the same concerns you have in response - did you know him personally? Did he TELL you he was coasting? How would that have made the man feel? etc etc. I mean really, it's pretty much the SAME FREAKIN' LINE OF REASONING, Jim. But I didn't call you on it, even though I pretty much completely disagree with you (I think the Sonny coasting issue is largely a canard, rather it's just that he had a relatively unvaried approach and so sometimes there is a sameness to the music that can superficially appear to be lack of inspiration on a less than stellar day. In fact given the sheer number of recordings he made it's un-freakin'-believable how few true dogs there are in there...oh oh, do I feel a "consistency comparison" coming on? ).

I DIDN'T call you on your "degradation of Stitt's essence" because it WASN'T ANYTHING OF THE SORT and I readily recognized that. I recognized that your comment simply represented your impression, borne of some musical knowledge, some historical knowledge, and a whole lot of intuition. In other words, I trusted your motives because I know your posting record, and I remain puzzled that you seem to refuse to trust mine and you're still "after me" (in a civil, discursive way) about an issue that really doesn't warrant the dogging.

Edited July 2, 2003 by DrJ

[JSngry]

Somehow my criticism of Rollins has been construed as a criticism of you.

Sorry, but THAT is bullshit.

[JSngry]

And btw, the Stitt deal was comparing him to HIMSELF.

Go ahead and say that Sonny Stitt was more consistent than Sonny Rollins. I know of no sane individual that would disagree with you, nor of any sane individual that would agree that that comparison is irrelevant to anything having to do with too much of anything except some "rating system" that serves what purpose? I know some people get a kick out of that kind of thing, but are you telling me that it's actually a SERIOUS consideration? If you're a bandleader contemplating a hire, yeah, I can see it. But otherwise...

Ok, I see your point completely - the criticism of Hank was unfounded and/or missed the point of what it was that he was about (God knows I'll not disagree with you there!) and the overall consistency of his work over the years is notable and definitely worthy of note. Again, no argument. But what does that have to do with ANYBODY ELSE'S work? Not a damn thing, and that was MY only point, at least until the "Sonny has been lost for the last 30 years" thing, which sent this thread off on a whole 'nother tangent, and I'll argue THAT one until the day I die (which I'm sure that EVERYBODY agrees will hopefully not be necessary ).

In closing, I'd also like to note for the record that Dexter Gordon was consistently taller than Johnny Griffin, and that Sal Nestico was consistently more Italian than Stan Getz.

[DrJ]

You said: "I don't mean this as an "attack" or an argument with you Tony, but the last few months have, for personal reasons, really brought me face to face with just how inseperable I am from music, not just my music, but the entire world of practicing, creating, performing, and all that. I'm having to live in the so-called "real world" a lot more directly now than I have for quite some time, and it's forcing me to confront who I REALLY am, since I don't seem to have more than a passing similarity with most of the people I'm dealing with regularly now. They have a concept of life, its goals, its rhythms, its textures, its priorities, its colors, pretty much EVERYTHING that is different than mine and the people I've been dealing with (mostly) for the last few decades - musicians and other "creative" types. I'm not in any way saying that one group is "better" than the other, because that's obviously just not so. But the differences are real, and birds of a feather flock together for good reason - life just seems to go smoother when everyone's, if not on the same page, at least reading the same book. And there's a LOT of good books, so we don't all need to read the same one.

Saying, "I think Mobley was far more consistent throughout his sadly truncated career than Sonny has been" for you is no doubt a simple enough expression of opinion, and I gotta respect that. But in the touchy-feely-where-the-hell-is-my-life-going-to-go-NOW frame of mind I've been in lately, I feel compelled to tell you, and all the other posters who have made similar comments about other artists, that THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF MUSIC!!!! Not the ultimate point anyway, and ESPECIALLY not the point of either Sonny Rollins or Hank Mobley, individually or together. I mean, I'm a fan too, as well as a musician, so I know what y'all mean, and I can go there too, if only to a point. But qualitatively comparing Sonny Rollins and Hank Mobley, two of the few musicians whose work has been as close to my heart as any and have deeply helpde mold who I am as a person, well, you just got my goat and I'm snapping!"

Uh...show me the bullshit. The way I read it: you are saying basically the same thing in those paragraphs that I said, just dancing all around it and nice-ing it up. You are saying that I said something that was innocuous to me but really hit an inner sensitive spot with you, and by golly YOU established the contextual issues related to your personal life (I would never have dreamed of going there without you going there) and I continue to contend that says this issue seems like it's all about YOUR issues, not mine. I mean you SAY FLAT OUT that I've offended you because I've offended two of your formative influences by having the gall to compare them. Again - WHERE is the bullshit?

Go ahead and say that Sonny Stitt was more consistent than Sonny Rollins. I know of no sane individual that would disagree with you, nor of any sane individual that would agree that that comparison is irrelevant to anything having to do with too much of anything except some "rating system" that serves what purpose? I know some people get a kick out of that kind of thing, but are you telling me that it's actually a SERIOUS consideration?

I don't know how many times I can say this - I was not rating them or assessing worth. How many times can I say it? Remember the old "compare and contrast" instructions from high school essay tests? Well this was a case of "contrast," setting their differences into relief for the sake of what I had hoped would be illuminating dialogue, to whit: many people seem to talk only about Hank's earlier work, through Soul Station era, and then neglect his later stuff including last recordings. I was trying to point out that right up to the end he was playing some seriously interesting stuff, and how much I admired that because even for a giant as great as Sonny Rollins, it is apparently hard to do (based on my hearing of his later work). No rating scheme implied - in fact, if you still contend there is, you go ahead and tell me from those statements and my earlier ones which person you think that I think is "better." Go ahead. You'll be wrong either way, though, because the answer is "neither."

And btw, the Stitt deal was comparing him to HIMSELF

Well, er, yes...but that's not my point. The point I was making is you made some pretty glib pronouncements about a large body of Mr. Stitt's work that were stated as pretty definitive and unqualified with phrases like "in my opinion" or "according to my ears." Which is what you've been taking me to task for now for several pages worth, telling me unless I regularly have tea and crumpets with Sonny or better yet psychoanalyze him every Tuesday, I have no basis for criticizing what I perceive to be a lack of direction and lack of real commitment in many (not all) of his later recordings. I was not talking about the dreaded comparison issue, which I've hopefully put to rest for the last time above.

Just so we's clear here, I would NEVER be this blunt about any of this if you hadn't continued to hammer away (in a nice-on-the-surface but ultimately pretty condescending manner) that it was basically me making an ignorant, unthinking comment that touched off the righteousness. Not that I've never done THAT, but this wasn't one of those times and I'm not keen to cop to something I never did.

I admire your insights and the stimulation of discussions you are a part of here more than you probably realize and sincerely hope this won't create any kind of rift, but you certainly weren't pulling any punches so I didn't feel inclined to either.

Edited July 2, 2003 by DrJ

[JSngry]

Tony, if you'll go back and read carefully what I have said (and if you got THAT much free time, I'm envious!) , you'll see several times where I say that you no doubt didn't mean things in the way that I responded to and that you were kinda "in the wrong place at the wrong time". It is the bane of all "creative" musicians to have to "compete" with each other (and even with themselves, their past work) in the public arena, as if there's only room for one "king" at a time, and that respect for one player comes at the cost of another. The classic example would be the attitude that Bird made Johnny Hodges obsolete or irrelevant. That attitude was once actually fairly common among "fans"! It still exists today, and has absolutely nothing to do with music itself, nor does the notion that an artist has an obligation to constantly "reinvent" themselves and obliterate their past heights. That's not just anti-music, it's anti-HUMAN!

So no, no rift whatsoever, and please know that it was the implications of that initial post that set me off, not the person making it, or even the literal post itself. But I stand behind everything I have said in this thread in a general sense - EVERYTHING! Especially the thing about Dexter Gordon being consistently taller than Johnny Griffin, the ultimate in true but meaningless comparisons, if I do sy so myself!

But no, dude, we're cool. Totally.

[DrJ]

Cool - glad we're OK, and we can agree to disagree a little bit while probably agreeing on MUCH more among the volumes we've written here.

And Dex taller than Griff? Nah, just some BIG old mother heels...

[JSngry]

Heels or not, Dex was no match for Griff in the big shades department, on that we can most likely DEFINITELY agree!

[skeith]

JSangrey

I want to go back to your point on the connection between a musician's personality and his music. Thanks for taking a stab at analyzing Hodges and Desmond. Although from what I have read, regardless of what his pictures may look like, Desmond was not in the least bit a nerd.

However, if I get your point, you seem to be saying the the paradox of one's music being unlike one's personality is solved by recognizing that there were other aspects to their personality and that everyone has these.

That is true, but then doesn't that make any judgements about the connection between personality and one's music meaningless, because everyone is multifaceted?

[JSngry]

Multifaceted, yes. Omnifaceted, no.

[BFrank]

Back to "Blackhawk"

Killer album. One of the best of the Miles boxes, I'm thinking. This band is just "on" and the great club atmosphere just adds to the mix.

I'm picking disk 3 as my favorite so far, but it's all good and I'll probably be changing my mind later.

If you haven't picked this up yet - DO IT TODAY!

B)

[king ubu]

Yes, I got it last week and listened to the friday night stuff so far! What a groove they hit, almost from the first note! A wonderful band in its own right, absolutely no need to compare them to the Coltrane of Shorter bands! Kelly is so fresh, Cobb and Chambers form a hell of a trio with him, and Mobley alway has some good ideas, and the usual marvellous sound...

I got the two 2CD sets. What's the difference between them and the 4CD set (which I have seen nowhere here in Switzerland!)?

ubu

[Aggie87]

There is no difference in the content. The 4 disc set is merely the two 2-disc sets with a flimsy cardboard cover around it.

[king ubu]

Thanks, Aggie! Relief! I tend to quite care a little bit too much about such things!

ubu