Name some Blue Note cds you find overrated

[Scott Dolan]

Have you heard Eric with Roy Porter (or, even, with Chico Hamilton early on)? Sam held a gig with T-Bone Walker (and reveals it pretty strongly on that 1961 Tadd Dameron BN cut). Andrew's Warwick album?

Yes, they were all very "inside" at one point. They started playing bebop, the same as most everybody else their age!

I suppose, Jim.

But, isn't that like asking if I ever heard Coltrane play with Miles in '57?

Sidemen.

Leaders.

Or is that not what we're talking about here?

[JSngry]

We're talking about starting fom the inside and moving outward.

Not everybody did that.

[Scott Dolan]

Well, at the time most of them did.

Especially those you mentioned.

Hence my question.

All of those cats came from a Bebop background.

[JSngry]

Exactly.

Inside moving out.

You can't say that about, for instance, Archie Shepp. Archie had some licks, was a helluva blues palyer (still is, if he's still playing...) and was not unconversant with playing changes, but by no stretch of the imagination could you say that he was a fluent bopper. No way. And it didn't matter, he had other things going on that were more important to him at the time.

But Archie Shepp was not starting from the inside the same way that Dolphy, Rivers, Hill, etc. were, which is why he could never have made an Out To Lunch type (although in its own way, Live In San Francicso sorta-kinda comes close, but...not really) record, just as Dolphy could never have made a Magic Of Juju type record. "Could never have made" not in the sense of being incapable of, but rather in the sense of direction not headed that way.

Dolphy was referencing Gazelloni while Shepp was pointing out Rufus & Hambone. In the end, it does all come together. But only in the end.

At the time we're looking at, there were plenty of guys coming at it like Archie, and there were plenty of guys coming at it like Eric. Actually, maybe, for a quick minute, less guys coming at it like Eric, becuase the immediacy of the times led plenty of people to think that there wasn't time for all that, we gotta get it done now. But over the long haul, skills win out over urgency, at least in terms of survival. Ideally, you have and maintain both, but...

So, yeah, I don't think that BN 'avant-garde" is any more or less "real" or anything else than "anybody else's" "avant-garde". It's all honest music.

To return to the original topic...I'll not get into "overrated" becuase that's a tough call for me to make for reasons that Clifford gave earlier, but I will talk about "underappreciated", ok? And for me, the prime BN example of that is Some Other Stuff. Sure we all love Evolution because JackieLee & LeeJackie, but hello Wayne, hello crazy-ass genius Newarkian frontline, hello speaking the same language and not just reading off the same page, hello Herbie Hancock going there (although, for me, the best part of Evolution is Bobby, Bobby in those days was pretty damn open - and with skills out almost everybody's ass, although geez, what I wouldn't have given to hear Walt Dickerson afforded the Lion special attention). Both good, but one is a "cult classic" and the other...hell, you could always find an LP of Evolution if you looked, it hung in there a good long while. Some Other Stuff...where is the love, and where is the cult status?

Like the song says, that's for me!

[ep1str0phy]

I've spent the last few days listening to and reading a lot about Paul Motian, and I was really taken with an interview Chuck Braman conducted with him in '96. At one point, Braman is grilling Motian about his perspective on the latter-day conservative turn in jazz (versus the freewheeling/experimental 60's--the period in which Motian--and much of the music discussed on this thread--began to flower). Motian is being sort of catty, and at one point he just says, "in the '60s there was a lot of shit goin' on, and I wanted to be part of that."

I've spoken to a number of musicians who played roles in the musical innovations of the 60's, many of whom might not be categorized as experimental in the modern day. There's a healthy dose of respect among many of the musicians who survived that era, and it was very instructive seeing Archie Shepp at Yoshi's about a year ago--I ran into a drummer friend who had played on Pharoah Sanders's first album, and though the topic of the classic energy Shepp stuff came up, nothing about either the music that night or the aura of conversation suggested that there was some sort of "inside/out" or "either/or" divide still inherent in the music.

That being said, inside/out is still definitely a very real thing, and I think the dichotomy between these two extremes (as Jim articulates) played a pretty important role in the narrative of 60's jazz. The sense I get is both that (as Motian noted) extreme experimentalism was then, as it was not before and has not been since the 60's, really, a key part of what jazz was at that time. Even though not everyone was playing "out," it was question to be confronted, maybe engaged, and maybe willfully opposed/negated. We're talking about a time period when including terms like "freedom" and "outside" had legitimate market resonance--as opposed to the relative toxicity of marketing avant-gardness in the modern day.

I often wonder whether this environment offered more opportunities to experimental artists who might (in another time period) have been relegated to the fringe, or if the 60's simply precipitated experimentalism from otherwise conservative artists. As has been discussed in numerous threads that have touched on this topic, there's a lot of "slippage and play." With regard to current day market considerations, it's pretty insane that the key iconology of the avant-garde was getting recorded and distributed by Atlantic, ABC-Paramount, Columbia, etc. etc.

One has to imagine that Blue Note was both tapping into a commercial/spiritual zeitgeist (hence the signing of Ornette, Cecil, Cherry, etc.) and simply showcasing the logical evolution of its late-50's/early-60's roster. Many of the folks who at some point inhabited the sphere of the Jazz Messengers/Horace Silver/Miles were the guys who were making innovative inside/out music in the 60's--this is the fabric that the 2nd Miles Quintet guys, Moncur, McLean, etc. were culled from. Blue Note played a big role in facilitating the documentation of this music, but I also think that a lot of the "in house sound" has to do with music that definitely would have been made on another label and in a different context--so long as it was made at that time.

On that level, I do think it's interesting that the overrated/underrated discussion inevitably becomes one about schools and disciplines, rather than specific albums or even artists. For my part, the sheer caliber of so much of the music on that label was so high--and so much that music was so weirdly intertwined by politics, personnel, etc.--that it's hard for me to separate Point of Departure from something like Judgment or Compulsion. Now Andrew Hill on Soul Note v. Andrew Hill on Blue Note--where we're talking about two completely different eras with completely different playing styles--that's way more complicated.

[JSngry]

I've spent the last few days listening to and reading a lot about Paul Motian, and I was really taken with an interview Chuck Braman conducted with him in '96. At one point, Braman is grilling Motian about his perspective on the latter-day conservative turn in jazz (versus the freewheeling/experimental 60's--the period in which Motian--and much of the music discussed on this thread--began to flower). Motian is being sort of catty, and at one point he just says, "in the '60s there was a lot of shit goin' on, and I wanted to be part of that."

Thinking this over this evening, I've had the thought that what might be a factor in the division that the BN "avant-garde" seems to precitpitate in some quarters is the very real presence of "20th Century Classical Music" in so much of it. Maybe this was a/the "real" "Third Stream" after all?

Is "Third Stream", as a notion anyway, an inherent watering down, a weakening? Or is it simply how shit survives over the long haul?

The 20th Century brought ready access to all kinds of musics in a way that had not existed before (and it seems primative compared to how we now have access to even more things even more readily). What was supposed to happen, "jazz" keep being "jazz", "classical" keep being "classical", and hey kids, look, smile, talk, but don't touch, definitely don't fuck, and for damn sure don't have no babies, and if you do, decide up front how they will be raised, becuase you can't have it both ways? And make no mistake, "both ways" are the only ways. 1+1=2, not a new 1. The twain shall meet, but they will be banished after they do?

That, it seems to me, is not how it works in a healthy world. Paul Motian had it right afaic.

The irony of the rejection by the neo-cons of the 70s "avant-garde" for being too "European" while taxidermitizing a portion of the 60s "avant-garde" that was in much of its basic vocabulary very "European" in the service of creating a fantasy "American Jazz" is not lost. Also not lost is my deep suspisicion of "energy" as being the final determinant/sustainable of pursuable quality. But still/yet, once the rawbluesfunkspiritjuju goes away, is what you have worth keeping? For me, no. But that "thing" comes in many forms, many spirits, many places, many vocabularies. Modern Man embraces them all and proceeds accordingly, tears be damned. And shed.

Best as I can see, fusion leads to fission leads back to fusion, etc.Where one is at any given moment is ultimately irrelevant relative to what one chooses to do at any given moment.

And then there's the infamous "trainwreck of avant-garde nothingness" still residing deep within the bowels of the label under discussion here. That it was not issued in its time supports the notion that "old Blue Note" was essentially a "progressive conservative" company in terms of music (and that the "post-Lion BN was definitely that - at best - in terms of running a business...and then again, what does it say about an enterprise that did what it did so well that one feels somehow cheated that they didn't do something other than what they did?), somebody who was all for letting the river expand its banks but also of building levees so as not to encourage wholesale flooding and subsequent eradication of the town they helped build, but it's ongoing supression (ok, "supression") and the reactionary characterization of it as something it is definitely not by someboody who really, really should know better (even allowing for superorily informed opinions and such)...ladies and gentlemen, this is a world gone wrong.

[JSngry]

... I also think that a lot of the "in house sound" has to do with music that definitely would have been made on another label and in a different context--so long as it was made at that time.

I'd like to think so, but...where? Once the label got sold to Liberty, that changed everything, I think. Woody Shaw's demo session got lost for years, Cowell's Brilliant Circles, geez, that's a record that in a perfect world so should have been made for Blue Note, the only reason Booker Ervin's great The In-Between got released on BN was that Liberty moved him there from Pacific Jazz (not that that wasn't a good call on their part)...European labels were beginning to open up, but this was a time when imports were not exactly common.

You look at the whole sustainable in-house tradtition thing, the guys who were primed to make that move ended up not being candidates of interest for the new label. How does Woody Shaw have to wait until he gets to California to make his "official" debut as a leader? I'm not talking about Blue Note ever being a "cutting edge" "avant-garde" label, that was not going to happen for reeasons already elucidated, but the way they liked to grow talent (and the music) from within pretty much hit a wall once Liberty took over. Wolff & Duke Pearson made a few moves, but...ya' know? When Jackie shows up again, it's on Steeplechase, he's back to playing bebop (more or less) and we get it here on Inner City. When Charles Tolliver & Stanley Cowell start appearing as leaders, it's on their own label, and if Atlantic was really interested (members don't get weary, but owners do, apparently)...Benny Maupin? At that time he coulda been Tyrone Washington with career instincts, one is left to wonder. Chick Corea for that matter (who did make it back to BN as a leader, but not that BN). Vortex, then Solid State...where was the notion of "building a family" and/or "passing the torch" in those labels?

One would like to think that a lot of the original Strata-East output could have been Blue Note records if Blue Note had been a benevolent superpower ruled by benevolent supernatural forces instead of a simple business ran by two guys out of an office, one of whom simply ran out of gas and the other whom was not motivated to keep it going without missing a beat.

it was a time when a lot of people were giving up and/or redirecting, and that includes labels. But hey, what happened happened for whatever reasons it happened. Same as it always does.

The frailities of humans. Never bet against their manifestation.

[ep1str0phy]

And then there's the infamous "trainwreck of avant-garde nothingness" still residing deep within the bowels of the label under discussion here. That it was not issued in its time supports the notion that "old Blue Note" was essentially a "progressive conservative" company in terms of music (and that the "post-Lion BN was definitely that - at best - in terms of running a business...and then again, what does it say about an enterprise that did what it did so well that one feels somehow cheated that they didn't do something other than what they did?), somebody who was all for letting the river expand its banks but also of building levees so as not to encourage wholesale flooding and subsequent eradication of the town they helped build, but it's ongoing supression (ok, "supression") and the reactionary characterization of it as something it is definitely not by someboody who really, really should know better (even allowing for superorily informed opinions and such)...ladies and gentlemen, this is a world gone wrong.

This is a really astute observation that I hadn't really considered--i.e., that Blue Note may be characterized as a "progressive conservative" company. Under that rubric, the "Finest in Jazz Since 1939" banner serves as an equipoise to some of the more strident (and seemingly ubiquitous) marketing material of the day (i.e., ESP's "You Never Heard Such Sounds In Your Life," or even Impulse's "The New Wave of Jazz is On Impulse"). It's sort of a tacit acknowledgment of the notion that the apogee of a given art form will always hew close to the middle--that the "finest" is neither the "newest" nor the most conservative, although there may be some overlap.

I also like the idea that a lot of the BN avant-garde operates under principles that are sort of "apart" from the meaty/earthy energy music of the same vintage--and it's definitely true that the label facilitated or maybe even emboldened a degree of experimentation in its artists that is very singular for the era. Hutcheron's BNs (both "early" and post sale) are deeply European in many regards, running the gamut from very explicit Satie-isms to these more chaotic/bloody Stravinsky-esque moments (and many of these from the late albums--Head On comes to mind). I might even argue that the really deep and bizarre atonal minimalist improvisation on Dialogue, half of Components, Tony's early BNs, and some of Hancock's records (to say nothing of Out to Lunch or the Moncurs, which are really universes onto themselves) precedes some key European Free Improvisation (i.e., SME, Derek Bailey) in its realization of an improvised Webernian music.

What I am curious about is whether or not this second "third stream" (to use a really awkward term) of 60's jazz--i.e., music that emanated from the mainstream but participated in the catholic experimentation of its era--really existed apart from the studio context we're aware of. There is a massive volume of documentation of the forefathers of free jazz proper, from the exhaustive existing body of live Ayler dates to the extant bootlegs of post-'65 Trane, Ornette's groups post-reemergence, and even post-Unit Structures Cecil. What I can't understand why there isn't more live 60's McLean in circulation, or why there is so little of evidence of 60's Hutcherson playing live.

I think it is definitely correct and actually sort of scandalous that that the more cerebral/abstract components of 60's free music were swept under the rug during the revisionism of the 60's. It's "easy" to dismiss Ayler in an academic sense (though, obviously, not in a technical sense or from any historical or spiritual perspective), but it's nearly impossible to cherry pick 60's Miles as the paragon of excellence and ignore the concurrent and preceding developments his sidemen made in abstraction. I know that the jazz wars are technically "over," but what did Wynton make of Life Time? How do you let go of the last couple of tracks on Oblique--where you have four extremely proficient "inside" players essaying abstract pseudo-free music in the same breath? Even with the extant Blue Note recordings, I feel like this is a secret history that hasn't been told.

It's even crazier when you do look at the (sorry to keep using this term) "slippage and play." The New Wave in Jazz (on Impulse) has a series of tracks that feature Moncur, Cecil McBee, Hutcherson, and Beaver Harris--just like Brilliant Circles, this material could have fit on Blue Note--but the Blue Note that issued Components, Dialogue, and Out to Lunch. Hearing three Jackie McLean sidemen play with the Beaver of the 60's--definitely still in the mindset of the Beaver who stoked the fires of the two trombone Shepp Quintet--is pretty mind-boggling. Beaver's sensitivity and nuance in this context is a testament to the fact that there was and is a lot more to the supposed energy/intellect dichotomy than the official histories suggest. Very little mainstream jazz followed up on music of this nature in the years subsequent, but you can hear shades of this music in the early AACM and Marion Brown's European recordings (as well as a few other things, like Jacques Coursil's BYGs, for example).

Back in terms of the overrated/underrated question, I have a hard time even evaluating (admittedly favorite) recordings like the BN Hutchersons, Out to Lunch, and so on--this music exists apart from so much of the established history that I feel like it needs its own grading scale. Whether or not these stand beside items like Workout, Idle Moments, or The Cape Verdean Blues as paragons of their respective genres is a non-issue when something like the second half of Components operates so deeply within its own universe.

Edited September 4, 2014 by ep1str0phy

[Big Beat Steve]

But "music primarily aimed at entertaining black adults"? Be prepared for some raised eyebrows about how lofty concert artistry can possibly be dragged down to such a "gutbucket" level.

It's soul jazz which is 'primarily aimed at entertaining black adults' and it wasn't my intention to express a view that there was lofty concert artistry in any of the live soul jazz albums I've come across, which I feel is music to accompany the party. It's a pity none of those live albums include material such as 'Happy birthday to you'. That would be more authentic (By the way, that's how Bob Porter defines - perhaps too tight a word for what he means - soul jazz. I don't disagree; I seldom disagree with Bob Porter on soul jazz issues )

MG

I did get you right. What I meant to say (tongue-in-cheek and deliberately exaggeating a bit) was that I have a feeling there are quite a few out there who evaluate jazz from that period in terms of strictly artistic accomplishments in a concert setting and tend to use this as a yardstick for how "modern jazz" is supposed to be appreciated. Straightforward entertainment and "having a ball "with the jazz platters? Some might frown indeed ...

No quite appropriate in my opinion. Case in point, some time ago I picked up a copy of Cannonball Adderley's "Something Else" as a VERY early pre-Liberty deep groove pressing at a local record store clearout sale. The record plays relatively OK and is listenable but clearly the vinyl is shot and has seen some heavy party abuse (no greying, wine-sipping, head nodding "serious" collector would leave scratches and scuffs like that on a record ....). But then it cost me the princely sum of 2 euros ... And actually seeing this record has provided enjoyment to many partygoers in its day makes up in "authenticity" for whatever audible scratches (and that skip in one place) are embedded in the grooves now ...

Enough of this digression, though - would not want to get in the way of the avantgarde discussion that has evolved since you replied to my post which I saw only now.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Big Beat Steve

[king ubu]

Great posts, guys - very thought-provoking!

And actually, "Some Other Stuff" has long had a cult-following (of one) wherever I was - tremendous record!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Never heard 'Somethin' else'. Something else to look into.

And you wanna hear my Esquire copies of Jimmy Forrest's 'Sit down and relax' and Jug's 'Bad bossa nova' D:

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

And you wanna hear my Esquire copies of Jimmy Forrest's 'Sit down and relax' and Jug's 'Bad bossa nova' D:

You mean they are just as shot as my copy of "Something Else"?

[Scott Dolan]

Never heard 'Somethin' else'. Something else to look into.

One of the few Jazz albums I would rate as "essential".

My copy came in the Miles Davis box set The Blue Note and Capital Recordings, oddly enough.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Ah, that's why. After many tries, can't abide Miles Davis.

MG

[David Ayers]

Ah, that's why. After many tries, can't abide Miles Davis.

MG

Miles Davis is "of interest" but the comparisons you often see to Picasso are just barmy and a reminder just how deliberately if artfully MOR his venture was.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Ah, that's why. After many tries, can't abide Miles Davis.

MG

Miles Davis is "of interest" but the comparisons you often see to Picasso are just barmy and a reminder just how deliberately if artfully MOR his venture was.

Well, actually, the Miles Davis album that I came closest to liking quite a lot was 'Quiet nights'. Strikes me that I might have liked him more if he'd been CLOSER to MOR than he was.

MG

[Scott Dolan]

Wow!

I had no idea one could like Jazz but not like Miles!

Learn something new everyday.

[Big Beat Steve]

See everybody, that's just about what I meant in an earlier post.

This attitude of being focused on what and whom one is "supposed" to like in order to (rightfully? duly?) like jazz per se ...

So what about somebody who is a definite, hard core lover of oldtime jazz and embraces it in all its facets? What would or could Miles (from any period) (or Trane, for that matter) do for him? And STILL this person would be a definite lover and fan of "jazz" as such.

Just like those to whom anything prior to hard bop is old hat can (and do) claim the same label for themselves too.

In short, just shuck anything that sounds like what one is "supposed" to like. There IS no '"must do" beyond one's favorite STYLE(S) of music (including jazz). WITHIN one's favorite style(s) - yes, that's what recommendations are for. But "must hear" BEYOND that spectrum? Nah! Most avantgarde listeners would not accept any oldtime/classic jazz "must hears" either. Jazz is and remains a wide field and one man's meat is and remains another man's poison. Which does not prevent anybody from exploring other fields of jazz if he himself feels like it - but "must" expore? Nonsense.

BTW, referring to liking or not liking "Miles", which Miles anyway? I'll state frankly that I have a lot of Miles from his Capitol Birth of the Cool band through most of his Prestige quintet albums (and whatever there was on other labels during that period) and I like and enjoy them for what they are, but beyond that the only more "recent" Miles albums I have are Sketches of Spain and Seven Steps to Heaven (both of which I got more or less accidentally yet find them interesting enough to listen in sporadically - but no, I don't even own KOB! It would be around anyway anytime I wanted to OWN it).

And whatever "Miles periods" came AFTERWARDS ("Electric Miles" or fusion in particular) just don't do it for me. So ....??

(Yes, this span of Miles platters incidentally more or less corresponds to the styles and periods of modern jazz I primarily enjoy - a wide enough field as it is anyway, but if the rest of Miles just is of no appeal to me (going by what I have heard), then who is to pass judgment on that, unless he thinks himself a "superior" jazz listener - which of course first of all would tell a lot about those who pass judgment in that way ...

No offense meant, but those points just had to be made

Edited September 4, 2014 by Big Beat Steve

[David Ayers]

Wow!

I had no idea one could like Jazz but not like Miles!

Learn something new everyday.

Strange maybe but while I can enjoy some or much of what he allows to happen around him I just feel he very consciously marketed an idea of "sophistication".

Edited to add I hadn't seen Steve's post and just to report that I am long familiar with all periods of Miles, still listen to new releases and rebut and relisten to old stuff, but that I just never really believed in it. And while I own KOB and have even recently rebought it I haven't listened to it in many a year. Strange but true.

Edited September 4, 2014 by David Ayers

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Most avantgarde listeners would not accept any oldtime/classic jazz "must hears" either. Jazz is and remains a wide field and one man's meat is and remains another man's poison. Which does not prevent anybody from exploring other fields of jazz if he himself feels like it - but "must" expore? Nonsense.

While I agree with you generally, you're way wrong about this. If you look at the stuff Chuck Nessa (and if he can't be described accurately as an 'avant garde listener', I don't know who can be) likes and thinks important, you find ALL sorts of stuff. And he's not the only one here; Larry Kart, Jim Sangrey, John Littweiler have all got very broad taste and can point out important stuff from beyond the avant garde. Hot Ptah, too, now I come to think of it. And Ubu. And Moms Mobley. Oh, Alan Lowe, too. Oh hell, I bet all of the avant fans here are WELL aware of the history of jazz and can identify important prior stuff they love to bits. (And some of them can even identify important soul jazz recordings they love to bits )

MG

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, he's wrong about that, and you can add my name to that group. I'll gladly listen to everything from Basie to Ayler, and everything in between.

Matter of fact, in recent years I've gotten away from "energy" music and returned to the more "accessible" stuff.

[paul secor]

To get back to BN, my take during the mid-sixties was that Blue Note got their toes wet with the new music when they recorded McLean, Hutcherson, Hill, Moncur, etc., and they signed Ornette, Cherry, and Cecil because they didn't want to get left out. (And don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that those records were recorded.) Perhaps that's not the whole story. Just my take at the time and still my take.

[colinmce]

Geez, this thread got nuts!

My two cents: the Golden Circle albums are Ornette's greatest work.

[Scott Dolan]

To get back to BN, my take during the mid-sixties was that Blue Note got their toes wet with the new music when they recorded McLean, Hutcherson, Hill, Moncur, etc., and they signed Ornette, Cherry, and Cecil because they didn't want to get left out. (And don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that those records were recorded.) Perhaps that's not the whole story. Just my take at the time and still my take.

And I agree with that 100%.

As I stated earlier in the thread, it wasn't as though they were trying to be Impulse! or ESP, but they knew quite well that if they were to remain a relevant player in the market during the 60's they were going to have to land some AG artists.

[mjazzg]

Great posts, guys - very thought-provoking!

And actually, "Some Other Stuff" has long had a cult-following (of one) wherever I was - tremendous record!

Make that cult following two. Best BN cover ever too (big claim)