Unissued BN session: Grant Green w/John Gilmore

[Soul Stream]

At this point.... If it was anywhere close to good, it would have been out by now. Just mho. I think they've really made an effort to get anything releaseable out. I mean we all cheered "Grant's First Session," but you could tell right away why it was never released by Alfred.

[Jazz Kat]

I guess we won't know Alfred's true reason. Maybe record sales? That's why he didnt release The Waiting Game and Back To The Tracks, by Tina Brooks, because True Blue was so low.

[Dan Gould]

I guess we won't know Alfred's true reason. Maybe record sales? That's why he didnt release The Waiting Game and Back To The Tracks, by Tina Brooks, because True Blue was so low.

Back to the Tracks was sequenced, mastered, given a catalog number and cover and was pictured in other jacket sleeves. It wasn't unreleased due to the sales of True Blue, Alfred later said he couldn't remember why it was never actually released except that it was a very busy time and it must have somehow just fallen by the wayside. He fully intended to release it.

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

I still might enjoy it if I heard it.

Is your pleasure the important factor here?

[Jazz Kat]

I guess we won't know Alfred's true reason. Maybe record sales? That's why he didnt release The Waiting Game and Back To The Tracks, by Tina Brooks, because True Blue was so low.

Back to the Tracks was sequenced, mastered, given a catalog number and cover and was pictured in other jacket sleeves. It wasn't unreleased due to the sales of True Blue, Alfred later said he couldn't remember why it was never actually released except that it was a very busy time and it must have somehow just fallen by the wayside. He fully intended to release it.

The sales from True Blue were low though right? I read it in some book.

[Jazz Kat]

I still might enjoy it if I heard it.

Is your pleasure the important factor here?

I know.

[.:.impossible]

Frankly, I see as much potential for this session to be a bust as I do for it to be not so bad. That combination of personnel has "hmmmm, I dunno....." written all over it.

Everybody individually is fine, but together? Hmmmm, I dunno.....

My thoughts exactly. The first thing that came into my head was "whoa." Somthing about it doesn't register. I'd still buy it if it were available though!

[Rooster_Ties]

I hear what you're sayin' Jim, and looking again at the players, I think I'm with you on this one.  Would certainly be one of the few dates Grand Green ever did with an "outside"-leaning player like Gilmore.

You know, on second thought, the weird thing about this date isn't Green + Gilmore.

It's John Gilmore + Duke Pearson.

The idea of those two "clicking" on this (or any) date does take some imagination. Not saying it couldn't ever have happened, but Pearson was such an "inside" player, and Gilmore was rarely ever that "inside".

(I'm not trying to denigrate Duke Pearson's playing either. I'm just saying I think they coulda been like oil and water.)

Edited March 23, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

Well, look at who you got here - John Gilmore, Bobby Hutcherson, Duke Pearson, Grant Green, Butch Warren, & Billy Higgins. Take out either Hutch or Gilmore & you got some potential chemistry (Hutch being a "chameleon" of sorts in those days, and Gilmore being an excellent inside player throughout his career). But put Gilmore and Hutch together, ala ANDREW!!! and the "symapthetic pull" that the two might well exert on each other just doesn't go with that rhythm section. Put McCoy in for Pearson, yeah. Or put Joe in for Gilmore, yeah again. But as it stands, you've got the makings for a good quintet date, only you got six cats in the studio.

Another factor as to way the date might not have gelled is a simple one - "personal issues" of any number of varieties.

[Daniel A]

You know, on second thought, the weird thing about this date isn't Green + Gilmore.

It's John Gilmore + Duke Pearson.

I agree with you, Tom. That was a mismatch of sorts.

One thing I've been thinking of, which may be without any significance but I thought I'd mention anyway: When Ike Quebec died in 1963 Pearson took over his A&R at Blue Note. From that point, these are the Blue Note sessions where he played piano during the following two years:

Johnny Coles 'Little Johnny C' (July 18, August 9, 1963)

Grant Green 'Idle Moments' (November 4 & 15, 1963)

Bobby Hutcherson 'The Kicker' (December 29, 1963)

Rejected Grant Green session (February 12, 1964)

Grant Green 'Solid' (June 12, 1964)

Duke Pearson 'Wahoo' (November 24, 1964)

Several of the non-Pearson led dates have been described by posters here as "in reality a Pearson date", or in similar words to the effect that Pearson seemed to have a lot of influence on the date as a whole. Perhaps he just took his A&R role seriously. But anyway, that makes me think that Person might have had something to say when the group was chosen for this particular rejected session as well. Therefore, it seems all the more odd that Gilmore would be picked for the sax part. Is it possible that he stepped in for someone else?

Edited March 23, 2005 by Daniel A

[Big Wheel]

You know, on second thought, the weird thing about this date isn't Green + Gilmore.

It's John Gilmore + Duke Pearson.

I agree with you, Tom. That was a mismatch of sorts.

One thing I've been thinking of, which may without any significance, but I though I'd mention anyway: When Ike Quebec died in 1963 Pearson took over his A&R at Blue Note. From that point, these are the Blue Note sessions where he played piano during the following two years:

Johnny Coles 'Little Johnny C' (July 18, August 9, 1963)

Grant Green 'Idle Moments' (November 4 & 15, 1963)

Bobby Hutcherson 'The Kicker' (December 29, 1963)

Rejected Grant Green session (February 12, 1964)

Grant Green 'Solid' (June 12, 1964)

Duke Pearson 'Wahoo' (November 24, 1964)

Several of the non-Pearson led dates have been described by posters here as "in reality a Pearson date", or in similar words to the effect that Pearson seemed to have a lot of influence on the date as a whole. Perhaps he just took his A&R role seriously. But anyway, that makes me think that Person might have had something to say when the group was chosen for this particular rejected session as well. Therefore, it seems all the more odd that Gilmore would be picked for the sax part. Is it possible that he stepped in for someone else?

Interesting, too, that Henderson played tenor on ALL the aforementioned dates except this one.

[Daniel A]

Interesting, too, that Henderson played tenor on ALL the aforementioned dates except this one.

I didn't even realize that myself!!

After these sessions Duke didn't sit on Rudy's piano chair until December 7, 1966 when he recorded "Sweet Honey Bee". And guess who was playing tenor...

Edited March 23, 2005 by Daniel A

[bertrand]

I'm fascinated by the presence of Butch Warren!

Bertrand.

[Brad]

Unfortunately, it is MC's decision that counts but I believe his view is that if it was rejected it shouldn't come out even though it may not be bad musically. I almost think it's a reflex opinion on his part. I'm sure that there are several rejected sessions that could be reissued such as the Art Blakey sessions talked about elsewhere. MC is looking to defend Alfred's place in history and not release material that Alfred didn't see fit to release. Not a bad concept but to adhere to it unflexingly doesn't seem to serve anybody.

And what's wrong with Jazz Kat wanting to hear it. Absolutely nothing.

[jazzbo]

And what's wrong with Jazz Kat wanting to hear it.  Absolutely nothing.

Whew it's a relief that there's nothing wrong with that. . . I want to hear it too!

Edited March 23, 2005 by jazzbo

[Jim R]

Pearson was such an "inside" player, and Gilmore was rarely ever that "inside".

(I'm not trying to denigrate Duke Pearson's playing either. I'm just saying I think they coulda been like oil and water.)

I'm glad you're not trying to "denigrate" Pearson... I've gotta ask, though, does it really automatically suggest a put-down to talk about somebody as mainly an "inside" player rather than "outside"? (that seems to be the underlying concept there, which is a little dubious, IMO). But at least you weren't trying to denigrate him.

[Dan Gould]

Unfortunately, it is MC's decision that counts but I believe his view is that if it was rejected it shouldn't come out even though it may not be bad musically.  I almost think it's a reflex opinion on his part.  I'm sure that there are several rejected sessions that could be reissued such as the Art Blakey sessions talked about elsewhere.  MC is looking to defend Alfred's place in history and not release material that Alfred didn't see fit to release.  Not a bad concept but to adhere to it unflexingly doesn't seem to serve anybody.

I really don't think this is accurate, Brad. The fact is that from the start, Michael was putting things out that Alfred didn't. Before Alfred was introduced to Michael, he supposedly wanted to know who this person was who was putting out all those LT dates.

Further, there have been a number of issues of material that Alfred explicitly rejected, like Brooks' Minor Move and Grant's first session. I'm pretty sure there have been several others as well, though I'm not sure if The Kicker was actually rejected at the time or not.

So I don't think Michael is just protecting Alfred's legacy or image. He has respect for Alfred's original judgement, but its hardly kept him from putting out music that Alfred didn't want to issue. Remember that he's been dealing with the Blue Note vaults since the mid-70s, thirty years of reissues. If its worth putting out, wouldn't it have come out by now?

My personal opinion is that we are down to the truly "unworthy of release" sessions, and maybe the only way to hope for something to see the light of day, would be a Mosaic Select dedicated to those sessions that everyone wonders about but have no chance of coming out as regular reissues. Maybe you could get the train wreck, this date, and the rest of the Dex/Stitt session, complete with Alfred yelling, "Vhat the hell are you doing?"

Edited March 23, 2005 by Dan Gould

[Brad]

Dan,

I was referring to the rejected sessions but in any event you may be right although except for those two sessions, nothing else rejected has, I believe (and I could be wrong), been issued. Somehow, I don't believe that the Blakey session could be that bad.

This is probably a weird way of doing business but what if Micheal put on the Mosaic or BN site cuts from some of these rejected sessions and let fans vote on the quality. Not so much as the deciding factor as to whether it should be issued but as a factor in helping him decide if it should be issued. That might not be a bad idea.

[Jazz Kat]

Unfortunately, it is MC's decision that counts but I believe his view is that if it was rejected it shouldn't come out even though it may not be bad musically.  I almost think it's a reflex opinion on his part.  I'm sure that there are several rejected sessions that could be reissued such as the Art Blakey sessions talked about elsewhere.   MC is looking to defend Alfred's place in history and not release material that Alfred didn't see fit to release.  Not a bad concept but to adhere to it unflexingly doesn't seem to serve anybody.

I really don't think this is accurate, Brad. The fact is that from the start, Michael was putting things out that Alfred didn't. Before Alfred was introduced to Michael, he supposedly wanted to know who this person was who was putting out all those LT dates.

Further, there have been a number of issues of material that Alfred explicitly rejected, like Brooks' Minor Move and Grant's first session. I'm pretty sure there have been several others as well, though I'm not sure if The Kicker was actually rejected at the time or not.

So I don't think Michael is just protecting Alfred's legacy or image. He has respect for Alfred's original judgement, but its hardly kept him from putting out music that Alfred didn't want to issue. Remember that he's been dealing with the Blue Note vaults since the mid-70s, thirty years of reissues. If its worth putting out, wouldn't it have come out by now?

My personal opinion is that we are down to the truly "unworthy of release" sessions, and maybe the only way to hope for something to see the light of day, would be a Mosaic Select dedicated to those sessions that everyone wonders about but have no chance of coming out as regular reissues. Maybe you could get the train wreck, this date, and the rest of the Dex/Stitt session, complete with Alfred yelling, "Vhat the hell are you doing?"

This is sad that there are no good sessions left. What's the point of any more reissues then?

I see your point, but I still think there are some good gems waiting to be released.

[Brad]

I hate to go both ways on this since it makes me look pretty indecsive but there may be a few but not many. A few years ago they released the Lost Sessions disc which, frankly, in my opinion, wasn't that good. Those were some sessions that probably should have stayed in the can.

[Dan Gould]

This is sad that there are no good sessions left. What's the point of any more reissues then?

Because there are still sessions that have not been reissued or were reissued and deleted or only reissued in Japan. Of these there are many.

Of sessions never issued in the first place, I do not think there are any left that are worthy of release.

[jazzbo]

I think you're probably right.

Could I spend about three months in the vaults though to verify?

[Jazz Kat]

That would be heaven wouldnt it.

[Dan Gould]

I think you're probably right.

Could I spend about three months in the vaults though to verify?

Just remember its filed under "T", for Tyrone, Trainwreck, and Toot Toot.

[Jazz Kat]

I dont think he's gettin in there.