The complete Paul Desmond RCA Victor recordings

[l p]

so, i got the dexter gordon complete prestige recordings box from my library. the ballads are nice. and i'm making my way through the rest of the box, though dexter wouldn't be in my top 20 saxophinists list. one thing i noticed is that one of the tunes "Boston Bernie"(?), sounds quite a bit like all the things you are.

the library is also getting art pepper complete galaxy box. i'm trying to decide whether to give that one a listen. i've seen his jazz casual video, and saw a long documentary from his late period. not impressive.

which brings me to this. i figured as long as i may check out the pepper box, i might as well give another white box a chance - one that i've continually ignored:

"The complete Paul Desmond RCA Victor recordings".

it took me only the 35min drive to work, skimming through 4 of the 5 cd's, to confirm that this is terrible stuff. his embouchure has serious problems, his tone and attack are exactly the same on each tune, and i now understand where this reviewer is coming from (although the reviewer does not seem like he's much of a jazz fan).

http://www.trageser.com/archive/music/album-desmond.html

review:

Bachelor pad kitsch

The Complete RCA Victor Recordings

By Paul Desmond

RCA Victor/BMG; New York, N.Y.: 1997

by Jim Trageser

This review first appeared in the December 13, 1997 edition of the American Reporter.

Much as with Herb Alpert and Stan Getz, Paul Desmond spent the early '60s putting out bachelor pad albums — what was packaged to men of the time as smart and sophisticated and guaranteed to attract the chicks but which in retrospect just seems dumb, kind of like wearing Playboy bunny cuff links. The album covers tended to feature a sultry, scantifly clad young woman on her back, just waiting for her hipster man to put the right music on the hi-fi, profer a vodka martini and seduce her with fancy talk of Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal.

It was music for cocktailers who found Sinatra and Basie too heavy, who thought Dean Martin wasn't quite mellow enough, who were too hip for Ray Conniff — but just barely. In other words, this was the soundtrack for folks who wanted their apartment to look like the set of "That Girl" and who basically thought "jazz" was an accessory you bought in the home furnishing department at Sears.

Thank God that nightmare is over. Although, should you miss it or, like Henry Kissinger, actually remember it fondly, a new boxed set of Desmond will take you right back.

The five LPs reissued in CD format on "The Complete Paul Desmond RCA Victor Recordings Featuring Jim Hall" are like a time capsule from 35 years ago: mostly inconsequential music, cover art that's a scream.

To be fair, in many ways Desmond was closer to Getz than Alpert in having a serious jazz side that got caught up in a silly fad, a fad soon swept away by lava lamps and bell-bottom jeans. Desmond was a decent alto saxophonist capable of writing intricate, interesting songs that might have proven to be more worthwhile if given a fair chance. And Jim Hall, featured sideman throughout, is an outstanding jazz guitarist with a reputation alongside that of players such as Joe Pass and Barney Kessell.

But unless you actually think Hugh Hefner is anything more than a curiosity, you won't find much on this set either.

end.

[Jim R]

That you don't care for it is understandable. Calling it "muzak", however, takes your credibility down several notches, IMO.

BTW, the reviewer didn't know how to spell "Kessel". (Just figured I'd try to add something useful to this).

[Claude]

it took me only the 35min drive to work, skimming through 4 of the 5 cd's, to confirm that this is terrible stuff.

You better listen to it again, completely and more carefully.

[Dave James]

Paul Desmond = muzak. Sorry, does not compute.

Up over and out.

[l p]

You better listen to it again, completely and more carefully.

thanks, but i'm not subjecting myself to that thing again. i learned my lesson after giving the bill evans 1980 live boxes a chance - time and time again. they never got any better. soulless, extremely overrated musician. perhaps not as a pianist, but definitely as a jazz pianist. i wouldn't even call it jazz. and he plays standards either too fast or too slow. just doesn't seem to know how to get into the right groove. days of wine and roses, for example. a tune that people usually play in a lush, relaxed manner. he rushes through it like he's going to die the next year.

[l p]

Calling it "muzak", however, takes your credibility down several notches, IMO.

no matter.

[Brad]

Let's see in the space of a thread you've maligned two great musicians doing incredibly great work and shown yourself not to know that much. Not bad work in the space of a day.

[MartyJazz]

About the only thing you got right is that "Boston Bernie" is indeed based on "All the Things You Are".

[Big Al]

Let's see in the space of a thread you've maligned two great musicians doing incredibly great work and shown yourself not to know that much. Not bad work in the space of a day.

Only two? I'm up to five so far....

"white box"? WTF?

[Free For All]

If you don't like Desmond or Evans, that's your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled. Given the level of vehemence with which you express your level of dislike, I don't think anyone telling you that you need to re-listen is going to change your mind. You should stop trying to "get" these guys and move on if that's the way you feel. Me, I love both artists (and the sets you mention), and find their music neither "soulless" nor "muzak".

A couple comments on your comments-

Consistency of tone and attack is kind of what Desmond is about as a player, so if that bugs you I can see that you won't "get" him.

Regarding Evans, I think that you might want to be a little more open-minded regarding tempos. I think that the choice to change tempos and grooves leads to different interpretations of the music, which to me is kind of what it's all about. And what is the "right groove" anyway? What you think it should be or what I think it should be? Seems like a pretty subjective area. I tend to trust the artists I like to make their own decisions on such matters. I don't want to hear the same tune at the same tempo forever- do you?

I respect your opinion (whether or not I disagree with it) but to me your arguments are a little weak given your expressed level of dislike.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Free For All

[gslade]

Move on and find some music you do like

[jazzbo]

What's the old saying? "A stirred pot always boils?"

[l p]

Let's see in the space of a thread you've maligned two great musicians doing incredibly great work and shown yourself not to know that much. Not bad work in the space of a day.

i've been working on taking them down a notch for a year or two (musicians who everybody likes because they're taught/told to like them). can't do that kind of project in one day. read past posts. btw, by all written accounts that i've come across, evans was in top form in 1980. and supposedly his left hand playing was very busy during this period (#6 - comparing to tyner's left hand chinese water torture on the coltrane concerts, i.e. mft), which is why i got those '80 boxes in the first place. what a waste of time that was.

[Brad]

What's the old saying? "A stirred pot always boils?"

I thought that was a watched pot never boils. Not sure what it has to do with your point however

[homer9600]

My compliments to the Librarian.

[Free For All]

i've been working on taking them down a notch for a year or two (musicians who everybody likes because they're taught/told to like them).

Well, good luck with all that, then.

[tonym]

Ya reckon?

[Z-Man]

although the reviewer does not seem like he's much of a jazz fan

Frankly, neither do you. Aren't you the guy who said that Sonny Rollins only played "lame crap" or something like that a while back? My apologies if I have the wrong guy.

[wesbed]

hardbop, soulstation, aricefron.

18 year old morons who don't know shit about the music.

there are older people here who fit that description, but we'll save that for another time.

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...ndpost&p=264621

Always making new friends.

[marcello]

Isn't "A Tate Of Honey" on that set?

That's wonderful to my ears.

Anyway; it seems that you buy expensive box sets without having heard the artist before or at least not that much from the recordings on the set. Who does that?

[Jazz Kat]

You better listen to it again, completely and more carefully.

thanks, but i'm not subjecting myself to that thing again. i learned my lesson after giving the bill evans 1980 live boxes a chance - time and time again. they never got any better. soulless, extremely overrated musician. perhaps not as a pianist, but definitely as a jazz pianist. i wouldn't even call it jazz. and he plays standards either too fast or too slow. just doesn't seem to know how to get into the right groove. days of wine and roses, for example. a tune that people usually play in a lush, relaxed manner. he rushes through it like he's going to die the next year.

I've had my share of fucked up shit, but that's some fucked up shit!

[Guy Berger]

although the reviewer does not seem like he's much of a jazz fan

Frankly, neither do you. Aren't you the guy who said that Sonny Rollins only played "lame crap" or something like that a while back? My apologies if I have the wrong guy.

Yup, that's him.

Guy

[Jim R]

Let's see in the space of a thread you've maligned two great musicians doing incredibly great work and shown yourself not to know that much.  Not bad work in the space of a day.

i've been working on taking them down a notch for a year or two (musicians who everybody likes because they're taught/told to like them). can't do that kind of project in one day. read past posts. btw, by all written accounts that i've come across, evans was in top form in 1980. and supposedly his left hand playing was very busy during this period (#6 - comparing to tyner's left hand chinese water torture on the coltrane concerts, i.e. mft), which is why i got those '80 boxes in the first place. what a waste of time that was.

So... you object to people liking certain artists because you seem to think they were all "taught/told to like them" (right, we're all a bunch of sheep who can only base our decisions on what we read). Then you offer us this:

"btw, by all written accounts that i've come across, evans was in top form in 1980."

"...and supposedly his left hand playing was very busy during this period"

"...which is why i got those '80 boxes in the first place."

Anyway, good luck with the smear campaigns ("credibility" has nothing to do with your ability to use a credit card, btw)...

Edited May 9, 2005 by Jim R

[Chuck Nessa]

Just leave this loser alone. Let him die on the vine.

[Sundog]

Calling it "muzak", however, takes your credibility down several notches, IMO.

no matter.

.....actually no brain matter