Ernie Henry

[carnivore]

Take a wild guess.

if you really know - please share.

-_-

No, I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that either it was an outright overdose, general debilitation from drug use over time, or (a la Sonny Clark) a specific incident where someone is so completely out of it that and on the streets that one night he is exposed to the elements to a dangerous degree. If physical violence had been involved, I think I would have heard about that. In those days, in the jazz press, such things usually weren't talked about openly. There were one or two standard phrases -- can't recall them now -- that were understood to mean than X had been a drug addict and had died from an overdose or from one of many drug-related causes. Arguably, no alto saxophonist of talent -- with the possible exception of Jackie McLean on "Jackie McLean and Co." -- ever sounded more strung-out than Ernie Henry did. I recall an old Martin Williams Down Beat review of either "Presenting Ernie Henry" or "Seven Standards and a Blues" (or maybe it was "Brilliant Corners") in which, taking note of Henry's sharpish intonation and at times extreme effortfulness of articulation, he wondered whether Henry really could play much at all (as in, were these things a matter of choice or sheer infirmity) and also implied that those who were drawn to Henry's playing were in some sense voyeurs of pain. Martin, of course, was quite a puritan, but he does have a point. Henry's effortfulness is related to Monk's in that it is truly musically expressive of just what Henry, one feels fairly sure, is trying to bring off; on the other hand, he does falter at times, even by his own standards/narrow margins. As for the nature of what Henry expressed emotionally, while I'd say it would be voyueristic to prize Bird's "Lover Man" because it sounds like what it actually is, a man having a breakdown (and Martin may have had that in the back of his mind), Henry doesn't strike me that way. His limitations as an instrumentalist led him to come up with some unique, musically interesting moves (like a drowning man who invents a new swim stroke), while the "cry" of his playing never seemed external or self-regarding (as IMO Frank Morgan's sometimes did); rather, that aspect of Henry, listened to at the time (before his death), seemed like a dangerous, powerful act of realism, for him and to some degree, and along similar lines, for the listener. It sure was no vacation.

That's a very fair summary. For some of us, especially those of us who are saxophone players, the wayward intonation has always been a problem and I find it difficult to listen to Ernie's work on 'Brilliant Corners'. Jackie McLean was easier to take until the night I heard him at the Kennedy Center in DC in the mid 90s. He was playing almost half a tone under (or over - I can't now remember) the piano and seemed totally unaware of the fact. He certainly made no effort to get any closer and we had to leave after a couple of numbers.

[Gheorghe]

That's a very fair summary. For some of us, especially those of us who are saxophone players, the wayward intonation has always been a problem and I find it difficult to listen to Ernie's work on 'Brilliant Corners'. Jackie McLean was easier to take until the night I heard him at the Kennedy Center in DC in the mid 90s. He was playing almost half a tone under (or over - I can't now remember) the piano and seemed totally unaware of the fact. He certainly made no effort to get any closer and we had to leave after a couple of numbers.

Well, that was Jackie McLean´s trademark, playing somewhat "sharp" (not "under"! as you mentioned). It was his gimmick to get a sound that isn´t too mellow, so even ballads get another quality. Maybe, almost half a tone over is a bit exagerated, maybe in later years Jackie kind of "overdid" his trademark. But in general, he´s got the sound I want to hear, such as Monk or a "Monkish Bud" got the sound I want to hear from the piano.

But talking about Ernie Henry: I like his earlier recordings better, when he was on top of the bebop-movement. What I really admire at him is the fact, that he managed to hold his own, while everybody was trying to play like Bird. His playing with Fats and Tadd , or with the Dizzy Gillespie Bigband is just wonderful, he´s also very good on scatting together with Diz, on stuff like Ool-Ya-Koo, stuff like that. He´s really got that kind of humour that was part of the business.

[AllenLowe]

certain kinds of out of tune I like - but one night (Cami Recital Hall, NYC, circa 1976) I heard Tommy Turrentine play an ENTIRE set with Duke Jordan, about a quarter tone sharp - it was weird, because everything else was fine, he played great, in that mystery key. I was sitting next to Hugh Lawson, whom I knew a little bit, and he leaned over and whispered in my ear, "that guy is FUCKED up."

(I loved Hugh, who always spoke his mind; I have a few other choice quotes of his stashed away)

[carnivore]

Given that Jackie, on the occasion I cited, made no attempt to remedy his tuning, and that it was outrageously out, one can only conclude that he was, indeed fucked up or - more generously, that his hearing and sense of pitch was no longer working as it should. As Gheorghe points out, Jackie's intonation was always suspect - I don't buy the 'trademark' excuse - it's more likely that, fine player that he was in other respects, his sense of pitch was always faulty.

[flat5]

Jackie's pitch was better when he was young.

Ears are sensitive devices. Something may have gone wrong.

Myself, I could never play in tune on marijuana.

Every note sounded right :-)

[AllenLowe]

no no no no no no no guys, Jackie played that way intentionally, and personally I like the way it sounded - you have to understand a little history here, as he was really working from Bird as a frame of reference, and Bird played sharp a lot - Jackie was just taking it a step further. To suggest it was some kind of auditory problem is really silly. I knew Jackie, and he had all his faculties intact -

[carnivore]

no no no no no no no guys, Jackie played that way intentionally, and personally I like the way it sounded - you have to understand a little history here, as he was really working from Bird as a frame of reference, and Bird played sharp a lot - Jackie was just taking it a step further. To suggest it was some kind of auditory problem is really silly. I knew Jackie, and he had all his faculties intact -

except his sense of pitch? that's quite a cop-out

[AllenLowe]

no - that's not what I said - he played that way intentionally - there is absolutely no question about that; re-read what I wrote - he KNEW he was playing that way, he made a conscious tonal choice -

[carnivore]

Yes - I did read your post carefully and just don't believe him when he said that. No one in their right mind deliberately plays out of tune. It was his way of getting around the fact that in that respect his playing - or his sense of pitch was faulty - and he was putting you on. Of course he knew that you wouldn't call him on it. Saying "I'm following Bird's example" is so lame

[BruceH]

Personally, I've always really liked McLean's sharp-toned playing, but then, I never heard him live late in his career, only on recordings dating from the 50's/60's.

[jeffcrom]

No one in their right mind deliberately plays out of tune.

I think that's a narrow way of looking at it. Some people just hear differently. Yes, McLean played noticeably sharp, enough for anyone to notice, but I doubt he heard it as "out of tune." I suspect he liked the edge it gave his sound. A classical musician could never get away with that, and I can understand how it could bother some listeners, but I accept it as part of JM's music. I also think it's interesting that he brought it "in" somewhat when playing ensemble passages with trumpeters; he was still a little sharp, but closer to standard tuning.

Tuning is kind of a paradox - I think of it as both absolute and relative. A lot depends on the situation. I think Jackie McLean is an example of what Ornette meant when he said, "You can play flat in tune, and you can play sharp in tune."

[Indestructible!]

Yes - I did read your post carefully and just don't believe him when he said that. No one in their right mind deliberately plays out of tune. It was his way of getting around the fact that in that respect his playing - or his sense of pitch was faulty - and he was putting you on.

Whaaaa???

McLean played that way for 50 years... are you saying he "accidentally" played this way for that long? And that all the legends he played with chose not to call him on it?

Of course he deliberately chose to play a bit sharp... and as others have stated, it had a desired effect. Jackie is one of my all-time favorite alto players (second only to Bird, actually), and I love his tone, his pitch, and his phrasing. You can bet on the fact that what he did was most certainly deliberate.

Cheers,

Shane

[Chuck Nessa]

Pitch, like time is variable and just another tool for personal expression.

[JSngry]

Pitch, like time is variable and just another tool for personal expression.

No, Chuck, there are only twelve exact, specific pitches in an octave, and everything else is wrong, should not exist, serves no use other than to be wrong.

Just like life, there is only one way to do anything, and that is the right way.

I'm surprised that a man of you experience needs to be reminded of the rules.

[Chuck Nessa]

[John L]

No one in their right mind deliberately plays out of tune.

Thank God that Ornette has never been in his right mind.

Edited March 26, 2009 by John L

[paul secor]

No one in their right mind deliberately plays out of tune.

Thank God that Ornette has never been in his right mind.

Include Von Freeman in that also!

[AllenLowe]

"Yes - I did read your post carefully and just don't believe him when he said that. No one in their right mind deliberately plays out of tune. It was his way of getting around the fact that in that respect his playing - or his sense of pitch was faulty - and he was putting you on. Of course he knew that you wouldn't call him on it. Saying "I'm following Bird's example" is so lame "

READ THE FRIGGIN POST. please - I never said he told me that, dammit, I was citing some history,

READ THE POST

ah.....feel better now.............

Edited March 26, 2009 by AllenLowe

[carnivore]

"Yes - I did read your post carefully and just don't believe him when he said that. No one in their right mind deliberately plays out of tune. It was his way of getting around the fact that in that respect his playing - or his sense of pitch was faulty - and he was putting you on. Of course he knew that you wouldn't call him on it. Saying "I'm following Bird's example" is so lame "

READ THE FRIGGIN POST. please - I never said he told me that, dammit, I was citing some history,

READ THE POST

ah.....feel better now.............

ah - so it must have been telepathy - or one of his mates told you why Jackie played in a way that was bearable in the early days but embarrassingly awful at the concert I cited. A lack of rigor in jazz criticism, dating back to Martin Williams' hasty and ill founded praise of Ornette Coleman has led too frequently to an 'Emperor/no clothes' situation.

[AllenLowe]

yes yes yes you are right I mean there's no real jazz after 1925 that damned Armstrong ruined everythiing

[AllenLowe]

some irony by the way - in the new Downbeat, I think it is, Lew Tabakin takes a blindfold test and complains about Von Freeman playing out of tune -

so take that, Carnival -

[carnivore]