mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Dan, do you see what you started by including a track with Eric Alexander in your BT? Bet you had no idea! Quote
JSngry Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Dan, do you see what you started by including a track with Eric Alexander in your BT? Bet you had no idea! Yeah, I'm going to get speech therapy, get elected president, and change the course of history. TOP OF THE WORLD, MA!!!! Quote
mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Jim Sangrey for President! Don't forget to register to vote ... Quote
mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Well, at least for president of the Organissimo board... Quote
JSngry Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 This thread has gone SEVERELY off-topic... Quote
Jim R Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Jesus... I walk away from the computer for a few hours (to work on my @#$%^&**&^%$#@! Blindfold test #3 line-up, of course ), and the inmates take ov... um, no, I won't go there. In fact, I like this turn of events. And if Jim ain't up for the HIGHfalutin'est office in the land, maybe he would consider running for Guv of Cali! Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 (edited) Apologies if this references back a few posts and keeps things off topic a bit longer but I've been to sleep for a few hours. Yes, of course historical awareness deepens understanding. One is in no position to make profound statements about the significance of Eric Alexander without a pretty good grounding on what went before. All I'm saying is excessive knowledge can be a burden as well as a blessing. I've read a dozen or so Shakespeare plays, most of Jane Austin and F. Scott Fitzgerald and forgotten it all years ago. So when I pick up a new novel does that invalidate my responses to it? My understanding of the rivers that have flowed over the past few hundred years to get to that point is deeply flawed. All I know is that I like or don't like it. Now if I was making a claim for that novel as a significant contribution to world literature then I think I'd need to be a bit more secure in my literary history. But as an ordinary Joe just looking for something to absorb him I think all I need is for it to interest me and that's quite enough for me to want to tell everyone else about it. I went to see 'Goodbye Lenin' at the cinema a couple of weeks back and was totally captivated by it. Now I'm not a great film goer, know nothing about cinema theory and even less about Post-War German cinema. I have no doubt that someone with that background might tear it apart for being derivative of something else. All I can do is say 'Wow, that was fun, moving, stimulating.' On the history issue there is a common saying that the problem with the people of Northern Ireland is that they know too much history. I'd say the two communities there know too much 'selective' history. And I thinks that is what often happens in detailed historical appraisals of jazz recordings - the critics proceeds to praise or damn based on an historical knowledge but one that is highly selective, one which has already decided what counts, what matters, what is approved. Of course there is room for the wider historical analysis and there is no reason why amateurs should not enjoy getting involved in it. I just think it needs to be done with caution. I suspect that one of the scariest things to an outsider putting his or her toe into jazz is to read a review of a jazz recording that has brought him/her into jazz and find it savaged by a critic for failing to toe the line of some jazz equivalent of historical determinism. Just to go off even further on a tangent: I think this might all look very different in Europe. Jazz is one of the great cultural achievements of the USA and as such there is a much stronger regard for the tradition there. Where new players fit into the scheme of things seems very important...and not just to the hardline Marsalist-Crouchites (sounds like a Peruvian terrorist group!). By contrast in Europe jazz has only recently developed a real independence from the US model. The result is that there is a much stronger desire to kick over the traces. Whether the many different directions European musicians are tearing off to will result in anything that will be listened to for as long as the US original remains to be seen. But there is a real sense of wanting to do things differently over here, and very little concern about where it fits in with the history. Respect for that history, most definitely. But no real sense of needing to live up to Miles or Coltrane or Armstrong. Which is where I'm starting to sense a real difference of mood. A few posts back we had a number of posters using that term 'jaded'. In the few years I've been posting on these boards the general impression I've gained from US posters is a feeling that the music has reached a pause in its development, that musicians today (like Alexander) are largely recycling the past rather than forging into the future [with a consequent turning back to the history, buying up the back catalogue rather than focusing on the new...look at the balance of discussion between new recordings and old on this board!]. Whereas the mood in Europe is very much 'Wow! We can do this ourselves and we don't have to stick by Daddy's rules any more.' Now, I'm only suggesting those as general moods and I'm fully aware that there are champions of continued evolution in the US and plenty of mouldy old figs in Europe. And I'm not for a minute saying that jazz in Europe is currently more progressive than jazz in the US. But in terms of jazz enthusiasts I sense a tilt towards pessimism in the US, a feeling that current jazz has failed to live up to the expectations of its founding fathers in the last thirty years; whilst in Europe there is a general optimism, a feeling that something new is being created. Which might help explain my lack of reverence for the jazz 'greats' and willingness to be bowled over by the new! Edited September 28, 2003 by Bev Stapleton Quote
mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 This thread has gone SEVERELY off-topic... Oh, there's an easy way to prevent this: KEEP IT SIMPLE!!! Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 (edited) Keep what simple? Edited September 28, 2003 by Bev Stapleton Quote
mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 (edited) Keep what simple? I'm afraid my eloquence is not sufficient to give an appropriate and exhausting outline of the pros and cons of elaborate vs. simple speech bla bla bla - I guess you'll have to figure it out yourself ... Seriously, I dig these posts, but I sincerely think some of it could have said in a much simpler fashion without losing any of the depth of the subject. I basically agree with both of you, Jim and Bev. Edited September 28, 2003 by mikeweil Quote
randyhersom Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 An old quote that I don't know the source of: Good artists copy. Great artists steal. This would express the opinion that with sufficient internalization (understanding?) of the source material, greatness can occur in derivative work, and also seems to imply that all artists borrow materials to lesser or greater degree. Jim, do you feel the same way about Charles McPherson that you do about Eric Alexander? He's somebody from the previous generation that fought a copyist label for much of his career. For that matter the same could be said of Sonny Stitt and Joe Henderson. Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Keep what simple? Seriuosly, I dig these posts, but I sincerely think some of it could have said in a much simpler fashion without losing any of the depth of the subject. I basically agree with both of you, Jim and Bev. I think you're telling me to try taking the horn out of my mouth, Mike! I think JS and myself probably agree with one another but enjoy taking the long walk saying so! Apologies for being obtuse. Not intentional. O.K. I'll let you have your Blindfold #2 thread back now! Some of those smiley things. Quote
JSngry Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Jim, do you feel the same way about Charles McPherson that you do about Eric Alexander? Not even vaguely. McPherson had a distnctly personal tone from the git-go. You heard him an you knew it was HIM. Plus, although hsi vocabulary was entirely that of bebop, he had his own way of phrasing and inflection it. I just can't say that about Alexander - to me, he sounds like he's playing George Coleman solos, and if I can identify him these days (and truthfully, I can), it's as "the guy who sounds like George Coleman", which is a big (or subtle, I guess, depending on your perspective) difference from sounding like Eric Alexander. Truthfully, I think much of the criticism levelled against McPherson early on was due more to the fact that the style that he chose to work within was viewed at the time as "old fashioned", "outdated", "played out", etc., and there were percieved socio-political connotations to not playing music that reflected the times and the turmoils therein. Many critics, fans, and musicians viewed it as being somewhat Tommish to be a young guy playing bebop in 1966. The irony in that, given the perception of bebop only 20 years earlier, is not lost on us today, but such were the times. My problem with Alexander (and really, "problem" is MUCH Too strong a word, "Disinterest" is a lot more accurate) is that not with the style that he chooses to work in. It's a fine style, and much good music can still be made in it, as it can in any style. My disinterest stems from the fact that I, and I gotta stress, I can't get past his tone, phraseology, EVERYTHING still being so damn close to George Coleman's. Maybe that's a quirk in my hearing, but I swear, I don't see how anybody can miss it, it's SO obvious to my ears (but maybe that's jsut me). I get none of that w/McPherson, never have. No matter what the licks/language he's working with, he always sounds like Charles McPherson, nobody else. Sure I can hear his influences, but he's gotten beyond them, even from the beginning, and today he is a stunningly mature, totally individual player. Which is no surprise, given that he had his own sound from the beginning. Again, that's what matters most to me - not style, not influences, not profundity even, but individuality. That's what I liked in music before I got into jazz, and that's still prefer - something that stakes a claim and says, "This is ME!" It doesn't really take much, either, sometimes, just SOME kind of flavor that serves as a truly personal identifier. I've yet to get that from Alexander, not even slightly. But those are MY criteria, MY standards, MY impressions and I recognize them as such. Those who like the guy either a little or more than a little are not going to be objects of my derision unless (like somebody most of us know) they hold him up as an example of Superior Talent Becasue He Can Do This, Unlike OTHER Players Who Can't Even Blow Their Nose In Tune, ETC. (and y'all know who/what I'm talking about). Those who dig him are welcome to do so - you're not "wrong", and I'm not "wrong". I have my reasons for not caring about him, others have their reasons for digging him. Our reasons work for us, so it's all good that way. We'll know in another 10 years or so whether Alexander will develop into a truly personal voice (which does NOT mean "innovator" - somethng as fundamental as having your own tone counts!). Usually, it's happened by now, but there are exceptions. Personally, I'd love to see and hear it happen. Maybe it already is, but I'm just not hearing it. Wake me when you KNOW I will! And yeah - I admit it - I am a TOTAL tone geek. Sue me! Quote
JSngry Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I think JS and myself probably agree with one another but enjoy taking the long walk saying so! Fuckin' A!!!! (see, I CAN do it! ) Quote
mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 (see, I CAN do it! ) Never had any serious doubts about this! Quote
mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I think you're telling me to try taking the horn out of my mouth, Mike! I think JS and myself probably agree with one another but enjoy taking the long walk saying so! Apologies for being obtuse. Not intentional. No, I'm not Miles Davis telling John Coltrane to simply take the horn out of his mouth when he does not know how to stop. No need for apologies - we all get carried away sometimes, I'm not not taking all of this too seriously, except for the basic message that sometimes it takes one or two chorusses, sometimes it takes 56 to get it across, as we all know. Not the slightest bit of boredom or hositlity intended! Keep swingin', all of us! B) Quote
mikeweil Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I find this discussion about Eric Alexander very interesting, believe it or not. I had similar feelings - still have - when I listen to him, couldn't express it that way. I'm not too harsh with "younger" players, experience tells it takes time to develop your personal voice, and we are severe critics because we all know the strong individuals that were there before us, and this makes it even harder. We can't but compare. I think it is both important to simply enjoy what you like or stay critical if you think it's derivative - and that happens only when it doesn't really touch you, reach you. I think we're basically on terms with this. Maybe we should start a thread discussing players under 40 years of age that we think are (still) derivative, and those who stepped beyond? Now that would be interesting. Bev, Jim, what's your opinion? Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Sounds fair enough. Though I'd be in no position to comment on who was or was not derivative of whom. But I could tell you of lots of saxophone players under 40 who I greatly enjoy! Quote
JSngry Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 No longer under 40, but I dug Kenny Garrett from Day One, for precisely the reason I mentioned above - he didn't have a tone like anybody else, and even though his influences were blatant early on. I didn't care, because even though he was saying things that had already been said, by and large, he was saying them in a voice not quite like any I had ever heard before. I'd say the same thing about Osby, Coleman, and Thomas, the "Big 3" of M-Base saxophonists. LOTS of derivation mixed in with LOTS of originality, in frustratinly inconsistent proportions from recording to recording, but the individual personalities were always present. It kept me interested to see where and how things were going with them. That's all I ask - not "innovation", although that certainly excites me (at least initially, "staying power" is another matter entirely...), but a hint of a distinct personality. It takes time to fully develop, sure, but it's usually there in raw form from the git-go. If you get your tone from one place, put your own twist on your phrasing, or vice versa, or SOMETHING. It was Warne Marsh, I believe, who spoke of "taking responsibility for your own melody". That phrase at first struck me as a bit of a "grand pronouncement", but the more I think about it, the more it seems to actually be the whole thing in a nutshell - be who YOU are, and if you're somebody who borrows rather than innovates, no problem, just do it YOUR way, somehow. Maybe this is all too "esoteric" for listeners who simply want to hear some good tunes well played. Fair enough. For me, though, the basic attraction of jazz has ALWAYS been it's collection of personalities, very few of whom have actually been true "innovators". I mean, Junior Cook didn't innovate shit, but he's a deeply satisfying player (at his best) for me, just because of his unique personality. Not everybody wants that? Ok, but put me down in the column that definitely DOES! Quote
Brad Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 In keeping with the recent discussion, there's a great story in Robert Reisner's book The Legend of Charlie Parker, which he related Don Byas' telling about Bird, and I quote: "It seems that when he [Don Byas] first heard Charlie's music and expressed his opinion to Parker, he said, 'You ain't sayin' nothin' on your horn'. Bird gave him a hard look and told to come outside. Byas walked out with him. Bird pulled a knife. Byas calmly drew a blade of his own. Bird looked at him, smiled, and put his weapon away with the remark, 'I really think you'd cut me.'" So much for dealing with complaints about lacking your own tone! Quote
JSngry Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 Show me a cat who carries a blade, and I'll show you a cat with personality. Not necessarily PLEASANT personality, but let's not quibble... Quote
mikeweil Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 LOTS of derivation mixed in with LOTS of originality, in frustratinly inconsistent proportions from recording to recording, but the individual personalities were always present. It kept me interested to see where and how things were going with them. That's all I ask - not "innovation", although that certainly excites me (at least initially, "staying power" is another matter entirely...), but a hint of a distinct personality. It takes time to fully develop, sure, but it's usually there in raw form from the git-go. If you get your tone from one place, put your own twist on your phrasing, or vice versa, or SOMETHING. It was Warne Marsh, I believe, who spoke of "taking responsibility for your own melody". That phrase at first struck me as a bit of a "grand pronouncement", but the more I think about it, the more it seems to actually be the whole thing in a nutshell - be who YOU are, and if you're somebody who borrows rather than innovates, no problem, just do it YOUR way, somehow. I'd rather prefer the way we handle our arguments here - I never was any good at carrying weapons of any kind - maybe because it's not that rough over here: the only occasion when I witnessed a brawl was in an American club! Jim, your post affirms what I thought about all jazz (and other) musicians (myself included): They spend their lives trying to develop and get across some ideas they had at the very start of their careers. You refine, polish, try different angles, but the basic ideas remain the same. That fits your thought that the initial core of an individual sound is there from the beginning. Garrett, Coleman, Osby and Thomas are good examples; I would add Joshua Redman to the list, Jane Ira Bloom, James Carter, perhaps Tad Shull - not all of these are under 40. It's a pleasure to watch these players grow. The list of names on the threshold of total individuality is very long - and very subjective, of course: Eric Alexander, Chris Potter, Javon Jackson, Mark Turner, Mark Shim, Vincent Herring, maybe some of these have already crossed the line for some ears on the board. As long as there are some to watch ... Quote
Tom Storer Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 While I guess we can all agree that too exact an emulation of one's influences can be a hindrance, deciding where the line is is highly subjective. On the one hand, one wishes to reward originality, regardless of technical accomplishment; on the other hand, technical accomplishment in itself is something one doesn't want to be so blasé as to dismiss with a wave of the hand on the grounds that it's derivative. To paraphrase a famous anecdote (can't remember the principals but it's in Bill Crow's "Jazz Anecdotes), one can imagine Jsngry saying to Eric Alexander, "Man, you're playing just like George Coleman!" and Alexander handing him his tenor and replying, "Here - *you* play just like George Coleman!" Quote
JSngry Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 Give me about 8 undistracted hours a day for about a year and I could come fairly close. It's paint-by-numbers, basically, at this stage of the game. 33 years and counting, though, and I'm still working on playing like Jim Sangrey, with mixed(up) results at best. Considering all the good it's done me, I'm not so sure that painting by numbers might not be the smarter choice! Quote
JSngry Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 (edited) That part about copping Coleman in a year might sound immodest, but really, it's not. It's just a matter of getting the tone and learning the licks, both of which are a "simple" question of mechanics. And having/taking the time to focus in on doing it. But no matter how close to Coleman I got, I'd never be him. But I'd be a HELLUVA better saxophonist! Back to the original topic of the thread, I'm curious what the rest of that Donaldson album is like. Is it all "pop"-ish, or is there some good greasy Argo Loujazz as well? Edited September 29, 2003 by JSngry Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.