skeith Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Just got this one and I like it better than Grass Roots or Lift Every Voice, but not as much as those first five Blue Notes, it is just not as adventurous in the writing and the soloists aren't quite up to that level. But hey, overall, I am enjoying it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Clearly Hill was in a different place creatively in 1967-70, than he was in 63-66. But I say "different", because I don't necessarily think the later material is particularly 'worse' or 'sub-standard', as compared to the earlier material. Just different, and (yes) somewhat more accessable. Sure, the earlier stuff is probably more important, and more likely to 'stand the test of time' - as it were. But I love most of that later Hill BN material too - for what it is... a solid attempt to present Hill's concepts in a more accessable context - but without being a total sellout in the process. Sure the recordings don't quite gel as much as one would hope, though I'd argue that "Passing Ships" and "Lift Every Voice" nearly do - in their own ways. And "Life Every Voice" in particuar (plus the extra previously unreleased session with vocals) has some really deep shit on it, that didn't start to sink in with me until several dozen listens. It's not 'firey', but more like a smoldering fire, after it's been going all night, but still is putting out a ton of heat. I just think the 67-70 material has to be assessed on it's own terms, almost as if the earlier (more 'out') Hill never happened before. In fact, I think generally the more progressive types (like many of us here) would embrace the 67-70 Hill recordings more strongly, if it weren't for his earlier groundbreaking work. Let me put it to you this way... I kind of think of Hill's 67-70 output (vs. his 63-66 output) as being much like my views on Larry Young and John Patton in the late 60's... I love Larry Young's last four BN albums (everything after "Unity") - especially the really 'out' ones. And I also love John Patton's later BN work from the same time period. Now Young's output is more 'out' and probably stronger (to my way of thinking). But Patton's later BN output (while not quite as groundbreaking), is still some mighty deep shit too - in it's own way. So too is it with Hill's 67-70 output. It's not as strong as his earlier music, but some of it (and I'd argue, most of it) is still pretty damn deep - you dig?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcoliv Posted October 17, 2003 Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 it is so frustrating to read all these comments about Passing Ships without having my copy on my hands... still backordered at cduniverse plus i need to wait my US friend to come down here... wait, wait, wait...is all i can do... Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted October 17, 2003 Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 In the liner notes to Passing Ships, Cuscuna says that Woody Shaw covered two Andrew Hill compositions on his own recordings: 'Symmetry' and 'Catta'. Now 'Symmetry' is on Iron Man, but I can't find any session where Woody did 'Catta' (I checked the discography by Todd Poyner that resides on Mike Fitzgerald's site). Could Cuscuna have been thinking of Joe Chambers' version of 'Catta' which appears on The Almoravid? Woody plays on two tracks on this album, but not 'Catta'. Bertrand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllOrNothingAtAll Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 It would be interesting to know which points in the recording people think are the flawed ones. Would some of you cite the tracks and the minute/seconds that you think are poorly played and why you think so? Perhaps we'll get some good differences of opinion, which might lead to some insights into the ways people evaluate music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 20, 2003 Report Share Posted October 20, 2003 Sorry, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through every track and give a breakdown. My major observation was that of an overall sense of "near-comfort" throughout a lot of the album, and that's a feeling I know personally from having played in groups that perform original & challenging music. There comes a point when you're almost there, and that can still make for good listening and fun playing, but the NEXT step is when you fully absorb the music and it comes out more fully formed becasue the intellect takes a less forward role in the performance process and intuition comes to the fore. Inevitably, if you got good material and good players, when that next level comes is just a matter of time, which is why Blue Note's legendary pre-recording rehearsals (in the old days) paid such handsome results. But time is also a luxury, especially in a situation where it's a large group doing a session for an artist that had not been having the best luck getting "releasable" results for some time. That's just the reality of the business. It's something I feel, not something I can intellectually break down into specific descriptive terms (at least not without going TOTALLY over the edge of common sense). Suffice it to say that I know it when I hear it, and I don't hear it here. But it's SO DAMN CLOSE! I know that feeling too. I'd imagine that most of the musicians in this forum do too, as does most anybody who participates in an activity where the "gel" factor is there to be had, albeit oftimes elusively so. I can't stress enough that NONE of this is meant as criticism of this release, not even slightly. It's a historic document in more ways than one, and as such is what it is. I'm LOVING this album. My frustrations, such as they are, are not so much with what happened and was documented, but rather what COULD have happened with this music, and that involves a helluva lot more than the specifics of the record. It involves Hill's career (and occasional lack thereof), the changing fortunes of Blue Note at the time, the entire jazz scene of the time (these were VERY dark days for all but the most commercial jazz, remember), it involves all sorts of things, but it does not involve an attitude of "I'm disappointed in this record". PASSING SHIPS is not fully realized a word as, say BLACK FIRE, but that in no way means that it is less enjoyable on its own terms, and it DEFINITLEY does not lessen its value as a document. I personally think it's a very major document, a significant release, and I've been recommending it to all who ask. This is music that deserves to be heard by any and all interested parties, and the fact that it's not "perfect" in either feel or execution doesn't alter that one whit. All I'm saying is that knowing what COULD have been is a bittersweet experience, one that is in no way limited to this album, either. ANY endeavor one undertakes that ends up really good, but not as good as it could have been, It can be something as "mundane" as painting your house and having to quit before you have it just right because of time, weather, money, anything. People will compliment you on what a nice job you did, and you can take pride in the job but you know that with a little SOMETHING extra, the job could have been EXACTLY what you wanted it to be. That's what we're dealing with here, I think. Not enough time, money, whatever. Beautiful, TRULY beautiful, results nevertheless, but what could have been is a question that lingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Looks like Allmusic has reviewed "Passing Ships" finally, although their review isn't actually on the AMG site (at least not yet). But it is in the "AMG Review" section for the listing of "Passing Ships" at BN.com (HERE) All Music Guide Now this is more like it. In its Connoisseur Series, Blue Note is making available a completely unreleased Andrew Hill date from 1969. Passing Ships wasn't even included in the Mosaic box because the master tape wasn't found until 2001. The band Hill employed on this session was a nonet, featuring Woody Shaw and Dizzy Reece on trumpets, Joe Farrell on reeds, woodwinds, and English horn, Howard Johnson on tuba and bass clarinet, Ron Carter on bass, Lenny White (on only his second recording date) playing drums, trombonist Julian Priester, and French horn player Bob Northern. The music here is ambitious. Hill's scoring for one reed, two trumpets, and low brass is remarkable for the time. In fact, it isn't until his big-band album of 2002 that he ever ventured into these waters again. The title cut, with its bass clarinet and English horn counterpoint, is almost classical in structure but nearly Malian in melody. While the cut's dynamics are restrained, its color palette -- especially with the lilting muted trumpets playing a mysterious harmonic line -- is flush and royal. "Plantation Bag" is a showcase for Farrell's tough, grooved-out soloing as he blows blue and free in response to Hill's funky, large-spread chord voicings. The trumpets layer one another in the middle of the tune, alternately soloing and punching comp lines through the middle. The Asian melodic figures at the heart of "Noon Tide" add exoticism to one of the most adventurous tunes ever written by Hill. Rhythmically it turns on pulse rhythms that shift and slide methodically as Priester takes the tune's first solo, playing against Hill's left-hand stridency. Of the remaining three selections, "Cascade," with its staggered harmonic architecture that goes against all common wisdom for big-band harmony, is remarkable for its precision and rhythmic invention. Why this isn't going to be out there for the general public for all time is beyond reason. Why punish the artist that way? Conventional wisdom would suggest that something that has been unearthed for the first time in 34 years deserves to be a part of the general catalog. Get it quick. Thom Jurek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Jim S. Your reaction makes perfect sense to me, and I am not a jazz musician who can feel all that you do in that respect. Passing Ships is clearly a diamond in the rough, but a diamond nevertheless, and quite a brilliant one at that. I had the pleasure of listening to this the day it came out prior to seeing any of the hype here (of which I was soon the first to become guilty of!). I was expecting something deeply flawed that had been rejected for issue numerous times, but nevertheless vintage Andrew Hill. When I put it on, I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. I still don't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 I'd rather have HALF a diamond in the rough than a million cubic zirconia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 I'd rather have HALF a diamond in the rough than a million cubic zirconia. Amen to that!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Double Amen and another indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 (edited) I finally found my CDR's of "Dance with Death" and the 2nd LP of "One for One" (the one that isn't on the Mosaic), and I gave them both a listen tonight. Which leads me to a prior post I made in this very thread... Hey, I don't know if it's just me (and I've done this before, sometimes, with other 'new' old releases like this -- or at least if they're new to me, even if not to the rest of the world)... ...but there's something about the tune "Cascade" (the 2nd to last tune on the disc), that I swear sounds so damn familiar, that I keep thinking I've heard this tune somewhere else before - and (I think) in a "big band"-ish context too. Maybe I'm imagining things (wouldn't be the first time), but when I hear this tune now - I swear it sounds so freakin' familiar, and yet I can't place where else I think I know it from. (I don't remember having that reaction to the tune the very first time I heard the disc --- so it could be that I'm just getting so much into this album, that the tunes are now starting to seep deeper and deeper into my subconscious. So much so - that my brain and ears are starting to think that they've known them all along.  You ever have that happen before??? ) I am NOT going crazy!!!! Or at least you can't prove it by my thinking I had heard the tune "Cascade" (track #6 off "Passing Ships") from SOMEWHERE before. "Cascade" is the EXACT SAME TUNE as the last tune on SIDE 1 of the 2nd LP of "One For One". I can't tell what the name of the tune is - in it's version from "One For One" (or at least I can't be 100% sure of the name), but the line-up is: Andrew Hill p, Charles Tolliver tp, Pat Patrick as/fl/bs, Bennie Maupin fl/ts/bass cl, Ron Carter b, Ben Riley d (recorded in January of 1970 -- which is after the sessions for "Passing Ships"). I've only got a 'burn' of that 2nd LP of "One For One" - so I can't totally verify the name of the tune (and all my on-line resources to check on this are ambiguous, or at least there's conflicting info between different on-line discographies). But damn it, it is the EXACT same tune, and a mighty darn similar arrangement too!!!! - down to the riffs from various horns during (over) a couple of the solos. Man, I KNEW I knew that tune from somewhere!!!!!! ( And not a word about this in the liner-notes to "Passing Ships". For shame!!! ) PS: Come to think of it, I'm not even 100% sure it's the last tune on side 1 of the "One for One" 2nd LP. It's the last tune before any of the tunes with the string quartet -- which I'm assuming is where the break between side 1 and side 2 is. But I guess it could be the first tune on side 2. In any case, it's the 3rd tune when I listen to my burn of "One for One". In any case, can somebody that owns both "Passing Ships" and the actual "One for One" LP set verify the tune name, and also how darn similar they are??? Thanks!!! Edited October 30, 2003 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 I wish I could tell you. I've had the thing now for over a week, and I'm too scared to open it. I wanna wait until I can listen to it in the proper setting and just drink it all in. I wanna savor the moment! I don't wanna just throw it on and hope something jumps out. I want to be drawn in and mesmerized. I want this to be something I'll come back to over and over and over. Even if I have the same response as that of Jim's, I want to be able to just let it wash over me like a morning tide. Y'know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrdlu Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 Double Amen and another indeed. That reminds me of Hitler (played superbly by Derek Jacobi) doing his impersonation of Neville Chamberlain in the TV series about Albert Speer. (It was called "Inside The Third Reich", and starred Rutger Hauer, and it was very well produced.) "Quite, quite, quite, quite." And a little quite!" That's well put, Jim S. There are several sessions like that. If only ... I feel that way, to some degree, about Herbie Hancock's "The Prisoner". It's a fine session, but could have used a little more rehearsal, or perhaps some assistance with the arrangements from, perhaps, Gil. I think we are noticing the absence of Al Lion in these examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEK Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 ...I think we are noticing the absence of Al Lion in these examples. I think you may be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 (edited) Shrdlu: I reminded you of Hitler? Well, I guess that it could have been worse. I could have reminded you of... ...uh... ...mmm... two Hitlers? Edited October 30, 2003 by John L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrdlu Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 You certainly didn't remind me of Hitler, John! Just in case, I will apologize. It was just the wording that sounded like that scene in the movie. I don't really like to talk about that ratbag, of course. If only he had stuck to impersonations, and kept out of politics. I recently read a quote from one of his secretaries that he was a good mimic, and, of course, Chamberlain was a real prat, as the British would say. Forget hindsight, Churchill was reporting in Parliament what was really going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 "Cascade" is the EXACT SAME TUNE as the last tune on SIDE 1 of the 2nd LP of "One For One". I can't tell what the name of the tune is - in it's version from "One For One" (or at least I can't be 100% sure of the name), but the line-up is: Andrew Hill p, Charles Tolliver tp, Pat Patrick as/fl/bs, Bennie Maupin fl/ts/bass cl, Ron Carter b, Ben Riley d (recorded in January of 1970 -- which is after the sessions for "Passing Ships"). Listened to the "One for One" version of "Cascade" again today a couple times (still don't know for sure what it's called on "One for One" - see my post a couple above this one, for a full report). The interesting thing that struck me about both versions, is how the "Passing Ships" version sounds (more than any other tune from that session) like a 19-piece band. Very full sound, much greater than a 9-piece band. And the verison from "One for One" also sounds like a larger group than it really is. There's only a three-horn front-line on the "One for One" version, but it easily sounds like more horns than that (maybe 6 or 8?? - or at least 4 or 5). Very interesting. I would think that somebody else here has the 2nd LP of "One for One" handy, or at least a burn of it. If so, would someone (who has both "Passing Ships" and the "One for One" LP's) please lemme know what the name of the tune is, if you wouldn't mind?? - and I'd really appreciate any other observations anyone would have about the two different verisons of what are (in fact) really the same tune!!! B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Damn it, I've been trying to just lurk most of today and yesterday, not much free time, but if nobody has the LP, let me get up and go look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Ok. First of all, it's the FIRST LP of the set that has this stuff on it. The 2nd was the set w/Joe. LP ONE, SIDE ONE: 1. One For One/10:25 2. Diddy Wah/6:50 ((This one has a riff that I thought resembled something on SHIPS, fwiw) 3. Without Malice/4:49 Maupin, Patrick, Tolliver, etc. 1-16&23-70 LP ONE SIDE TWO: 1. Poinsettia/6:20 2. Illusion/6:57 3. Fragments/5:00 Maupin, string quartet, etc. 8-1-69 Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnS Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 My copy protected copy has just got to the top of my to play pile and IT WON'T PLAY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 (edited) uh oh.... could you try to make a copy and see if that will play? As I understand it, the added mistakes are sort of ironed out by CDr burning programmes. You will need a computer burner. Pop in the disk and ignore the prompt to install a programme. Do not try and make a copy of the whole disk, but select the actual tracks. Open the disk in your burning programme and take a look at the contents. There should be some non-music content and one additional track at the end. That's the compressed stuff, you won't be needing this. Click and drag the actual tracks into the burning-window and burn at a low burning speed (4x or so). I had a copy of Blue Train and although it plays perfectly on my machine, I made a copy out of curiosity and that one plays as well. I don't hear nothing wrong with it. You could of course also simply return the disk and get a non-protected copy. Edited November 14, 2003 by couw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 I got the copy protected one, too. Picked it up for around 10 $ - could not let that deal pass! The usual Conn price here being around 22-23$... I thought this way I can hear that date now, and pick up a real CD version online later... It's a good one. Jim assessment makes sense to me, also the thought (uttered by Shrdlu, I think), about the absence of Al Lion maybe being part of the "problem". Certainly a disc I will listen to again! ubu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnS Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 I'm not sure if I was a victim of the Cactus copy protection or I've just got a duff cd. Anyway I've returned it for replacement. If that one's the same I'll try copying or getting my money back and buying a US copy. What a let down, I really enjoyed the little bit I heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_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.