Andrew Hill - Passing Ships

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

I don't count myself really a big fan of Hill's music. An admirer, yes. But to sit down and ENJOY an Andrew Hill LP from start to finish. Well, I'm just not there yet. .

Same here....the lone exception (to date) being "Dance With Death" which is both accessible and pure pleasure. Someone once said that Hill wasn't to hip on this session and it would be awhile before it sees the light of day. After hearing "Yellow Violet" 100 times and Tolliver on "Fish 'n Rice", it's difficult to imagine why he doesn't like it.

[Clunky]

I can't bear this waiting....no sign of my copy from CDUniverse yet.....

[JSngry]

This is good stuff. Frustratingly so, in fact, but a significant release, I think, and one that whets the appetite for further unreleased Hill BN sessions from this period (knowing full well that a lot of them probably ARE not even as remotely successful as this one).

Of course, it's futile to play "what if" and "why didn't they" with a session that's over 30 years old. What happened happened. That time (and some of the players) are long gone, never to return. Still, this music is so tantalizingly close to being fully realized that I have to ask myself some questions. Like:

• What would have happened if there had been time and money for just a little more rehearsal time to tighten up both the ensembles and the overall group feel? Nobody really folds on the ensembles, but very often I hear that the "gel" factor is ALMOST there, but not quite, and that goes for the overall feel during the solos too. It's not like it's far off in the distance either, it's like it's ALMOST RIGHT FREAKIN' THERE! Just another day of concentrated rehearsals and this stuff would have been TOTALLY happening and probably could have been released at the time. I don't know if that would have happened if the-by-then-retired Alfred Lion had been running this date or not, too many variables, a lot of them economic, to say for sure, but DAMN, hearing how good this stuff sounds this far along just makes one drool at how it would have sounded with just a bit more preparation and comfort by all concerned.
  
  
• What would have happened if the bassist had been somebody besides Ron Carter? Or even more intriguingly, what if Hill would have gone the SMOKESTACK route and used TWO bassists on this date, Carter to anchor, and somebody else to poke and prod? The mind reels, it does. Carter is DEFINITELY more into the music than he was on GRASS ROOTS. He interacts and frames some, but it usually sounds to me like it's under duress or something, like he's got it stuck in his mind that this music needs a bassist to just hold it down and keep it down (and in fairness to him, we don't know if somebody - Hill or Wolff - told him to go at it like this. One never knows...) Not that I'm complaining - compared to his appalingly moribund performance on GRASS ROOTS, he sounds positively frisky here, and he DOES get into the spirit of things often enough. But it always feels like he's doing it in spite of himself. Nevertheless, he ruins GRASS ROOTS for me, and he does no such thing, not even remotely, here. I just think that another bassist, or ANOTHER bassist (imagine this music played by a fully rehearsed, totally comfortable unit that was anchored by TWO badass bassists!) would have kicked the whole thing up the notch that differentiates damn good from truly great.
  
  
• What would have happened if Joe Henderson had been the tenor soloist rather than Joe Farrell? Don't get me wrong, Farrell plays great here, a quantum leap from his work with Hill on DANCE WITH DEATH, and his doubling skills make him all-around MVP of this date (the first thing I thought when looking at the listings was, "Damn, by the time this cat got paid all his doubling fees (a requirement for all Union sessions), I bet he made more from this gig than Andrew did!"), but still, his solo work is not a little influenced by Joe (as was common with a lot of players of Farrell's musical and professional stature of the time, the guys who had the chops to play any and all studio gigs, but still kept their jazz chops alive, frisky, and ongoingly evolving), that I keep thinking that they already got a big band, what's one more cat, ESPECIALLY if it's Joe Henderson, even if it's only as a soloist? Farrell satisfies, but Joe would have sated. I'd make a similar comment about Joe Chambers vs Lenny White, but dammit, the young Mr. White came to play, and if he's part of the "not QUITE gelled" factor, he balances it out by refusing to give in to the elder Mr. Carter's ambitions of stillness, and that alone is reason enough to keep him on the gig in my fantasy redo. Brash has it's place, ESPECIALLY when playing with Ron Carter (see: Tony Williams...)
  

But hey, enough of the pointless nit-picking and crying over spilt milk, such as it were. The album we have is all there is, and it's EXRTREMELY satisfying on its own terms. Hill's writing is superb, the soloists are all into it (btw, you can tell Dizzy Reese from Woody Shaw by their tones - Woody has the "brassier" tone by far), and as a document of a severely UN-documeted (so far) period of a major artist, PASSING SHIPS qualifies as a "must have" in my book, and should be cause for celebration by all fans of Hill, Blue Note, and creative music in general. The shortcomings (relatively speaking) are real enough, but so are the strengths, and so is the not inconsiderable significance of it's existance. I'll be checking this one out for quite a while, probably forever.

Joe Bob says HELL yeah!

[Free For All]

I'm definitely someone who prefers tight ensemble work and I mostly agree w/Jim that it would have been interesting to hear this music after a little more rehearsal. That being said, I can't help but feel OK with it as is. It's loose, to be sure, but I'm not so sure that that is detrimental to the spirit of the music. There's a bit of a reckless, careening quality to this music that reminds me of some Mingus, Monk and Ornette dates that come off as extremely loose, but seem to work anyway- slightly under-rehearsed but very spontaneous. There are a few spots , though, that I do feel the horns are not on the same page time-wise, and that is a little irritating.

Now, there are some recordings that I really wish could have been tighter, such as some of the Gil/Miles things like Porgy and Bess. I also don't think this "loose" feel would have worked with something like the Mulligan CJB, or the 70s Horace Silver and......series.

As someone who plays in big bands frequently I find myself preferring tight ensemble work BY FAR. The other extreme is an over-rehearsed ensemble that plays w/no energy.However, there's something that seems acceptable about the overall vibe on PS, and that includes the ensemble work. I'd be curious to ask Mr. Hill about his feelings regarding the level of preparation. Rooster, can you get on that?

Now that I read over what I just wrote, it seems that I'm on the fence about this point.

Other observations:

Woody rules, it's cool to hear him do his thing in a harmon mute, which you don't hear that often.

Joe Farrell is a MF. Doubling chops up the wazoo and great solos. Very Joe-esque!

Julian has some nice moments- I've not always been a huge fan of his, but I think he plays well on this one.

Some of those quirky horn backgrounds remind me of Batman fight scenes. B)

The first tune's head reminds me of the melody of "Easy Living" for some reason.

Overall this is a beautiful piece of work.

Edited October 15, 2003 by Free For All

[JSngry]

I'm not a stickler AT ALL for tight ensemble work if the lack of "precision" comes from everybody feeling the parts confidently but differently. Ellington is the definitive example of that for me, as are the Mingus-led big band dates. It's not "tight", but it is TIGHT. But that's not the feeling that I get from the ensembles here. It's more like they got the notes, they got the phrasing, and they got the feel, just not all at once and not at the same time, if you know what I mean. Same thing with some, SOME of the solo sections (and it's the ones that gel completely that make the ones that almost do so frustratingly beautiful). It's almost like Moses viewing the Promised Land. They're ALMOST there, which is why I feel that another rehearsal (or maybe just another few takes) would have pushed this group over the edge into total Nirvana.

But yeah, I'm happy enough with it as it is too. I can (and will) use my imagination to make this what I fully want it to be, and it won't be hard AT ALL!

[Free For All]

You are correct, Mr S.

Some of the looseness and time conflicts make me wonder where the horns/rhythm were located in the studio when they recorded this- like maybe there was a proximity issue (that created problems in hearing all the other players) that contributed to some of the sloppiness.

Edited October 15, 2003 by Free For All

[JSngry]

That's a totally valid question, I think.

[JSngry]

Another totally valid question is this - does Andrew still have these charts?

[JSngry]

Great post, Jim. I was really looking forward to your thoughts on this date, and they were well worth waiting for. (And you too, Free For All - just as much so.)

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??? )

PS: Now that I think about it some more, maybe it's similar to one of the last two tunes from Eric Dolphy's "The Illinois Concert" -- which are with larger ensembles. Either "Red Planet" or "G.W.". I'll have to dig out my "Illinois Concert" CD, and see if that's what my brain is remembering.

Dude, how'd you make that post change places?

[Rooster_Ties]

Great post, Jim. I was really looking forward to your thoughts on this date, and they were well worth waiting for. (And you too, Free For All - just as much so.)

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??? )

PS: Now that I think about it some more, maybe it's similar to one of the last two tunes from Eric Dolphy's "The Illinois Concert" -- which are with larger ensembles. Either "Red Planet" or "G.W.". I'll have to dig out my "Illinois Concert" CD, and see if that's what my brain is remembering.

[Rooster_Ties]

Dude, how'd you make that post change places?

Hey - quit quoting me on what I've said, before I've said it!!!

[Free For All]

Another totally valid question is this - does Andrew still have these charts?

...........and will he give them to ME?

You know, one of the jazz rags should do an article on AH regarding this release and axe him all these questions. How about an Organissimo "Ask the Artist" feature w/different guests, like the one at Jazz Corner?

Would that be cool or what? :rsmile:

[Free For All]

You know, we could submit a limited number of questions (to b3er or someone else in a moderator position) to be asked so it doesn't turn into an online gangbang.

[JSngry]

Almost as cool as adding to your post count by deleting then reposting!

JUST KIDDING!!!

[JSngry]

Almost as cool as adding to your post count by deleting then reposting!

JUST KIDDING!!!

[Free For All]

Almost as cool as adding to your post count by deleting then reposting!

JUST KIDDING!!!

Who you talkin' to dude?

[Free For All]

How about an Organissimo "Ask the Artist" feature w/different guests, like the one at Jazz Corner?

Of course, there would have to be a discrete way to phrase the question so it doesn't sound overly critical.

"Mr. Hill, we were wondering if the sloppy ensemble work on Passing Ships was intentional, or did you just get screwed on rehearsal time?"

Edited October 15, 2003 by Free For All

[Rooster_Ties]

The 'looseness' of this session works for me. Maybe it's that I'm listening to it on a crappy boombox (multiple times, while I'm outside building a retaining wall in our front yard), but there's already a sort of looseness to Hill's playing anyway, that seems consistent with the level of tightness of the band.

I mean, it's not that I'd like the disc any less if it were tighter, but rather that I'm not at all disappointed that the group was a tiny bit under-rehearsed. In fact, it's hard to know if the solos would have necessarily had that same spontaneity to them, if the cats were more familiar with the charts. (Or hell, they could have been more inspired with more rehearsal time – what the hell do I know?)

In any case, the disc really works for me. I'm pretty darn sure that it's my favorite Hill date of anything he recorded between 1967 and 1970 -- and my prior answer to that question would have been "Lift Every Voice" (though I was slow to love that album).

It seems to me like everything Hill recorded between 67 and 70 has this sort of unfulfilled potential to it. Sort of like Hill could have really gone places in the 70's (or at least in the early 70's), if only he had had the right players, and the right label (did someone say Strata East??) to back him.

• ( Yeah, yeah – I know – Strata East didn't "back" nobody really --- they just provided a vehicle for people to release stuff they had recorded themselves. Still, there's enough consistency to those Tolliver and Cowell sides, and Clifford Jordan's "Glass Bead Games" Strata East dates (as examples) --- that I love to believe the myth that Strata East was a label with a vision. )
  

I think Hill could have fit with that mythical Strata East vision really god damn well. To me, most of Hill's 67-70 BN output speaks to a path not taken later – a path that could have been both accessible, and progressive – at the same time. One foot in the "groove", and one in the "brain" - so to speak.

So, like Sangry, I long to hear all those other unreleased Hill dates from 67-70, and I can only hope - someday - to maybe hear a couple more of them.

AND, all this reminds me of Miles' development line (and maybe Ornette's too), with a couple key differences. If Miles and Ornette each developed on a mostly linear path (with our benefit of hindsight, looking back on their careers), then Hill's path was/is more meandering, and one that maybe looped back on it self a time or two. (And/or maybe it just had more zigs and zags to it.)

But it does make one wonder what Hill's music would be like today if he had been more successful in the late 60's (artistically speaking, not commercially – though that might have helped some too, to a point), and what Andrew might be doing today, if he had continue to develop in that slightly more "groove" oriented version of his vision.

Fascinating to think about, if you're into playing the "what if... ... ...??" game, like I am.

[Free For All]

Rooster, your "floating posts" are starting to creep me out!

[Rooster_Ties]

Rooster, your "floating posts" are starting to creep me out!

Just tryin' to not get in the middle of the continuity of other posts within the thread. (Like yours and Jim’s exchange, and your pitch about having getting Hill to do an interview.)

That, and it’s always fun to creep you guys out!!

[Rooster_Ties]

AND, all this reminds me of Miles' development line (and maybe Ornette's too), with a couple key differences.  If Miles and Ornette each developed on a mostly linear path (with our benefit of hindsight, looking back on their careers), then Hill's path was/is more meandering, and one that maybe looped back on it self a time or two.  (And/or maybe it just had more zigs and zags to it.)

But it does make one wonder what Hill's music would be like today if he had been more successful in the late 60's (artistically speaking, not commercially – though that might have helped some too, to a point), and what Andrew might be doing today, if he had continue to develop in that slightly more "groove" oriented version of his vision.

On further thought, I suspect that even if Hill had gone the "Strata East" route, he would have encountered the same jazz climate (or lack thereof) by the mid-to-late 70's, and then by the early 80's - he probably would have turned back to music more similar to his earlier vision. (After all, that's what lots of other jazzmusicians did in the 70's, and then in the 80's.)

In other words, my "what it" scenerio really only applies to the possible different musical output that Hill might have created, following his departure from Blue Note (in 1970), for only about 5-8 years at most.

Discuss...

[JSngry]

Almost as cool as adding to your post count by deleting then reposting!     

JUST KIDDING!!!

Who you talkin' to dude?

Rooster. He knows what I'm talking about.

[Rooster_Ties]

Rooster. He knows what I'm talking about.

Who, me???

[Rooster_Ties]

Rooster. He knows what I'm talking about.

Who, me???

[Rooster_Ties]

OK, back on topic.

Does anybody else think that the tune "Cascade" (2nd to last track on "Passing Ships") seems familiar to them?? Is it similar to another Hill tune?? - or maybe similar to something else???