Line from B. Ratliff's Top 10 list in Sun. NY Times

[Larry Kart]

3. Marcus Strickland Trio "Idiosyncracies" (Stick Muzik) A bright and sturdy saxophone-trio record ... by a young musician who's absorbed his Joe Henderson and Branford Marsalis yet never sounds overstudied."

So we've come to this -- "...absorbed his Branford"? How can you tell?

[Christiern]

I get the impression that Ratliff somehow is obligated to include at least one favorable mention of a Marsalis. in whatever he writes. It's the unfortunate Feather-Giddins school of jazz journalism, I think.

[Brad]

I didn't find that list terribly enlightening.

[johnlitweiler]

Of course, none of the records on my 2009 top 10 list (to be published elsewhere) is here. Vonski Speaks is certainly Ratliff's most glaring omission. Did he compile his list back in October?

[Ken Dryden]

No one's list is every going to jibe with everyone else's. Do we all acquire (or even hear) the same discs in a calendar year?

The major labels have made it safe to omit them from my new release list, though a few are still doing a good job with reissues.

[Lazaro Vega]

Then there's this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/arts/music/20chinen.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

[Mark Stryker]

To Larry's original post, if the notion is: Branford Marsalis doesn't have a distinctive voice so how can you tell that Strickland has absorbed him, I would respectfully disagree. Value judgements aside, I think Branford's playing has focused in recent years to the point that I would say he has an identity (not the same as an original style). I can usually identify him on record by the combination of a dark sound, lively vibrato, a kind of Wayne Shorterish articulation and a furioso attack, especially on fast, burn-out type modal tunes, which is where the influence on Strickland is perhaps audible. I also think it's true that a lot of straight-ahead musicians of Strickland's generation (he was born in 1979) have studied Marsalis' records. We can argue whether that's good or bad, but I don't think on the surface Ratliff's description is necessarily wrong.

For the record, I wasn't a big fan of Strickland's disc, though I liked parts of it. When I've heard him live, I've always distrusted the fact that he always sounds good coming out of the gate but seems to get less interesting as the set wears on -- and really comes up short on ballads. On the other hand, he's still young.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Mark Stryker

[jlhoots]

Well - I actually like the Strickland CD.

[marcello]

I know Marcus and think he's one of the finest players of his generation, although I haven't heard the cd mentioned.

Having said that, I think that, like a lot of that generation, some editing in their solos would be a good thing.

I don't hear any evidence of Joe Henderson ( or Branford) in his playing, although I'm sure he's investigated both at length.

He's his own person.

Marcus Strickland

[Larry Kart]

To Larry's original post, if the notion is: Branford Marsalis doesn't have a distinctive voice so how can you tell that Strickland has absorbed him, I would respectfully disagree.

What Mark says above (though he disagrees) was the only point I was trying to make -- the phrase "has absorbed his Branford" just struck me as absurd in a "so we've come to this" manner (vampirish "young lions" giving birth to "young lions"). Have heard a little Strickland, have avoided Branford as much as possible over the years after early encounters. It's certainly not impossible that the latter has an identity by now, but if so, he's absorbed his Burke and Hare.

[randyhersom]

Burke and Hare.

I had no clue so I had to google this. Jeez. You seem to have absorbed your Clementine and Allen Lowe.

[thedwork]

To Larry's original post, if the notion is: Branford Marsalis doesn't have a distinctive voice so how can you tell that Strickland has absorbed him, I would respectfully disagree. Value judgements aside, I think Branford's playing has focused in recent years to the point that I would say he has an identity (not the same as an original style). I can usually identify him on record by the combination of a dark sound, lively vibrato, a kind of Wayne Shorterish articulation and a furioso attack, especially on fast, burn-out type modal tunes... I also think it's true that a lot of straight-ahead musicians of Strickland's generation (he was born in 1979) have studied Marsalis' records. We can argue whether that's good or bad...

totally agreed. branford is a terrific player and is almost instantly recognizable. and like you said, i've also known a good amount of youngish tenor players who listened/studied him intently. also, i think lots of people listened to his quartet (defunkt now, i guess?) to hear joey and tain as much as (or more than...) for bran. so there may be some unintended influence strictly through osmosis (not a joke).

the two cds by him that i own and listened to quite a bit - The Beautiful Ones Are Not Yet Born (Hurst!!!) and Requiem - i feel would be welcome in any jazz listeners collection and listened to often. great music. i haven't been blown away by everything i've heard by him or his quartet, but when they're on, it's tough to beat, and i find bran becoming more and more distinctive.

p.s. - i don't know anything about strickland yet

Edited December 25, 2009 by thedwork

[Larry Kart]

branford is a terrific player and is almost recognizable. and like you said, i've also known a good amount of youngish tenor players who listened/studied him intently. also, i think lots of people listened to his quartet (defunkt now, i guess?) to hear joey and tain as much as (or more than...) for bran. so there may be some unintended influence strictly through osmosis (not a joke).

I take your point about "a good amount of youngish tenor players who listened/studied [branford] intently," but has jazz come to a place where one can be "a terrific player" and be "almost recognizable"? (My emphasis.)

It's been my experience over the years, and my assumption (based on that experience) that perhaps excepting figures who worked almost exclusively in ensemble settings (e.g. lead trumpeters, lead alto players, etc.) in jazz every terrific player was readily recognizable as that particular player, though of course not every readily recognizable player was terrific.

[thedwork]

branford is a terrific player and is almost recognizable. and like you said, i've also known a good amount of youngish tenor players who listened/studied him intently. also, i think lots of people listened to his quartet (defunkt now, i guess?) to hear joey and tain as much as (or more than...) for bran. so there may be some unintended influence strictly through osmosis (not a joke).

I take your point about "a good amount of youngish tenor players who listened/studied [branford] intently," but has jazz come to a place where one can be "a terrific player" and be "almost recognizable"? (My emphasis.)

It's been my experience over the years, and my assumption (based on that experience) that perhaps excepting figures who worked almost exclusively in ensemble settings (e.g. lead trumpeters, lead alto players, etc.) in jazz every terrific player was readily recognizable as that particular player, though of course not every readily recognizable player was terrific.

yeah - oops. note the time of my edit in that posting you quoted (before your response). you must've been responding while i was fixing my mistake in my post: omitting the word "instantly" before recognizable. that's a funny coincidence. anyway, i think bran is recognizable but it may take me a few bars. hence, almost instantly. i certainly don't think he's as distinct as a hodges or rollins, but for me that doesn't discount anyone from being a possible influence or a terrific player. there are gradations...

and as far as ratliff goes, he's not my favorite music writer either. he's ok. i dig chinen when it comes to the times. i like his style and attitude. also - as far as these types of top ten lists, they're silly and fun and never to be taken too seriously. but everyone here knows that...

[7/4]

and as far as ratliff goes, he's not my favorite music writer either. he's ok. i dig chinen when it comes to the times. i like his style and attitude. also - as far as these types of top ten lists, they're silly and fun and never to be taken too seriously. but everyone here knows that...

Apparently not everybody...you must be new around here.

[Larry Kart]

branford is a terrific player and is almost recognizable. and like you said, i've also known a good amount of youngish tenor players who listened/studied him intently. also, i think lots of people listened to his quartet (defunkt now, i guess?) to hear joey and tain as much as (or more than...) for bran. so there may be some unintended influence strictly through osmosis (not a joke).

I take your point about "a good amount of youngish tenor players who listened/studied [branford] intently," but has jazz come to a place where one can be "a terrific player" and be "almost recognizable"? (My emphasis.)

It's been my experience over the years, and my assumption (based on that experience) that perhaps excepting figures who worked almost exclusively in ensemble settings (e.g. lead trumpeters, lead alto players, etc.) in jazz every terrific player was readily recognizable as that particular player, though of course not every readily recognizable player was terrific.

yeah - oops. note the time of my edit in that posting you quoted (before your response). you must've been responding while i was fixing my mistake in my post: omitting the word "instantly" before recognizable. that's a funny coincidence. anyway, i think bran is recognizable but it may take me a few bars. hence, almost instantly. i certainly don't think he's as distinct as a hodges or rollins, but for me that doesn't discount anyone from being a possible influence or a terrific player. there are gradations...

Eerie that I stepped in just as you were inserting "instantly."