Eric Alexander vs Joshua Redman

[mrjazzman]

It's unbelievalbe that Eric came in second to Joshua in the Thelonious Monk competition a few years ago. IMO there's no comparison between the two. I can't hear Redman's music at all. Eric more than any of the other tenorists today plays "in the tradition". Redman's recorded output pales in comparison. Alexander as a leader and sideman appears on approx. 180 recordings and sounds good to great on all of them. Very nice guy to talk to between sets also. If like me you NEVER tire of the traditional sound of Hubbard, Gordon, Blakey, Rollins, Silver etc. then Alexander and the group One For All(Alexander, Jim Rotondi, Steve Davis, Joe Farnsworth, Jon Webber, David Hazeltine) is the group out there today who best represent that sound. Also, Joshua may have gotten extra attention because he is the son of Dewey Redman.........

[Matthew]

I know this is a threadcrap, but sorry, sometimes I get FREAKING tired of the "traditional sound." Alexander's a good player and a nice guy, but his style has been done better and more creatively by many players. Honestly, sometimes I feel that the "hard bop tradition" is now on the level of the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.

[Chuck Nessa]

It is so hard to choose.

[jeffcrom]

I was excited by the title, but I was disappointed when I opened the thread. I was hoping to find a link to a wrestling video.

I think Joshua Redman could take Eric Alexander in three rounds.

[CJ Shearn]

Alexander's a very good player, but especially since he was the SFJazz Collective director, Joshua's playing and writing have gotten very interesting. I still love "Spirit of the Moment" sure Redman is derivative on that, but its such a burning record.

[John L]

It is interesting that Joshua Redman not only beat out Eric Alexander in the Thelonious Monk Competition, but Chris Potter as well. Potter finished 3rd, but has arguably become the more interesting player of the three.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I know this is a threadcrap, but sorry, sometimes I get FREAKING tired of the "traditional sound." Alexander's a good player and a nice guy, but his style has been done better and more creatively by many players. Honestly, sometimes I feel that the "hard bop tradition" is now on the level of the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.

Then why are you here on Organissimo's web forum? After all, they are a "traditional" organ trio.

[thedwork]

It's unbelievalbe that Eric came in second to Joshua in the Thelonious Monk competition a few years ago. IMO there's no comparison between the two. I can't hear Redman's music at all. Eric more than any of the other tenorists today plays "in the tradition". Redman's recorded output pales in comparison. Alexander as a leader and sideman appears on approx. 180 recordings and sounds good to great on all of them. Very nice guy to talk to between sets also. If like me you NEVER tire of the traditional sound of Hubbard, Gordon, Blakey, Rollins, Silver etc. then Alexander and the group One For All(Alexander, Jim Rotondi, Steve Davis, Joe Farnsworth, Jon Webber, David Hazeltine) is the group out there today who best represent that sound. Also, Joshua may have gotten extra attention because he is the son of Dewey Redman.........

that reads like a nice little advertisement for alexander and his group that you mention. you realize that the competition you refer to was nearly 20 years ago, right? still feeling raw over that is a bit much. let it go. plus, 4 of th 5 judges listed for that year were Benny Carter, Jimmy Heath, Frank Wess, and Jackie McLean. i think they know a little bit about playing "in the tradition" that you talk about.

i prefer Redman. haven't heard too much alexander, but what i've heard didn't make an impression. very good player but not much of an impression. to my ear, Redman seems to be much more "in the moment."

Edited January 8, 2010 by thedwork

[Larry Kart]

It's unbelievalbe that Eric came in second to Joshua in the Thelonious Monk competition a few years ago. IMO there's no comparison between the two. I can't hear Redman's music at all. Eric more than any of the other tenorists today plays "in the tradition". Redman's recorded output pales in comparison. Alexander as a leader and sideman appears on approx. 180 recordings and sounds good to great on all of them. Very nice guy to talk to between sets also. If like me you NEVER tire of the traditional sound of Hubbard, Gordon, Blakey, Rollins, Silver etc. then Alexander and the group One For All(Alexander, Jim Rotondi, Steve Davis, Joe Farnsworth, Jon Webber, David Hazeltine) is the group out there today who best represent that sound. Also, Joshua may have gotten extra attention because he is the son of Dewey Redman.........

When those men were in their prime(s), the sound of Hubbard, Gordon, Blakey, Rollins, Silver etc. wasn't a "traditional sound" in the sense you seem to mean. It was their sound, though it certainly didn't come from nowhere. What I want from any "in the tradition" player of today is the same sense of personal expression/my sound inventiveness that I used to get as a matter of course from the players mentioned above and many more. I don't hear it in a lot of them, but Grant Stewart is one who comes to mind. Otherwise, it is getting close to Jim Cullum time -- more or less a style, not so much a matter of personal expression/inventiveness. Also, wasn't the hard bop style built on the latter principle far more than a lot of earlier attractive jazz styles were? A nice re-creation of, say, the ensemble sound of the Hubbard-Shorter-Fuller edition of the Jazz Messengers without soloists of that quality and individuality (at least in terms of aspiration) would be kind of pointless IMO.

As for Kevin's claim that Organissimo the band is "traditional" in the Jim Cullum sense -- that's not what I hear.

[kh1958]

I've heard Alexander live a few times--I didn't like his playing at all, a personalityless regurgitation of the past--in the future, his presence at a concert or on a recording likely will send me in the opposite direction.

[paul secor]

I know this is a threadcrap, but sorry, sometimes I get FREAKING tired of the "traditional sound." Alexander's a good player and a nice guy, but his style has been done better and more creatively by many players. Honestly, sometimes I feel that the "hard bop tradition" is now on the level of the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.

Then why are you here on Organissimo's web forum? After all, they are a "traditional" organ trio.

Hadn't realized that being a fan of "hard bop (or any) traditionalism" was a requirement for membership here.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

As for Kevin's claim that Organissimo the band is "traditional" in the Jim Cullum sense -- that's not what I hear.

I don't get "the Jim Cullum sense" added on here. I was not comparing Organissimo to Jamie Cullum.

To my ears, Organissimo plays in a traditional Jazz organ trio style, rooted pretty nicely in the Jimmy Smith tradition. Sure, there are nice twists & turns but it's a style that would fit just as well in 1965 as it does in 2010. There is nothing "Jamie Cullum" in their playing style any more than there is in Eric Alexander's.

If someone comes here to discuss Jazz, there really is no need to put down a player because he or she plays in a traditional style. There's room for all styles.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I know this is a threadcrap, but sorry, sometimes I get FREAKING tired of the "traditional sound." Alexander's a good player and a nice guy, but his style has been done better and more creatively by many players. Honestly, sometimes I feel that the "hard bop tradition" is now on the level of the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.

Then why are you here on Organissimo's web forum? After all, they are a "traditional" organ trio.

Hadn't realized that being a fan of "hard bop (or any) traditionalism" was a requirement for membership here.

Did you like Matthew's self-proclaimed "threadcrap"? My reply was to point out that if a traditional playing style bugs him that much, he might be better off hanging out at a website run by a band that plays in a less traditional style.

Would Matthew come into a thread about Organissimo's "Groovadelphia" and bitch that it's "organ trio tradition" is now on the level of the Jamie Cullum Jazz Band? I think not.

[Matthew]

I know this is a threadcrap, but sorry, sometimes I get FREAKING tired of the "traditional sound." Alexander's a good player and a nice guy, but his style has been done better and more creatively by many players. Honestly, sometimes I feel that the "hard bop tradition" is now on the level of the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.

Then why are you here on Organissimo's web forum? After all, they are a "traditional" organ trio.

Hadn't realized that being a fan of "hard bop (or any) traditionalism" was a requirement for membership here.

Did you like Matthew's self-proclaimed "threadcrap"? My reply was to point out that if a traditional playing style bugs him that much, he might be better off hanging out at a website run by a band that plays in a less traditional style.

Would Matthew come into a thread about Organissimo's "Groovadelphia" and bitch that it's "organ trio tradition" is now on the level of the Jamie Cullum Jazz Band? I think not.

No, I would not. I happen to enjoy the Organissimo cd, of which I have them all. In fact, a lot of the jazz cds I own are "in the tradition." What I'm objecting to is that now jazz has become so solidified and attached to a certain sound, that everything else is judged but "that traditional sound." It just grates my nerves at times. We all can agree that jazz is bigger than that hardbop sound, and let it go at that. I apologize to the original poster -- sometimes emotional reactions get the better of common sense.

[jlhoots]

It's all good if you like it.

[Tom 1960]

Gosh, based on the reaction by some here to Alexander, I might as well toss those recordings I purchased a few days ago, immediately in the trash bin.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

It's unbelievable that Eric came in second to Joshua in the Thelonious Monk competition a few years ago.

Having been a follower of the Monk competition back in those days, I wouldn't call the results "unbelievable" or even that surprising. As John L pointed out, Chris Potter came in 3rd. It was just unfortunate (or fortunate?) that there were 3 excellent players in the same category that year. One had to "win". That word "win" deserves quotes because there really isn't any qualitative way to judge a Jazz performance. Maybe Redman played his progressions better? Maybe Alexander flubbed a note? Maybe Potter played something that the judges didn't like? Who knows?

BTW, I don't think you should completely discount the fact that Redman's dad Dewey was friends with most of the judges. While I would hope that wasn't a deciding factor, I don't see how it could hurt Joshua if everything else was equal.

[A Lark Ascending]

a) vs. = why does it have to be a competition? Maintaining the spirit of the cutting contest? I'd hope music can be about more than 'who's best?'

b) I've several of his records and saw him last year. I've always found him a very enjoyable player (especially on ballads), some records more engaging than others. He's working well inside the frontiers but so what? As Schoenberg once said in a very different context, there's still plenty of fine music to be written in C major (or words to that effect).

[thedwork]

b) I've several of his records and saw him last year. I've always found him a very enjoyable player (especially on ballads), some records more engaging than others. He's working well inside the frontiers but so what?

just wndering bev - are you referring to Redman or Alexander here?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

a) vs. = why does it have to be a competition? Maintaining the spirit of the cutting contest? I'd hope music can be about more than 'who's best?'

I never liked that there had to be winners either. However, it was instrumental in getting new players into the public's eye and in my book, that's a good thing.

By the time Joshua Redman won in 1991, winning equated with a recording contract with Warner Brothers Records, which is also a good thing.

BTW, Chris Potter tied for 3rd with Tim Warfield, another favorite of mine.

A complete list of Monk Competition winners is here: http://www.monkinstitute.org/competition.php?Page=COMP-PW. Check out some of the winners and losers. It's a who's who of today's Jazz stars. If this competition made them into the players they are today, it has to be a good thing, right?

[Lazaro Vega]

There was a bit of a transition here between the trumpet playing leader of a revival jazz band in Texas led by Jim Cullum, and pianist/vocalist "Frank Sinatra in sneakers" Jamie Cullum.

The discussion of derivation does beg the question, though: how is building on what's gone before differ from the earlier generation who built on Armstrong, Hawkins, Press or Parker? Larry's point gets to the heart of it, yet, there were some great players of the past who had obvious influences from the generation right before them. When is learning just that and where does learning cross into vamprire-ism?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Lazaro Vega

[Mark Stryker]

It's unbelievalbe that Eric came in second to Joshua in the Thelonious Monk competition a few years ago. IMO there's no comparison between the two. I can't hear Redman's music at all. Eric more than any of the other tenorists today plays "in the tradition". Redman's recorded output pales in comparison. Alexander as a leader and sideman appears on approx. 180 recordings and sounds good to great on all of them. Very nice guy to talk to between sets also. If like me you NEVER tire of the traditional sound of Hubbard, Gordon, Blakey, Rollins, Silver etc. then Alexander and the group One For All(Alexander, Jim Rotondi, Steve Davis, Joe Farnsworth, Jon Webber, David Hazeltine) is the group out there today who best represent that sound. Also, Joshua may have gotten extra attention because he is the son of Dewey Redman.........

When those men were in their prime(s), the sound of Hubbard, Gordon, Blakey, Rollins, Silver etc. wasn't a "traditional sound" in the sense you seem to mean. It was their sound, though it certainly didn't come from nowhere. What I want from any "in the tradition" player of today is the same sense of personal expression/my sound inventiveness that I used to get as a matter of course from the players mentioned above and many more. I don't hear a lot of them, but Grant Stewart is one who comes to mind. Otherwise, it is getting close to Jim Cullum time -- more or less a style, not so much a matter of personal expression/inventiveness. Also, wasn't the hard bop style built on the latter principle far more than a lot of earlier attractive jazz styles were? A nice re-creation of, say, the ensemble sound of the Hubbard-Shorter-Fuller edition of the Jazz Messengers without soloists of that quality and individuality (at least in terms of aspiration) would be kind of pointless IMO.

As for Kevin's claim that Organissimo the band is "traditional" in the Jim Cullum sense -- that's not what I hear.

A few related thoughts on this topic: I think Larry is exactly right that the issue is a matter of personal expression within a given language, though of course different folks can disagree about what qualifies. But my biggest beef with some critics -- especially those who champion free jazz and its offshoots or contemporary structuralists like Vijay Iyer or Jason Moran to the near or complete exclusion of the post-bop mainstream -- is that I often feel that as soon as they hear chord changes and swing rhythms they turn off their ears because to them it's all old-fashioned. Of course, everyone is entitled to their aesthetic preferences, but I think the issue in many cases is that they can't actually tell the difference between those players who really are stale recreations of the past and those who are playing freshly within the bebop to post-bop continuum -- whose individual tone, command of time, harmony, phrasing, melodic invention, taste and ability to tell a story gives their music a timeless expressiveness and in-the-moment glory. I say this, by the way, as a critic whose top 10 list this year was headed by Henry Threadgill and counted Roscoe Mitchell's "Congliptious" as one the top reissues of the year (thanks, Chuck). My top 10 also included Tom Harrell, John Hollenbeck, Grant Stewart and the Clayton Bros., and for the record, I have tremendous respect for Iyer.

At this point, it's all history. Ornette hit the Five Spot just over 50 years. The seminal Art Ensemble records are now more than 40 years old. It's just as easy to for players working in freer or (intentionally) non-swinging idioms to sound as stale as a group playing out of Blakey's bag. Having said that, I do think that certain historical styles can atrophy and that as time goes on the mainstream shifts forward, assimilating more and more information. The older a particular idiom, perhaps, the more difficult it is to stay fresh within it. Players who work in a hard bop bag that excludes any development post-1962 now have a high hurdle to jump, and I suppose you could argue that at a certain point, the bar is so high that it doesn't even make sense to try. Certain stylistic calling cards can morph into tropes, but I don't think 4/4 time and chord changes on their own tip the balance or even come close.

I would also say that while I'm not a big fan of One for All, I have enjoyed them in person because there is a certain thrill that comes across in hearing that music live when you can actually feel the depth of the groove and the air move in the room. Those qualities are mostly lost on the band's records. That's not uncommon. A lot of music sounds "older" or less fresh on record that it might live, because the recording medium itself creates a certain distance between the listener and the music that's not there in in a club and recordings also bring a particular set of expectations, sound world, references and comparisons. I think that's especially true of classic modern jazz (1955-70) because the talisman recordings from the era play such a large role in our collective unconscious.

But back to Grant Stewart. He's so interesting to me because on one level, his playing is so steeped in Sonny Rollins circa 1957-8 that less favorable critics might call him a clone; yet I think he easily slips the noose. There is so much spontaneity in the way he manipulates the language that on a micro level, as in what is the next phrase going to say, I never know what he's going to play. There is also an inflection and intonation in his sound, and especially a command of rhythm, melodic invention, internal rhyme and connectivity in his phrasing that together it all communicates a sense of aliveness. When I hear Stewart, he gives the illusion of freedom, that he's not playing within a defined box. (But of course he is. All art is in some kind of box defined by the parameters and conventions of the craft and idiom, but the goal is to make the box appear to disappear. Some boxes are, of course, by definition bigger. Joe Henderson or Sonny Rollins might play anything at anytime., and I think it was Jackie McLean who refered to modal playing as the "the big room," but of course once you're in it for a while, its four walls begin to look like any other four walls.)

While I respect Eric Alexander's craft and have heard him sound really good, his playing almost never moves me. When I hear him, I become overwhelmed by the ghost of George Coleman and I can predict what he's going to play. The reason, I think, is that Alexander is a "lick" or "system" player. I hear regular patterns and memorized figures in his solos in a way that I don't in Stewart's playing, and that combined with Alexander's more straight up and down approach to rhythm and phrasing make him sound rather stiff to me: I can see the box. It's interesting that Stewart's model (Rollins) is a true improviser in the sense of creating new material in the moment while Alexander's model (Coleman) is also a lick player, though an incredibly sophisticated one. Influences have an impact on how we perceive certain players, especially as you move further down the historical line. I don't mean to dis Coleman, by the way, who at his best - "Stella" on Miles' "My Funny Valentine" or "Sophisticated Lady" on the duet record with Tete Montoliu - tells remarkable stories. The more you can tell a story as an improviser, that is, construct compelling narrative filled with heart, intellect, humor, surprise and the whole of your humanity, the more your particular language or idiom disappears and the greater the impression of freedom -- whether you're playing 4/4 and changes or choosing not to. At that point, listeners don't hear "style," they hear "music."

Coda: System players can reach levels of transcendence too in full "lickdom" too -- when Coleman is roaring through all kinds of harmonic substitutions it can have an irresistible gravitational pull. I don't care that he practiced them at home; to hear the ideas manipulated in real time and with so much passion and conviction can be exhilarating. Sonny Stitt was a lick player too. But he was a first generation lick player and that makes a lot -- perhaps all -- the difference, not to mention the personality of his sound. Even when I feel like I know what Stitt's going to play next, I don't care.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Mark Stryker

[A Lark Ascending]

b) I've several of his records and saw him last year. I've always found him a very enjoyable player (especially on ballads), some records more engaging than others. He's working well inside the frontiers but so what?

just wndering bev - are you referring to Redman or Alexander here?

Alexander.

I have some of Redman's 90s albums but lost interest. I should probably listen to something more recent.

There's plenty of warmth in Alexander but it doesn't mean we all hear it; nor should we have to. I don't have the musical knowledge to go all analytical so just have to work on gut-reaction. The fact that he has similarities with George Coleman perhaps explains why I enjoy him. I've always loved Coleman's playing and we don't hear much of him these days.

[John Tapscott]

I sort of lost interest in Joshua Redman for a while, too. But then I heard him not long ago on John Hicks' excellent "Old Friends and New" CD. He sounds very good on that. So last week I pulled Joshua's "Freedom in the Groove" CD off my shelves and gave it a spin. Gor to say - it sounded pretty darn good - surprisingly so, as a matter of fact. Gonna have to give Joshua another go.

Edited to say I agree with Mark analysis of Eric's playing above. To put it simply, Joshua sounds like a more "natural" jazz player than Eric. Maybe I can put it like this - Eric is a great musician first; Joshua is a great "jazz" musician first. In the liner notes to one of Eric's CD's, the writer mentions that Eric started as a classically oriented saxophone player before discovering jazz. That sense of formality still shows in his playing, I think, whereas Joshua's playing seems more flexible and natural in approach and phrasing.

Edited January 8, 2010 by John Tapscott

[Larry Kart]

But back to Grant Stewart. He's so interesting to me because on one level, his playing is so steeped in Sonny Rollins circa 1957-8 that less favorable critics might call him a clone; yet I think he easily slips the noose. There is so much spontaneity in the way he manipulates the language that on a micro level, as in what is the next phrase going to say, I never know what he's going to play. There is also an inflection and intonation in his sound, and especially a command of rhythm, melodic invention, internal rhyme and connectivity in his phrasing that together it all communicates a sense of aliveness. When I hear Stewart, he gives the illusion of freedom, that he's not playing within a defined box. (But of course he is. All art is in some kind of box defined by the parameters and conventions of the craft and idiom, but the goal is to make the box appear to disappear. Some boxes are, of course, by definition bigger. Joe Henderson or Sonny Rollins might play anything at anytime., and I think it was Jackie McLean who refered to modal playing as the "the big room," but of course once you're in it for a while, its four walls begin to look like any other four walls.)

Excellent account of Grant Stewart IMO. He and Walt Weiskopf are the two "in the tradition" tenormen (if WW is an "in the tradition" player) that I always check out.

BTW, Stewart is in fine form (as is everyone) on board member Mike Melito's aptly titled recent album "In the Tradition" (with John Swana, tpt.; Bob Sneider, gtr.; Paul Hofmann, pno.; Neil Miner, bs.; Melito, drms.) Highly recommended. Sneider and Hofmann are Rochester, N.Y.-based players (as is Melito) who have their own things going.