Eric Alexander vs Joshua Redman

[JSngry]

Here we go again...

It's not about "music". It's about how we relate to time & space and how we pass information through both.

If we as a people are going to continue to evolve in a omni-dimensional reality where things like "place" and "schedule" continue to become as much a matter of choice as of unnegotiable necessity, then music that continues to be based on 3-D info being moved along through a stationary platform...I mean, there will always be something to do there but to what end....I'm skeptical.

Cecil & others were hip to this a long time ago. The "DJ culture" whatever other shortcomings one might ascribe to it, figured it out too, as well as that function eventually form, and that there just ain't room to keep it all in one place anymore, so you gotta bob and weave the information where there's room for it to pass, and that you gotta be selective about the whats and hows of the information because people ain't gonna got the time, need, or, eventually, skills to stand still and be lectured to, so to speak, not when they can get what they need on the run.

This is where the world is going. Hell, this is where the world is. Resistance is certainly possible, but to confuse resistance with even a gnat's hair's worth of chance of cessation is pretty much a fool's bet. In some places it's called "denial" and if it's practiced on a wide enough scale, things....just come to a slow, painful, gloppy trudge of an almost-halt and then finally die.

[Hoppy T. Frog]

Though, that "DJ Culture" is still influencing jazz to some extent. The whole EAI movement was/is, at least in part, a response to what was going on in the whole DJ community. Yet, I wonder how much influence that is having on the current jazz scene. Look at someone like Keith Rowe, who does great work, and yet, how many jazz fans even would consider his work in a jazz light? There used to be a great amount of argument over EAI and the Earstwhile artists, and yet now, that seems long ago. Which is too bad, Jon Abbey is on to something, and is fighting the good fight, but even he must get discouraged at times over the music biz, and where it's going.

BTW, I saw Jon Abbey thanked in Ben Ratliff's "Jazz Ear" (no snickering, it's good light bathroom reading). Funny, cause on "another jazz board" he was chased off for calling jazz a "historical genre".

[clifford_thornton]

I really like Joshua Redman and have most of his albums. I do not know much about Eric Alexander, but I will check him out. Peace and goodwill.

Welcome and do stick around. It looks like you might have stepped into a firepit, but fear not!

[Guest Bill Barton]

Though, that "DJ Culture" is still influencing jazz to some extent. The whole EAI movement was/is, at least in part, a response to what was going on in the whole DJ community. Yet, I wonder how much influence that is having on the current jazz scene. Look at someone like Keith Rowe, who does great work, and yet, how many jazz fans even would consider his work in a jazz light? There used to be a great amount of argument over EAI and the Earstwhile artists, and yet now, that seems long ago. Which is too bad, Jon Abbey is on to something, and is fighting the good fight, but even he must get discouraged at times over the music biz, and where it's going.

BTW, I saw Jon Abbey thanked in Ben Ratliff's "Jazz Ear" (no snickering, it's good light bathroom reading). Funny, cause on "another jazz board" he was chased off for calling jazz a "historical genre".

"Chased off" may be a slight exaggeration. Jon has far too strong a personality to be "chased off" from anywhere; witness some of the exchanges on the "I Hate Music" board for instance.

[.:.impossible]

Never bothered to open this thread until this evening. I've skipped it so many times because, well, Eric Alexander vs. Joshua Redman...

I noticed four pages of discussion and figured I was missing some good reading. I would not have guessed that this was the title to such a large chapter.

I'm always amused by these past-present-future jazz discussions... dj culture and eai. dj "culture". right there. its a lifestyle. it comes with shoes and fancy glasses. eai, on the other hand, is seemingly an amorphous target. It was my understanding five/six years ago when I took some time to gain exposure to some of the music being marked as eai that no one making the music was entirely satisfied with the fact that they were being corralled into a genre, that the term eai was insufficient, etc. i haven't spent as much time with these artists in the past five years, but imagine that folks aren't trying to remake The Hands of The Caravaggio, that the genre is exponentially wider even than it was then. to say that dj culture spawned or caused eai is just misinformed, at least from my limited exposure to both worlds. Yes, people utilized turntables and electronics in both musics. I get that. And I would not consider Keith Rowe's music in a jazz light. No need to. Nothing about AMM and the musics that have branched out of it since remind me at all of jazz, nor should they be evaluated as such, in my opinion.

These discussions splinter off at this point and there is never a conclusion. Isn't that the point?

Some of us here are observers. Some of us here are up to our necks in it. Some of us here are more qualified than others to say what the past was. No one here has a comprehensive view on what the present is, and trying to determine what the future for jazz music is, well that's just ridiculous. I predict that by 2015, electric saxophones and computerized pianos will revolutionize the music.

[CJ Shearn]

Never bothered to open this thread until this evening. I've skipped it so many times because, well, Eric Alexander vs. Joshua Redman...

I noticed four pages of discussion and figured I was missing some good reading. I would not have guessed that this was the title to such a large chapter.

I'm always amused by these past-present-future jazz discussions... dj culture and eai. dj "culture". right there. its a lifestyle. it comes with shoes and fancy glasses. eai, on the other hand, is seemingly an amorphous target. It was my understanding five/six years ago when I took some time to gain exposure to some of the music being marked as eai that no one making the music was entirely satisfied with the fact that they were being corralled into a genre, that the term eai was insufficient, etc. i haven't spent as much time with these artists in the past five years, but imagine that folks aren't trying to remake The Hands of The Caravaggio, that the genre is exponentially wider even than it was then. to say that dj culture spawned or caused eai is just misinformed, at least from my limited exposure to both worlds. Yes, people utilized turntables and electronics in both musics. I get that. And I would not consider Keith Rowe's music in a jazz light. No need to. Nothing about AMM and the musics that have branched out of it since remind me at all of jazz, nor should they be evaluated as such, in my opinion.

These discussions splinter off at this point and there is never a conclusion. Isn't that the point?

Some of us here are observers. Some of us here are up to our necks in it. Some of us here are more qualified than others to say what the past was. No one here has a comprehensive view on what the present is, and trying to determine what the future for jazz music is, well that's just ridiculous. I predict that by 2015, electric saxophones and computerized pianos will revolutionize the music.

You are correct. Pat Metheny is right now really looking into that area with "Orchestrion" coming out on Tuesday. I have heard some of the record and its on its way to me........ fears that people have that this is stiff, mechanical music will be surprised. It sweings hard.

Edited January 24, 2010 by CJ Shearn

[.:.impossible]

I think Binney was mentioned in this thread and I wanted to share this link, not for the saxophone, but for the DRUMS! Good lord.

[king ubu]

In the final analysis it boils down to personal taste. While some find the playing of someone such as Eric Alexander, and dare I mention Scott Hamilton, to be old fashioned, and tradition bound and not "what's happening" in 2010, I hear their music as refreshing, swinging, and emotionally rich in a sea of rather unmelodic,rather dull uninteresting music that does not speak to me. That "bonding" that took place for me back in the mid to late 1950's when I began collecting records and going to hear live jazz can still remain alive and well for me when I can listen to Grant Stewart, Eric Alexander, Scott Hamilton

and many others who are keeping that music I love so much alive.

I just read a funny thread about David S. Ware (glad he's better, btw) on the german Rolling Stone forum... didn't dare to spoil the party there and tell them folks (all hefty believers, it seems) that his music isn't "what's happening in 2010" either

[John Tapscott]

Some of the best Eric Alexander I've heard is on a CD I'm listening to now - Cecil Payne's Chic Boom Live at the Jazz Showcase (Delmark). I seem to enjoy Eric's playing most when other horns are on board.

[jon abbey]

just seeing this now...

Though, that "DJ Culture" is still influencing jazz to some extent. The whole EAI movement was/is, at least in part, a response to what was going on in the whole DJ community. Yet, I wonder how much influence that is having on the current jazz scene. Look at someone like Keith Rowe, who does great work, and yet, how many jazz fans even would consider his work in a jazz light? There used to be a great amount of argument over EAI and the Earstwhile artists, and yet now, that seems long ago. Which is too bad, Jon Abbey is on to something, and is fighting the good fight, but even he must get discouraged at times over the music biz, and where it's going.

BTW, I saw Jon Abbey thanked in Ben Ratliff's "Jazz Ear" (no snickering, it's good light bathroom reading). Funny, cause on "another jazz board" he was chased off for calling jazz a "historical genre".

"Chased off" may be a slight exaggeration. Jon has far too strong a personality to be "chased off" from anywhere; witness some of the exchanges on the "I Hate Music" board for instance.

Matthew: yep, the music biz is very depressing, but I'm still here, and I think Erstwhile had its best year creatively in quite some time in 2009.

Hoppy: yep, Ben is a good friend of mine and I proofread that for him and offered some suggestions. my statement about jazz being a 'historical genre' (which I think is true, but I was actually just repeating something John Butcher had told me) was made for the first time about ten years before I left JC, but nice try.

[BillF]

An interesting thread but one factor seems to have been ignored. The age and listening background and experience of the individual making the judgements.

I expect I am one of the oldest members here. I developed my initial jazz listening experience in the period when both West Coast jazz and Hard Bop were developing and flourishing. I "bonded" with that music and it became vitally important to me in a variety of ways.

I spent some time listening to Ornette, Albert Ayler and a number of other "free jazz" players and soon realized that it was not something that gave me the musical/ emotional pleasure that I got from the above mentioned styles. In fact, I began to find a lot of musical richness in jazz that pre-dated my entry into becoming a serious jazz listener. So the jazz of the 20's, 30's and 40's entered my pleasure dome. A good friend once put it very well when he said that both he and I like our jazz to be based on tunes with chord changes. That was basically the way jazz evolved up to the time when Ornette and others moved things in a different direction.

As the original players associated with Hard Bop, West Coast Jazz, Mainstream, etc. have been dying off I find it very rewarding to find there are newer players who have come on the scene who are continuing to play in the styles of jazz that are highly meaningful to me. It is also true that many of these "newer" players learned to play standing next to members of the previous generation. If the musical traditions are passed on so directly that would seem to fit with the way things have been happening throughout so much of the history of jazz.

In the final analysis it boils down to personal taste. While some find the playing of someone such as Eric Alexander, and dare I mention Scott Hamilton, to be old fashioned, and tradition bound and not "what's happening" in 2010, I hear their music as refreshing, swinging, and emotionally rich in a sea of rather unmelodic,rather dull uninteresting music that does not speak to me. That "bonding" that took place for me back in the mid to late 1950's when I began collecting records and going to hear live jazz can still remain alive and well for me when I can listen to Grant Stewart, Eric Alexander, Scott Hamilton

and many others who are keeping that music I love so much alive.

Hear! Hear!

[cymbalgroove]

I think for me as a musician I always am curious as to what people really want to hear from us today? If you play in the tradition, it seems like people think it's the same old same old and everybody plays like that today. Sorry but I don't agree with that at all!! To hear someone hear say you're a jazz villan if you play the tradition is ridiculous IMHO! If you play more modern stuff, some people say that music has no roots. The bottomline is what hasn't been done in straight ahead jazz? The music has run it's course stylistically. There are no groundbreakers PERIOD stylistically. Why does everyone always look for new styles to judge the music as being better and going forward? I'm a bebopper and proud of it but have played many different styles of this music. Every time I get on the bandstand the music is always different. It could be the same tunes with the same guys night after night and it's always different. The style may have done before but the content is always different. How many piano players play more in the style of Herbie or McCoy vs. Bud Powell or Sonny Clark? MUCH more. No matter how hard you study a player or style you'll always be you because there are certain things in each musician that only fits you. Having said that though, I don't believe a musician should play so and so's solo in their own solo note for note. I've heard that before and it's a turn off.

I've played a lot with Eric Alexander and Grant Stewart. Both of them play very different and both are great. They both are very strong in their concepts. I've worked more with Grant than Eric. He's a perfect example of a guy with that classic sound but with endless ideas that take you on a journey on each tune. I give it up for Eric though too. He's heavily influenced by George Coleman but it's still Eric Alexander. I can hear him or Grant and pick them out instantly. I don't consider them sound alikes at all!! I know all this is opinions and everyone has one. I just know how hard these guys work and to play at their level they should be applauded weather you like their style or not.

[CJ Shearn]

I think for me as a musician I always am curious as to what people really want to hear from us today? If you play in the tradition, it seems like people think it's the same old same old and everybody plays like that today. Sorry but I don't agree with that at all!! To hear someone hear say you're a jazz villan if you play the tradition is ridiculous IMHO! If you play more modern stuff, some people say that music has no roots. The bottomline is what hasn't been done in straight ahead jazz? The music has run it's course stylistically. There are no groundbreakers PERIOD stylistically. Why does everyone always look for new styles to judge the music as being better and going forward? I'm a bebopper and proud of it but have played many different styles of this music. Every time I get on the bandstand the music is always different. It could be the same tunes with the same guys night after night and it's always different. The style may have done before but the content is always different. How many piano players play more in the style of Herbie or McCoy vs. Bud Powell or Sonny Clark? MUCH more. No matter how hard you study a player or style you'll always be you because there are certain things in each musician that only fits you. Having said that though, I don't believe a musician should play so and so's solo in their own solo note for note. I've heard that before and it's a turn off.

I've played a lot with Eric Alexander and Grant Stewart. Both of them play very different and both are great. They both are very strong in their concepts. I've worked more with Grant than Eric. He's a perfect example of a guy with that classic sound but with endless ideas that take you on a journey on each tune. I give it up for Eric though too. He's heavily influenced by George Coleman but it's still Eric Alexander. I can hear him or Grant and pick them out instantly. I don't consider them sound alikes at all!! I know all this is opinions and everyone has one. I just know how hard these guys work and to play at their level they should be applauded weather you like their style or not.

Excellent points, thats why it always made me sad in college, the kids into jazz would hear something like Joshua Redman "St. Thomas", and be blown away, and it is great, but they thought it was original. Because I'm one of the rare young adults that has grown up on jazz thanks to great taste on the parental end, I would tell them it owes great debt to Sonny Rollins in execution and style, and because they did not have that reference point, they would just kind of be like "oh."

Edited March 11, 2010 by CJ Shearn

[Big Wheel]

How many piano players play more in the style of Herbie or McCoy vs. Bud Powell or Sonny Clark? MUCH more.

That's true...but it's true largely because Herbie and McCoy's styles are (generally) more harmonically advanced than Bud and Sonny's. Most people just don't play like Bud and Sonny anymore and the reason is that Herbie and McCoy opened up new vistas in terms of what you could do harmonically, and people saw those vistas as useful places to go exploring.

I think the reason a lot of people slag guys like Eric Alexander or Scott Hamilton is that they tend to neglect whole regions of the canon in ways that others don't. While the trend of people turning themselves of clones of Brecker isn't good either, at least when you copy Brecker's style you're reaping the benefit of Brecker's having digested his own influences so thoroughly. I love George Coleman's playing, but I also realize that there are a lot of cats that built important stuff on what he did, and you ignore them at your own artistic risk. There's a lot more that I think could be said on this but I guess the point I want to make is that probably nobody playing "jazz" as most of us think of it really has any hope of resonating with masses and masses of people, but if you don't at least try to move things forward in a meaningful way you are essentially condemning yourself to resonating with an audience that is only going to get older and smaller. If that's your thing, keep on keepin' on, but it isn't how I'd want my work to be remembered.

Oh what the hell, one last thought. What do we mean when we say "in the tradition," anyway? Albert Ayler's work is almost 50 years old now, is that not also part of the tradition? The fusion era is about 40 years old. Fusion is only 15 years younger than Bird's last records! Does that qualify for the tradition? To be honest it's hard not to fault the professionalization of jazz education for this weird break in what came to be canonical. When Jamey Aebersold and David Baker and guys of their generation (and their acolytes) are still, effectively, setting down the rules for "how to learn to play jazz," you're going to see their particular views dominate an idea of what's within the bounds of the tradition and what isn't.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Big Wheel

[cymbalgroove]

That's true...but it's true largely because Herbie and McCoy's styles are (generally) more harmonically advanced than Bud and Sonny's. Most people just don't play like Bud and Sonny anymore and the reason is that Herbie and McCoy opened up new vistas in terms of what you could do harmonically, and people saw those vistas as useful places to go exploring.

Yes and No.. Yes harmonically Herbie and McCoy opened up new vistas but they also came from guys like Bud and Sonny. My point is that alot of these piano players nowadays sound the same to me stylistically. Outside of a few guys like Tardo Hammer, Steve Ash and Sasha Perry the majority of the piano players out there come out of Herbie and McCoy. I think you're considered a throwback and looked down on if you come out of say a Sonny Clark or Bud.

Edited March 11, 2010 by cymbalgroove

[Big Wheel]

Yes and No.. Yes harmonically Herbie and McCoy opened up new vistas but they also came from guys like Bud and Sonny. My point is that alot of these piano players nowadays sound the same to me stylistically. Outside of a few guys like Tardo Hammer, Steve Ash and Sasha Perry the majority of the piano players out there come out of Herbie and McCoy. I think you're considered a throwback and looked down on if you come out of say a Sonny Clark or Bud.

I think you've made my point for me. (I'm saying this BTW as a piano player whose major influences and first transcriptions were of ALL of the above - Bud on "Wail," Sonny on "Airegin," Herbie on "Speak No Evil.") If you draw on Herbie's style you're going to inevitably get a ton of Bud in there anyway. If you ignore Herbie's style entirely while also not absorbing McCoy, Beirach, Muhal, Chick, Keith, Cecil, Jaki Byard, Andrew Hill, etc., you're basically saying "I didn't think there was anything useful to be had after Bud," which to me at least makes you seem incurious. The reaction I have to that is "Really?? What thought process is leading you to limit yourself creatively like this?"

I get what you're saying about the legions of Herbie clones coming out of the schools today, but I guess my thinking here is that I think at least some of them are likely to eventually make something really interesting and creative. By emulating the Herbie/Ron/Tony quintet you're likely going to push on some kind of outer boundary that hasn't been entirely hashed out. I can't say the same for someone who's decided to go backwards.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Big Wheel

[mjzee]

Speaking as a listener rather than as a musician, as soon as I hear a Herbie or McCoy clone, I immediately tune out. I heard Pat Martino on his Wes Montgomery tour, and the band was burning, except for the pianist, who was a McCoy clone. He may have been "more harmonically advanced," but it only sounded like he gummed up the music with all those block chords. And he wasn't playing anything that wasn't McCoy's - I heard no individuality in his playing. Give me Bud or Sonny's approach anyday, which allows the music to open up more and encourages interplay. Harmonic advancement is only worthwhile if it sounds good.

BTW, I just picked up Grant Stewart's "Plays the Music of Ellington and Strayhorn," with Tardo Hammer on it. I'm looking forward to hearing it.

[Drumolator]

I have almost all of Joshua Redman's CD's, but I recently bought my first Eric Alexander CD/DVD, which I like very much. I am no expert on jazz, past or present, but I know what I like. I also recently discovered Walt Weiskoft, another sax player whom I will be buying more of. So much good muisc, so little time. Peace and goodwill.

[cymbalgroove]

Big Wheel, I'm not saying anyone has to be locked into anybody in all honesty. My point is I don't hear real beboppers as much as I hear Herbie and McCoy influences these days. What you seem to be saying is if someone plays out of that bag and doesn't venture into Herbie then they aren't growing? Which for me is hogwash! I got to play with Barry Harris and that was about is good as it gets for me. That guy is more advanced musically than anyone in my opinion. I love Herbie and McCoy a ton btw! I understand why they did what they did but they are both very rooted. I guess to sum up what I mean is you don't hear many guys playing TRUE bebop anymore as much as more modern stuff. The more modern stuff for me is getting more rehashed by far than bebop these days. That's ok too. I'm just saying how great it is to play with a guy like Grant Stewart, Tardo or Neal Miner. Those guys are true beboppers and there aren't many left these days that I hear. I think it's too hard to play that music in all honesty. You can hide more in a more modern bag. In a more modern bag things open up more which you can get away with more. It's just a different way of playing is all. Both bags are great.. I'm just a bebopper at heart is all.

[Larry Kart]

Big Wheel, I'm not saying anyone has to be locked into anybody in all honesty. My point is I don't hear real beboppers as much as I hear Herbie and McCoy influences these days. What you seem to be saying is if someone plays out of that bag and doesn't venture into Herbie then they aren't growing? Which for me is hogwash! I got to play with Barry Harris and that was about is good as it gets for me. That guy is more advanced musically than anyone in my opinion. I love Herbie and McCoy a ton btw! I understand why they did what they did but they are both very rooted. I guess to sum up what I mean is you don't hear many guys playing TRUE bebop anymore as much as more modern stuff. The more modern stuff for me is getting more rehashed by far than bebop these days. That's ok too. I'm just saying how great it is to play with a guy like Grant Stewart, Tardo or Neal Miner. Those guys are true beboppers and there aren't many left these days that I hear. I think it's too hard to play that music in all honesty. You can hide more in a more modern bag. In a more modern bag things open up more which you can get away with more. It's just a different way of playing is all. Both bags are great.. I'm just a bebopper at heart is all.

Cymbalgroove -- We're both admirers of Grant Stewart. But what makes Stewart special is not (or not just) the that he's a bebopper (actually, I'd say he was a hard-bop inclined and inspired player, out of Rollins and Mobley, if anything) but that what Stewart plays is full of that rare and difficult-to-quantify sense of nowness and individuality, of real melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic choices being made in real time, that we like to think we recognize when we hear it (though I know at least one knowledgable listener who don't hear that in Stewart, and others who do).

Several players who have been mentioned here as being Stewart's like-minded (in terms of style) musical peers strike me as fluent licks players more or less, and nothing I'm going to say is likely to convince their admirers that there a real difference involved here (nor are they likely to convince me that there isn't). But, again, I hope we can agree that judgments of the worth of individual players should be based not just on the fact that a particular player is working in (if that's the way to put it) a style that we find attractive, familiar, or comfortable but primarily on the nature and intensity of the contact that player is making with the musical-emotional material involved. After all, making that sort of intense, individual, "in-the-now" contact is what the players who made any "style" of music-making come to life in the first place did as a matter of course. Don't see why we should settle for anything less.

[JSngry]

Bags...with cinder blocks too, I bet!

Better to be out of a bag than into one, I think.

Jazz is dead. Music is eternal.

Edited March 13, 2010 by JSngry

[cymbalgroove]

True Larry but to be a bebopper or hardbopper these days is rare. I was just talking style but I should've been more specific. I love anyone who plays in a earlier or later style of what I'm talking about if they are a thinking player. I've said that for years when people try to tell me Grant is a Sonny Rollins clone. So untrue!! He has a way of playing that is unique. I heard that the first time I ever played with him in 1993. He has grown a lot since then as hopefully we all do but I could hear it back then.

[JSngry]

I'm just a bebopper at heart is all.

Just wondering what that means to you. Seriously. Because I'd like to be a bebopper at heart myself, but having been around guys who really were & realizing they whys and hows of what that mean to them relative to their life & times (and heart), I can't say it about myself in a really honest way. Best I can say is that there is a deep abiding love for it and them in my heart (and soul, and mind), but...

Edit to add that a few hours later, I realize there might be a tone of snarkiness here that I assure you wasn't intended. The question is serious, since, and motivated by a desire for further insight.

Edited March 13, 2010 by JSngry

[cymbalgroove]

Being a bebopper at heart for means it's the jazz style that hits me the most. Not to say that I don't love checking out Herbie, McCoy and later Trane but Bebop and hardbop are my favorite styles of jazz.

[mrjazzman]

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.

No apologies necessary, we're just disagreeing about something we all love, it's all good....... Edited March 15, 2010 by mrjazzman