Eric Alexander vs Joshua Redman

[mrjazzman]

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.

IMHO, Grant Stewart as of yet, has not made enough of a seperation between his sound and the sound of Sonny Rollins. He's definitely heading in that direction but has not quite made it. In a sense, it's like Paul Quinechette and Prez, Jon Fadis and Diz, Wallace Roney and Miles, Vincent Herring and Cannonball although he has found his own voice completely etc. etc. Edited March 15, 2010 by mrjazzman

[cymbalgroove]

I don't know if I agree that Grant has not made enough separation between his sound and Sonny Rollins. Grant is very influenced by Sonny Rollins but I can tell the difference between the two.

[Larry Kart]

I don't know if I agree that Grant has not made enough separation between his sound and Sonny Rollins. Grant is very influenced by Sonny Rollins but I can tell the difference between the two.

For my taste, Stewart's Rollins resemblance comes and goes. There are times when I hear very specific Rollins-esque "chortles" and the like, and this turns me off because those gestures seem to me not only to be unique to Rollins but also effusions into the music of Rollins' personality, in-passing dramatizations of his particular quirks (if that's the right word) as a human being. And to my mind that's two somewhat different things. An analogy might be Rex Stewart's half-valve techniques. That he popularized that way of playing and put his own personal, expressive stamp on it doesn't mean that he's the only one who can use half-valve effects, but if you do play that way in the coy, impish, waggish manner that Stewart did, it sounds like the musical equivalent of Frank Gorshin doing a Jimmy Cagney impression.

Otherwise, though, when I hear Stewart I mostly hear a Rollins-inspired player who is making real, high-level, in-the-moment contact with the material, not someone who is dipping into an anthology of Rollins licks. I'm not saying that my judgment here is infallible, but I am wary of overt emulators in general and think I am alert to the differences. Stewart seems to me to be his own man in much the same way that the late Barney Wilen (surely Rollins-inspired to a considerable degree) finally was Barney Wilen.

[JSngry]

Or how James Clay was finally James Clay.

[Jams_Runt]

I tend to lurk more than write on this forum, as I feel that most of the regular posters know a helluva lot more about the music than I do. I've been following this discussion. In my heart I want to disagree with JSngry, but when I looked at the new jazz I buy these days, only two artists can't join AARP. (Michael Blake and Hafez Modirzadeh.) Most of the jazz I love was made decades ago, or made by folks like Vonski and Roswell Rudd. I can't so much say that the party is over, but it is definitely winding down.

I was one of those kids that was wowed by Joshua Redman fifteen years ago. It was a really Rollinesque version of Monk's Friday the 13th that knocked me out, then I heard his pops on In London, and it opened the door to all the post-bop that came before. Within weeks Redman Jr. ceased to be relevant for me. Eric Anderson is not on my radar, and from reading this thread, I don't see that changing any time soon.

[cymbalgroove]

I don't know if I agree that Grant has not made enough separation between his sound and Sonny Rollins. Grant is very influenced by Sonny Rollins but I can tell the difference between the two.

For my taste, Stewart's Rollins resemblance comes and goes. There are times when I hear very specific Rollins-esque "chortles" and the like, and this turns me off because those gestures seem to me not only to be unique to Rollins but also effusions into the music of Rollins' personality, in-passing dramatizations of his particular quirks (if that's the right word) as a human being. And to my mind that's two somewhat different things. An analogy might be Rex Stewart's half-valve techniques. That he popularized that way of playing and put his own personal, expressive stamp on it doesn't mean that he's the only one who can use half-valve effects, but if you do play that way in the coy, impish, waggish manner that Stewart did, it sounds like the musical equivalent of Frank Gorshin doing a Jimmy Cagney impression.

Otherwise, though, when I hear Stewart I mostly hear a Rollins-inspired player who is making real, high-level, in-the-moment contact with the material, not someone who is dipping into an anthology of Rollins licks. I'm not saying that my judgment here is infallible, but I am wary of overt emulators in general and think I am alert to the differences. Stewart seems to me to be his own man in much the same way that the late Barney Wilen (surely Rollins-inspired to a considerable degree) finally was Barney Wilen.

Man I love Barney Wilen.

[John L]

Or how James Clay was finally James Clay.

Was James Clay ever not James Clay?

[DrJ]

I don't listen to "schools" or "conceptions" or "eras" or "cultural statements" - not sure what those things would even sound like - I listen to music.

The problem with so much of this discussion thus far is that it projects all kinds of things that are part of the inner psyche of the posters onto the music the musicians are playing. How much of what people are claiming is "about" the music of any era IS actually objectively about the music - rather than being about their own biases and prejudices and hindsight? I'm just asking...it is after all interesting that the folks who seem to be pushing the "jazz is dead" button strongest are those with the greatest personal stake (either having been part of the "scene" back in the day, or being a player now invested in "evolution" of the music).

Let me put it this way: Scott Hamilton (and before some wag says it, no not the figure skater, the tenor player). Yes, Scott Hamilton. Here's a guy I took years to check out because I was prepared to totally hate his guts, for many of the kinds of reasons being mentioned to cut down players like Eric Alexander. Hell I looked over my shoulder 7 or 8 times before even placing his LP on my turntable, for fear and shame that someone with better taste would "out" me.

When I finally did check him out on the BACK TO BACK LP alongside Buddy Tate, my head was turned around. He frankly outplays Tate, but importantly he's clearly not slavishly imitating players like Tate or repeating licks from the past - even though you can hear he's listened to Ben Webster and many other swing era players - certainly no more than, say, Sonny Rollins picked up a thing or two from Coleman Hawkins. In my opinion he's adding a lot of his own thing to the jazz pantheon here. He just had the misfortune of being born about 30 years too late. Here's the thing - no matter WHAT he played, he wasn't going to be starting any jazz movements or schools, because jazz as a POPULAR form of music is indeed dead and has been for decades. That doesn't mean it's artistically dead, but it does mean that the likelihood of anyone starting a "jazz revolution" is somewhere between slim and none, there just ain't enough of a critical mass folks.

But anyway - you may (and likely will) disagree about Hamilton. That's cool.

All I'm saying is, personally I'm careful about bringing my "baggage" to listening to music. What works for me is to just let that crap go. Just listen. Shhhh. Listen. Quiet your mind. Don't expect or anticipate. Just be there. Let yourself be surprised. It's fun.

That's really all there is in music in my opinion.

If it doesn't grab you, fine, move on - but not "because it sounded just like so and so" or "he clearly isn't a top tier player" or "that stuff didn't move society forward" or any of this other irrelevant BS - move on because you just didn't like it or get it.

Own your own impressions; let's not project them onto the musicians or "jazz" in general, or certainly onto me.

I certainly have got enough of my own hang ups to deal with, thank you, I don't need yours. I doubt Eric Alexander needs them either.

Edited March 16, 2010 by DrJ

[A Lark Ascending]

The problem with so much of this discussion thus far is that it projects all kinds of things that are part of the inner psyche of the posters onto the music the musicians are playing.

Spot on!

In fact an awful lot of critical orthodoxy (and an awful lot of dissent) is just that...projection masquerading as revelation.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[DrJ]

Or how James Clay was finally James Clay.

Was James Clay ever not James Clay?

Only when he was a pipe.

[Peter Friedman]

I don't listen to "schools" or "conceptions" or "eras" or "cultural statements" - not sure what those things would even sound like - I listen to music.

The problem with so much of this discussion thus far is that it projects all kinds of things that are part of the inner psyche of the posters onto the music the musicians are playing. How much of what people are claiming is "about" the music of any era IS actually objectively about the music - rather than being about their own biases and prejudices and hindsight? I'm just asking...it is after all interesting that the folks who seem to be pushing the "jazz is dead" button strongest are those with the greatest personal stake (either having been part of the "scene" back in the day, or being a player now invested in "evolution" of the music).

Let me put it this way: Scott Hamilton (and before some wag says it, no not the figure skater, the tenor player). Yes, Scott Hamilton. Here's a guy I took years to check out because I was prepared to totally hate his guts, for many of the kinds of reasons being mentioned to cut down players like Eric Alexander. Hell I looked over my shoulder 7 or 8 times before even placing his LP on my turntable, for fear and shame that someone with better taste would "out" me.

When I finally did check him out on the BACK TO BACK LP alongside Buddy Tate, my head was turned around. He frankly outplays Tate, but importantly he's clearly not slavishly imitating players like Tate or repeating licks from the past - even though you can hear he's listened to Ben Webster and many other swing era players - certainly no more than, say, Sonny Rollins picked up a thing or two from Coleman Hawkins. In my opinion he's adding a lot of his own thing to the jazz pantheon here. He just had the misfortune of being born about 30 years too late. Here's the thing - no matter WHAT he played, he wasn't going to be starting any jazz movements or schools, because jazz as a POPULAR form of music is indeed dead and has been for decades. That doesn't mean it's artistically dead, but it does mean that the likelihood of anyone starting a "jazz revolution" is somewhere between slim and none, there just ain't enough of a critical mass folks.

But anyway - you may (and likely will) disagree about Hamilton. That's cool.

All I'm saying is, personally I'm careful about bringing my "baggage" to listening to music. What works for me is to just let that crap go. Just listen. Shhhh. Listen. Quiet your mind. Don't expect or anticipate. Just be there. Let yourself be surprised. It's fun.

That's really all there is in music in my opinion.

If it doesn't grab you, fine, move on - but not "because it sounded just like so and so" or "he clearly isn't a top tier player" or "that stuff didn't move society forward" or any of this other irrelevant BS - move on because you just didn't like it or get it.

Own your own impressions; let's not project them onto the musicians or "jazz" in general, or certainly onto me.

I certainly have got enough of my own hang ups to deal with, thank you, I don't need yours. I doubt Eric Alexander needs them either.

:tup

[JSngry]

Or how James Clay was finally James Clay.

Was James Clay ever not James Clay?

James had a strong Rollins influence early on.

I don't listen to "schools" or "conceptions" or "eras" or "cultural statements" - not sure what those things would even sound like - I listen to music.

"The Clint Longley of listening!"

-Ralph Neeley

[kh1958]

I have moved on from Eric Alexander; I've seen him live several times and didn't care for his playing; once as a leader at the Village Vanguard--I left after one set, the only worthwhile aspect of the concert being Harold Mabern on piano; another time at a Coleman Hawkins Tribute concert at the Blue Note, where there were four saxophonists on stage at various times--here's my order of preference: 1. Dewey Redman; 2. Lew Tabackin; 3. Joe Lovano; 4. Eric Alexander--Dewey and Lew v. Eric, now there was a wide gulf. Finally, a few months ago with Pat Martino--a trio would have been really nice. If I see his name on a concert or recording, I'm heading the opposite direction from now on.

[JSngry]

I mean, jesus, I'll argue opinions whenever I feel like (and won't if I don't...), and no regrets about that.

But any notion that one should just shut up & listen, like it or not and then move on is really kinda...what, lame? Amaturish? Immature? Spectator Sport-ish?

Oh, i forgot - Just listen. Shhhh. Listen.

Yeah, fine. Then what? Bask in the warm glow of whatever comes my way and take it w/o any critical thinking skills and emotions before, during, or afterwards? If I don't like what I hear, just keep it to myself? If I find it oppressive, regressive, whateveressive, just shut up? Even if lots of other people feel the same way (or don't!)?

Gimme a break. That's pure bullshit. We're adults, not children, and we damn well better be able to tell the difference between Zen & Zombie. I don't think that Just listen. Shhhh. Listen. STOP makes the grade.

Passive love is fine if that's the best you can do. For many people, though, it's not.

[Dan Gould]

Let's not ignore what Tony said before and after:

What works for me is to just let that crap go. Just listen. Shhhh. Listen. Quiet your mind. Don't expect or anticipate. Just be there. Let yourself be surprised. It's fun.

That's really all there is in music in my opinion.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Dan Gould

[JSngry]

The problem with so much of this discussion thus far is that it projects all kinds of things that are part of the inner psyche of the posters onto the music the musicians are playing.

Spot on!

In fact an awful lot of critical orthodoxy (and an awful lot of dissent) is just that...projection masquerading as revelation.

So, is this some kind of revelation?

I defy you to show me any adult, hell, child, even, of even semi-functional capacity who doesn't do that, one way or the other.

[JSngry]

Let's not ignore what Tony said before and after:

What works for me is to just let that crap go. Just listen. Shhhh. Listen. Quiet your mind. Don't expect or anticipate. Just be there. Let yourself be surprised. It's fun.

That's really all there is in music in my opinion.

Before and after what? The entire post? I don't think so...

If it's not a fact (or a factual error), it's opinion, right? So pretty much all of this thread is opinion.

[kenny weir]

So pretty much all of this thread is opinion.

More like, for me, all of every thread.

Which is something I need to remind myself of when I start getting a little uptight about my forum time.

[JSngry]

Hey, opinions are what drives the music, period. Opinions about what an individual needs to say in their own playing, opinions about what somebody wants/needs to hear at any given moment, opinions about who's going to give somebody a forum to say what it is that they think they need to say for whoever it is that thinks they might wants/needs to hear at any given moment, i mean, no opinions, no music, really, unless it's the music and the audience of the borderline-and-beyond lobotomized.

For that matter, opinions are pretty much what drives life. Opinions are worth airing, worth considering, worth challenging & arguing, because ultimately opinions are what determines quality of life.

Of course, that's just my opinion. But I do own it, and you can take it when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[Dan Gould]

Let's not ignore what Tony said before and after:

What works for me is to just let that crap go. Just listen. Shhhh. Listen. Quiet your mind. Don't expect or anticipate. Just be there. Let yourself be surprised. It's fun.

That's really all there is in music in my opinion.

Before and after what? The entire post? I don't think so...

You repeated "Shh - Listen" as if it were presented as a command when Tony prefaced it at the start and the end as what works for him and his own personal opinion.

[JSngry]

Hey, I've been a parent. I know Daddy Talk when i hear it.

Edited March 17, 2010 by JSngry

[Dan Gould]

Hey, I've been a parent. I know Daddy Talk when i hear it.

I have no idea what this means. Am I doing the daddy talking? Because my kids never speak and I don't think my method of communicating with them would be recognized as "Daddy Talk".

[Chuck Nessa]

Boy am I glad I dropped out of this thread. Otherwise, I might be dead by now.

[JSngry]

Hey, I've been a parent. I know Daddy Talk when i hear it.

I have no idea what this means.

"Shh - Listen"

That's Daddy Talk.

As is "I don't wanna hear how you don't like broccoli becuase it makes your jaw lock up and your dick break out in a rash. Just sit there and shut up if you don't like it."

Well, that's more like Stressed Out Daddy Talk, but it's still Daddy Talk.

[DrJ]

Hey, I've been a parent. I know Daddy Talk when i hear it.

I have no idea what this means.

"Shh - Listen"

That's Daddy Talk.

As is "I don't wanna hear how you don't like broccoli becuase it makes your jaw lock up and your dick break out in a rash. Just sit there and shut up if you don't like it."

Well, that's more like Stressed Out Daddy Talk, but it's still Daddy Talk.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with parental talk - not even remotely. Do you have some unresolved daddy issues or something? Sheesh. I guess I need to change my avatar pic to something else; I've been pigeonholed.

"Parental" is the kind of vibe that YOU'VE been projecting here - "Sit there and shut up you ignorant whippersnappers while I tell you how it is" is what you have basically been telling people throughout this thread. "Jazz is dead, face it," clubs are museums now, listening to Eric Alexander is like masturbating, etc etc.

Hell that's not just daddy talk, that's GRANDADDY talk.

If it was just coming across as how you feel about the situation, then it wouldn't be, but it doesn't come across that way - it comes across like a sermon. There have been all these subtle and not so subtle (The Famous Masterbation analogy) insinuations that people who feel differently are living an artificial, empty life. Whom is lecturing whom?

When I said "Shhh. Listen" I was talking about just sitting and taking on the music at face value and without all these preconceptions and baggage that people heap onto everything that touches their ears, that's all. Not "Never express an opinion."

I'm simply saying why not sit and listen to the music, from whatever era, and keep stuff in the player that speaks to you and take stuff out of the player that doesn't - without implying your own views about why you do or don't like something are more than just that - without implying there is some objective "right-thinking" view?

CERTAINLY I never said (as you put it) STOP there. Quite the contrary. I like that people knock themselves out thinking about and discussing what they like and don't like and why. I do that, I enjoy it, I get it. Would I come to an online JAZZ FORUM if I didn't? Thought this was self-evident.

It's the implication in your discussion of things here that there is an objective "right answer" about where jazz stands today, about who is the "real deal" and who is not, that gets unbelievably annoying, to me at least. I've only been "back in the fold" around here for a couple days and already I'm remembering why I stopped posting here in the first place. You can cut the "critical orthodoxy" with a friggin' machete...I can predict almost without fail after every post who is going to chime in and slap some unsuspecting person down hard whenever they try and go outside the Organissimo orthodoxy and express a fondness for an "uncool" artist. If I wanted to go to church...

You may disagree with me, but clearly what I'm saying is nowhere NEAR the same thing as saying "Sit there and shut up and listen to everything that comes your way and enjoy it with a big shit eating grin on your face and never say anything about it, even if you don't like it." That's just crap to even imply I would say that.

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that in my experience, projecting all these personal biases onto the music to create a codified "culture of orthodox jazz criticism" contributes to people sitting there listening to a lot of music they actually don't enjoy much at all, because they are "supposed" to like it - because people "in the know" tell them it's the "stuff" and changed society and they just don't play it like this anymore and blah de blah blah. And by the same token that vibe also leads to people missing out for a long time on music they might love - like I did with Hamilton - because it just isn't what they "should" be listening to.

Edited March 17, 2010 by DrJ