Archie Shepp

[ep1str0phy]

I read an interview with Archie Shepp in which he admitted that when he first began his career as a college professor, he did not know the jazz of the 1920s and 1930s and had to learn it to be able to teach it. I wonder if this mid-career immersion in earlier jazz styles had anything to do with his recordings becoming less out there?

One Shepp recording which I think is first rate, and which does not seem to have been mentioned, is "Shepp's Way", his long duo with Charlie Haden on Haden's album "The Golden Number".

Totally blanked on that one--good going, Hot Ptah.

As per JSngry's comments--makes a whole lot more sense (from a realist perspective). Although--this strain of argumentation sort of leads to a 'diminishing' of the early 60's work--consummate free jazz, no doubt, but (as others have noted) played by a cat whose 'inside' skills were not commensurate with his philosophies (or wants, for that matter). Shepp has transformed himself into a great changes player, but there's a rawness to those early Impulse! sides that's difficult to ignore. It's somewhat disconcerting to me to imagine that they were produced through limitation and exigency, however great they sound on tape (and a lot of those sidemen, we have discovered, can play bop/changes like madmen). Is this (what we have now) the actualized Shepp?

[JSngry]

As per JSngry's comments--makes a whole lot more sense (from a realist perspective). Although--this strain of argumentation sort of leads to a 'diminishing' of the early 60's work--consummate free jazz, no doubt, but (as others have noted) played by a cat whose 'inside' skills were not commensurate with his philosophies (or wants, for that matter). Shepp has transformed himself into a great changes player, but there's a rawness to those early Impulse! sides that's difficult to ignore. It's somewhat disconcerting to me to imagine that they were produced through limitation and exigency, however great they sound on tape (and a lot of those sidemen, we have discovered, can play bop/changes like madmen). Is this (what we have now) the actualized Shepp?

Can't say that I see any need whatsoever for any sense of "diminuition". Life is what it ends up being, and it gets there how it gets there. Many detours and surprises accompany that, and that's not a "diminuition", that's just what it is. The only need for a sense of disappointment would be if we sensed that Shepp was trying to play something and not succeeding due to technical limitations that prevented him from saying what it was that he had to say. The only time I get even an inkling of that is on the Candid sides w/Cecil.

But not too long after that, something else took over inside him, and he pursued it vigorouly, and usually most successfully. There was a fire in his belly that raged furiously for a little under 10 years, and he gave hiumself over to that fire unconditionally, which is how it usually should be. Some glorious triumphs there, so why they should be viewed as anything other than a man getting it out excatly as he meant/needed to escapes me. If it was not found along the path that he began on, or returned to. so be it. Life's like that.

Now, as for what came after, hey - LOTS of things came after, not just inside Shepp, but inside America, and over the entire world. A fire need fuel, and the fuel for that particualr fire wasn't there like it had been, and not just inside Shepp. A lot of things changed, a lot of things stayed the same. Things will be things, ya'know? So yeah, the path changed. What would the alternative have been? Some cats die, some cats live. The ones who die get off easy because there's no more decisions left to be made. The rest of us take stock and go about the business of getting where and what we want/need by whatever way we think best. This is, I think, what Shepp has done, and it's all good imo, even when it's not so good.

[ep1str0phy]

The only need for a sense of disappointment would be if we sensed that Shepp was trying to play something and not succeeding due to technical limitations that prevented him from saying what it was that he had to say. The only time I get even an inkling of that is on the Candid sides w/Cecil.

That's precisely what's so disconcerting to me... cause I can't sense it, either. I'm of the mind that Shepp played through his limitations--and not because of them. It feels as if the negative implication of the 'Shepp always wanted to be a changes player' is the latter concern (that he couldn't), but I'm glad you put in your two cents--there's a dimension to that idea that's far more positive, more in line with what Shepp articulates emotionally (and not just technically).

I enjoy this summation:

The ones who die get off easy because there's no more decisions left to be made. The rest of us take stock and go about the business of getting where and what we want/need by whatever way we think best. This is, I think, what Shepp has done, and it's all good imo, even when it's not so good.

A far more conciliatory interpretation of the later Shepp years and, ultimately, the key (I think) to truly apprehending his artistic changes. That being said, I'll always harbor a respect for the man's aesthetic--even when/if the art itself isn't so successful.

[JSngry]

The only need for a sense of disappointment would be if we sensed that Shepp was trying to play something and not succeeding due to technical limitations that prevented him from saying what it was that he had to say. The only time I get even an inkling of that is on the Candid sides w/Cecil.

That's precisely what's so disconcerting to me... cause I can't sense it, either. I'm of the mind that Shepp played through his limitations--and not because of them. It feels as if the negative implication of the 'Shepp always wanted to be a changes player' is the latter concern (that he couldn't), but I'm glad you put in your two cents--there's a dimension to that idea that's far more positive, more in line with what Shepp articulates emotionally (and not just technically).

Dude - "limitations" are only there when they're there, and most in the 60s Shepp, I don't really hear them as being there, so there were really no "limitations" to play through!

I mean, if you want to paint fruit, and can do so splendidly, how big of a limitation is it if you can't paint dogs, unless you decide that you want to paint dogs?

And I in now way meant to imply that Shepp always wanted to be a changes player. Frankly, I think that it was pretty far off his personal radar for most of teh 1960s. Like I said, there were more "pressing priorities" in the 60s, musically and socially, than getting your changes together. So once again, the perception that there were limitations is based on the premise that he was doing something otehr than what he really wanted to do, and that's not a premise to which I subscribe. Before and after, yeah, probably. But during? I don't think so. The times when he did play changes in the 60s show him playing them just fine, using his vocabulary of the time, at times masterfully creating a whole new way of playing changes (a way that was certainly evolutionary, but also entirely his own).

It was after the fire died down that I think he took stock and decided to go back and re-evaluate. And there was some rough sledding there for a few years, because he was trying NOT to play like he did before. Why that is, we can only speculate. but I'm sure he had his reasons. Definitely "musical", and probably personal as well.

People change as they age, and I don't think it's really fair or accurate to judge one phase in terms of another. Goals, means, everything can be, and often is, different from one time to another in the same person, so you don't necessarily want to compare the apples of one phase of a person's life to the oranges of another. That works with some people, but not with others. And Shepp is one of those for whom I think it doesn't.

[ep1str0phy]

The only need for a sense of disappointment would be if we sensed that Shepp was trying to play something and not succeeding due to technical limitations that prevented him from saying what it was that he had to say. The only time I get even an inkling of that is on the Candid sides w/Cecil.

That's precisely what's so disconcerting to me... cause I can't sense it, either. I'm of the mind that Shepp played through his limitations--and not because of them. It feels as if the negative implication of the 'Shepp always wanted to be a changes player' is the latter concern (that he couldn't), but I'm glad you put in your two cents--there's a dimension to that idea that's far more positive, more in line with what Shepp articulates emotionally (and not just technically).

Dude - "limitations" are only there when they're there, and most in the 60s Shepp, I don't really hear them as being there, so there were really no "limitations" to play through!

I mean, if you want to paint fruit, and can do so splendidly, how big of a limitation is it if you can't paint dogs, unless you decide that you want to paint dogs?

And I in now way meant to imply that Shepp always wanted to be a changes player. Frankly, I think that it was pretty far off his personal radar for most of teh 1960s. Like I said, there were more "pressing priorities" in the 60s, musically and socially, than getting your changes together. So once again, the perception that there were limitations is based on the premise that he was doing something otehr than what he really wanted to do, and that's not a premise to which I subscribe. Before and after, yeah, probably. But during? I don't think so. The times when he did play changes in the 60s show him playing them just fine, using his vocabulary of the time, at times masterfully creating a whole new way of playing changes (a way that was certainly evolutionary, but also entirely his own).

It was after the fire died down that I think he took stock and decided to go back and re-evaluate. And there was some rough sledding there for a few years, because he was trying NOT to play like he did before. Why that is, we can only speculate. but I'm sure he had his reasons. Definitely "musical", and probably personal as well.

People change as they age, and I don't think it's really fair or accurate to judge one phase in terms of another. Goals, means, everything can be, and often is, different from one time to another in the same person, so you don't necessarily want to compare the apples of one phase of a person's life to the oranges of another. That works with some people, but not with others. And Shepp is one of those for whom I think it doesn't.

I'm honestly trying to find a place where I disagree and--I see now--that I can't. Although--I think it's worth saying that a lot of the confusion regarding the 'contemporary' Shepp stems from the fact that we never got to see him self-consciously 'shift' his concern. Like Ayler--and unlike Coltrane, Rollins, or even Miles--Shepp emerged fully-formed, dead-center of the storm. The generations have come to fetishize youth--I mean, the same thing happened to Elvis Costello (for heaven's sake!). I'd be betraying my impulses to suggest that Shepp wasn't responding to the exigencies of the time... so really, we're left with is the notion that Shepp's concerns changed. There's positively no way to get around that, although it does leave a lot of firebreathers scratching their heads.

I think the catch-22 is that it is and always will be difficult for the canon and the cognoscenti to evaluate the modern Shepp from the young one (I certainly try to, although I admit--I am more partial to that 60's kinda music). At the risk of sounding glib--and lord, I'm trying not to--I'll certainly do my best to listen/think on the later Shepp with open ears next time. I can't guarantee I'll like it more--and I really shouldn't--but we could all benefit from a little perspective, no?

[JSngry]

I think the catch-22 is that it is and always will be difficult for the canon and the cognoscenti to evaluate the modern Shepp from the young one...

As somebody who's not particularly concerned with neither canon nor cognoscenti, all I can say is "oh well!"

Seriously though, look at all the great creators whose music has changed as their lives have. Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Bud Powell, Sonny Rollins, Wayne Shorter, Ornette Coleman, Joni Mitchell, the aforementioned Elvis Costello, Paul Simon, the list goes on. And on. They all have had to deal with a certain fan element saying "yeah, I guess what they're doing now is ok, but it ain't like the old stuff", and they're not saying that as an objective critique.

Of course, we're all entitled to our preferences. I certainly have mine. But let's be realistic - how many "greast" artists just all of a sudden wake up one day and aren't great any more? The shit just runs off into the night to find a new home. Oh well, that was fun while it lasted. It does happen, but usually what happens is that the greatness is still there, it just coimes out in different ways, ways that are often less obvious than before, and/or ways that allow for the middle-aged propensity for needing a little extra room for comfort.

Now, tahnks to recordings, and the tendency of many people to "know" this music either whooly or mostly through recordings, it's real easy to locked into thinking that the guy who made such-and-such records back in the day is going to stay the same person forever, and therefore keep making the same type music. If you're an "act" who crates "product", well, yeah, I guess you can do that if you want. It's not that hard to do.

But for everybody else, hey - shit changes. Your body changes, your mind changes, your desires change, everything changes sooner or later. An old man who plays like a young man is either a freak or a fool, dig? Not so much in therms of energy, but in terms of "point of view". After a while, burning down the house is not as appealing as building one, if for no other reason that as you get older, you kinda like having some comfort in your life, because, frankly...you need it! Shit starts to ache and pain and stuff like that. Raising hell is not nearly as much fun as it used to be, because the morning after starts lasting into the afternoon, and then on into the next night. I speak from personal experience...

Now, some guys just don't give a shit. they're going to go all out until they burn out. More power to 'em. But that's a personal choice they make, and I'm not going to be the one to say that it's wrong or right, jsut as I'm not going to say that it's wrong or right to seek a little comfort. Coasting is one thing, a fundamentally different thing (and a fundamentally wrong thing imo), but "pacing" yourself (and your aims) isn't the same thing as coasting.

I'm reminded of the story of the old bull and the young bull. They're up on a hill top, gazing down upon the herd, and the young bull says to the old bull, "My my my! Look at all those cows down there. What say we run down there and get us one right now?"

The old bull says, after a long pause, "Why don't we walk down there and get 'em all over the next few days?"

The old bull was not without wisdom...

[Guest akanalog]

"there's a trumpet..." has some fire. i am not sure if the long bossa tune is ironic or 70s cheese, though.

but it is a cool album. goes to some different places.

i just heard "montreux one" the other day and was disappointed. i expected that group to bring more heat. it is good music and i guess it is unfair to hold shepp up to certain expections.

how is "down home new york"? that lineup intrigues me....

[ep1str0phy]

I think the catch-22 is that it is and always will be difficult for the canon and the cognoscenti to evaluate the modern Shepp from the young one...

As somebody who's not particularly concerned with neither canon nor cognoscenti, all I can say is "oh well!"

Ha! Well said.

As for recordings--the converse/upside of the pigeonhole thing is that those willing to invest the time, patience, and (sometimes) money have the capacity to reevaluate their opinions--maybe not change them, but look a different way. For the malcontents, the Impulse sides will live into eternity. For the rest of us... it can be difficult to examine one 'period' without recourse to the other (and that, perhaps, a canonically 'favored' one). Accounting for effort, I've warmed to the later Shepp sides. Without resolving into the notion that 'things change,' it's very, very easy to miss out on some fine music... so, fortunately, those copies of 'Splashes' and 'There's a Trumpet...' needn't always collect so much dust... and hell, it's very well possible to enjoy--at the very least, understand--both. If it doesn't make critical sense, lord knows it pays off.

Edited May 9, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[ep1str0phy]

"there's a trumpet..." has some fire. i am not sure if the long bossa tune is ironic or 70s cheese, though.

but it is a cool album. goes to some different places.

i just heard "montreux one" the other day and was disappointed. i expected that group to bring more heat. it is good music and i guess it is unfair to hold shepp up to certain expections.

how is "down home new york"? that lineup intrigues me....

'Montreux One' was the first post-'fire music' Shepp album I ever heard... had to put some effort into taking that one for what it is (and I was in high school, so...). I've warmed to the Shepp quintet (Shepp/Greenlee/Burrell/Brown/Harris) over the years, though--not quite the blowout that it could have been (granted the ensemble), but tastefully played. In and of itself, it's perfectly fine hard/post-bop--and there are certainly some great compositions on that first album. Tangentially--Harris's 360 Music Experience (featuring some of the same members) took the music in a similar direction. It's notable, though, that Harris's band was the more 'avant' bent of the two groups (and it included, at times, more 'inside/outside'-oriented players like Rahn/Ron Burton and Ken McIntyre). Times were a'changin...

Edited May 9, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[Guest akanalog]

steam is good too i guess.

sometimes trio stuff bores me, but he plays some good tunes and does it well.

actually a tad more fiery than montreux one, though the same rhythm section.

it is also hearing beaver harris go from a pretty f'in loose drummer in the 60s to a pretty tight swinging drummer in the 70s. sort of following shepp i guess....

[David Ayers]

Since this thread has bubbled up to the surface again, I'll repeat myself on the topic of the two Fontanas. I really hope that people get to hear these titles in CD release. Maybe a Shepp-Tchicai/NY Contemp 5 Mosaic Select could feature all studio and live tracks? Somebody out there, do something!

[paul secor]

I seem to recall reading an article (many years ago) where Archie Shepp recounted a conversation with a listener who asked him, "why don't you play something that I can understand?" Perhaps something like "Mama Too Tight" came from a desire to do that. And perhaps his later, more changes-oriented playing came out of a desire to play things that the average jazz listener could relate to. Or perhaps not. I'm merely a listener, not a psychologist or psychic. Only Shepp knows for certain what led to the transformation in his playing.

I will say that I feel that Shepp's embouchure problems brought about more change in his playing than any stylistic decisions.

[JSngry]

I seem to recall reading an article (many years ago) where Archie Shepp recounted a conversation with a listener who asked him, "why don't you play something that I can understand?"...

I will say that I feel that Shepp's embouchure problems brought about more change in his playing than any stylistic decisions.

That was a family member, iirc, mother, aunt, maybe even grandmother.

Never really sure exactly when the embochure problems began. Late 70s or early 80s, wasn't it? I wasn't really surprised to hear about it, though. Every time I see footage of Shepp playing, it's like he's damn near swallowing the mouthpiece and blowing really forcibly. Couple that with what sounds to me like the use of a pretty stiff reed, and you got a recipe for some kind of physical distress at some point or another.

[ep1str0phy]

Since this thread has bubbled up to the surface again, I'll repeat myself on the topic of the two Fontanas. I really hope that people get to hear these titles in CD release. Maybe a Shepp-Tchicai/NY Contemp 5 Mosaic Select could feature all studio and live tracks? Somebody out there, do something!

I'd love to hear it all, but is there really enough material for a Select?

[David Ayers]

Since this thread has bubbled up to the surface again, I'll repeat myself on the topic of the two Fontanas. I really hope that people get to hear these titles in CD release. Maybe a Shepp-Tchicai/NY Contemp 5 Mosaic Select could feature all studio and live tracks? Somebody out there, do something!

I'd love to hear it all, but is there really enough material for a Select?

ummm - I was wondering this - it is more like two 80 minute CDs worth, I should think

[Chuck Nessa]

Since this thread has bubbled up to the surface again, I'll repeat myself on the topic of the two Fontanas. I really hope that people get to hear these titles in CD release. Maybe a Shepp-Tchicai/NY Contemp 5 Mosaic Select could feature all studio and live tracks? Somebody out there, do something!

I'd love to hear it all, but is there really enough material for a Select?

ummm - I was wondering this - it is more like two 80 minute CDs worth, I should think

Would not fit on 2 discs but the multi-label licensing is out the door now. Ain't gonna happen outside of Andorra.

[Uncle Skid]

Up, for two reasons:

1) to naively inquire if Mr. Ayers suggestion of a "Shepp-Tchicai/NY Contemporary 5 Mosaic Select" is still as unlikely as it was almost 5 months ago, and

2) to ask why, according to the liner notes of Storyville 8385 (Archie Shepp & The NYC5), "... no club in New York would, in 1963, be interested in sustaining a group like this during its formative period".

The NYC5 seems (to me anyway) a logical extension of the music that Ornette (and Don Cherry) were doing a few years earlier. I realize that Ornette generated a good deal of controversy at that time (and/or a few years earlier), but he was still playing in NYC at that time, correct? Was the NYC5 still too "far out" or radical for New York in 1963?

[clifford_thornton]

Well, considering 'Trane was just barely past "anti-jazz" in '63...

[J Larsen]

I found an interesting (if perhaps not exceptionally good) record today that I hadn't heard of before: Archie Shepp & Philly Joe Jones, w/ Anthony Braxton on board (catalog number Fantasy 86018). The record is in great shape, but the recording quality is quite poor. It still has its moments, though. Has this ever been reissued in any format?

[Chuck Nessa]

This was originally an "America" recording and as AFAIK it has not been reissued on cd.

[J Larsen]

Thanks. I know Shepp had some other recordings with harmonica players, but this is the first I've heard. Although the recording quality is pretty horrible, the concept is sort of interesting.

[felser]

Thanks. I know Shepp had some other recordings with harmonica players, but this is the first I've heard. Although the recording quality is pretty horrible, the concept is sort of interesting.

'Black Gipsy' was the better of the Shepp albums in this vein. It is available on CD.

[J Larsen]

...was available on cd. The used copies look pretty reasonable though. Thanks!

[Unk]

Any comments on the (relatively) new "First Take" with Shepp and Siegfried Kessler on Archie Ball? I've enjoyed these two together in the past and will certainly be picking this up at some near-term date.

[Uncle Skid]

...was available on cd. The used copies look pretty reasonable though. Thanks!

Black Gipsy (part of the "Free America" series) is still available on CD, here.

(it's in my "save for later" queue... so please don't buy the last one! )