The "B" team

[Chrome]

Always lots of discussion here about who is "the best," "most influential," etc., when it comes to musicians ... but what about those players who, admittedly, aren't quite in the upper echelon, yet who still have a special place in our hearts/ears?

I'll start things with Houston Person: He always seems to deliver the goods, with a nice tone, and even though you usually know what you're getting on his discs, his music never seems like just "more of the same thing."

Two of my favorite Person CDs are "Talk of the Town" and "The Lion and His Pride."

[Dan Gould]

I'll echo that nomination, as I think Houston's work over the last ten years or more is of a very consistent quality. In fact, I find his work now much more satisfying than his Prestige soul jazz days.

Not groundbreaking, but that huge, soulful tone is oh so satisfying!

[jazzbo]

I'll say Muggsy Spanier. Not one of the real innovators, but he put it out there every time on the line, and you knew you were in for a driving musical treat.

[jazzbo]

Just to stay with trumpeters. . .

Clark Terry.

How many decades? And like a steadily polished stone just shinier and sparkling!

[catesta]

Houston Person is a good example, as is Clark Terry.

I'll add Teddy Edwards and Jimmy Heath.

Another for me is Tommy Turrentine.

[doubleM]

I agree with the Houston Person, but C.T., man...I don't know. He's so good, and continues to kick butt. To me, his tone (butter), unique articulation, ability to inject humor into his playing, and the fact that he can play most anything, put him above most. I think he's probably not the best example of a lower-grade, or "not quite in the upper echelon" player. Maybe Nat Adderley for me as far as trumpet (or cornet) players go. Another one that comes to mind is Harold Land. Good thread!

[montg]

Curtis Fuller. I love the tenor, trumpet, bone frontline combination. The trombone's the least glamorous of those three but without Curtis Fuller a lot of color and texture is missing from some great records.

[Brandon Burke]

Another one that comes to mind is Harold Land.

Agreed. How about Frank Butler........

[Free For All]

The trombone's the least glamorous of those three

Ouch!

Beauty is in the eye of the slideholder, I guess.

This thread seems to bear the same potential danger as the Guaraldi, so I think I'll limit my participation to this one comment about who's been mentioned thus far:

Curtis Fuller (only trombonist to have recorded w/Bud Powell and Trane) is top echelon in my book, as is Clark Terry, who influenced many players including

Miles! Both were groundbreaking in terms of advancing style and technique on their instruments and both contributed hugely to jazz as players and gentlemen. No question in my mind.

[montg]

I agree, "B team" carries connotations that may be unintended..I was thinking more in terms of underrated rather than second tier when I mentioned Curtis Fuller. When people talk about the great Messenger lineup, Wayne Shorter and Freddie Hubbard seem to get more headlines but CF is obviously integral.

BTW, I love the trombone! In fact, coincidentally, I'm listening to the Bennie Green Mosaic right now.

[Free For All]

Well, montq, you are right about Freddie and Wayne somewhat eclipsing Curtis in the Messengers group- I just think that the other work he's done (Bluesette, for example, or the sides represented by the Mosaic set) place him on solid ground in the big picture.

I agree, "underrated" is a much better term than "B team".

Glad you are a trombone fan! Bennie Green is the shiznit!

Happy New Year!

[mikeweil]

I'd say Clark Terry is an A- player, not an innovator, but so individual and excellent he is top class.

Curtis Fuller would be B+ IMHO.

Some not yet mentioned:

Arthur Taylor, a solid B drummer,

Jimmy Cobb, B+ drummer,

George Duvivier, B+ bassist.

[Larry Kart]

Junior Cook. And though I'm sure that some will feel otherwise, given the intense affection his playing can inspire, Cook's frontline partner, Blue Mitchell.

To my mind, they both fit one of the possible B-team templates: Players of undeniable individuality and quality who nonethless drew more heavily on their models (a la Curtis Fuller and J.J.) than their models did on those who preceded them. Also, there's something about their playing, no matter how fine, that fits the term "workmanlike." That is, even at their best, you don't get the feeling of honest labor rather than ecstastic inspiration. Art Taylor, previously mentioned, is another perfect example of the type.

[Larry Kart]

Sorry -- I meant to say "...you DO get the feeling of honest labor rather than ecstastic inspiration.

[connoisseur series500]

Junior Cook. And though I'm sure that some will feel otherwise, given the intense affection his playing can inspire, Cook's frontline partner, Blue Mitchell.

To my mind, they both fit one of the possible B-team templates: Players of undeniable individuality and quality who nonethless drew more heavily on their models (a la Curtis Fuller and J.J.) than their models did on those who preceded them. Also, there's something about their playing, no matter how fine, that fits the term "workmanlike." That is, even at their best, you don't get the feeling of honest labor rather than ecstastic inspiration. Art Taylor, previously mentioned, is another perfect example of the type.

Interesting comments.

As much as I like Blue Mitchell, I see the wisdom in your statements. His "repertoire" always appeared a bit limited and "workmanlike" would probably be the best way to describe him. Great sound; nice runs, but didn't offer much that was new.

He reminds me a lot of Tommy Turrentine, or perhaps Tommy Turrentine reminds me a lot of Blue Mitchell. They seemed to have been cut from a similar mold.

[montg]

To my mind, they both fit one of the possible B-team templates: Players of undeniable individuality and quality who nonethless drew more heavily on their models (a la Curtis Fuller and J.J.) than their models did on those who preceded them

This is an interesting thought. Does this quality of "B-teamness" apply more broadly today than it did in , say, the 50s or 60s?

[Larry Kart]

Today, IMO, we're lucky if we get anything close to "B-teamness" in players who are below a certain age and are of what I'd call the neo-con persuasion. In fact, the genuineness that is part of "B-teamness" -- the fact or the hope of personal workmanlike variation -- seems to me alarmingly rare in that crowd, for a whole lot of reasons.

[Jazzmoose]

Glad to see people mentioning Houston Person, as I just ordered a disc by him yesterday. My wife and I were listening to KCSM in the car, and she said "now that's what I think of when I think of jazz!" I must admit, it was nice stuff, so I ordered.

[montg]

the genuineness that is part of "B-teamness" -- the fact or the hope of personal workmanlike variation -- seems to me alarmingly rare in that crowd, for a whole lot of reasons.

A lot of times I get the sense that some of the newer folks are overly mechanical...it's as though they're burdened by a conscious deliberate effort to PLAY JAZZ. Playing jazz is an end in itself for these folks rather than the means by which a personal statment is attained.

[brownie]

I'll add in a pianist: Dave McKenna. Never a major league player but a very consistent and thoroughly competent musician.

[kenny weir]

Truth is, a lot of the time I'm just as happy listening to Jimmy Forrest as Rollins or Coltrane.

[DTMX]

James Spaulding - 'nuff said.

[JSngry]

I'm all for fully appreciating things with an equally full awareness of their relative stature in the grand scheme of things, but the only problem I have with this "B-Team" concept is that if the "A-Team" consists of folks like Louis, Duke, Bird, Trane, etc., (and it must, I think, unless you're going to look at those guys as out of the game) then a lot of the folks already mentioned as B-teamers are actually C-teamers, D-teamers, or lower, and I don't like the sound of that!

[Larry Kart]

Jim: There's a whole long piece or two about this in "ye olde forthcoming book," but I think a key element here is how the process of being influenced by others has altered in jazz over time -- partly because of how much material has accumulated over almost a century but also because of (and this might amount to almost the same thing) the nature of the musicians who were unavoidably influential. Briefly, Armstrong not only influenced everyone on every instrument, but with the exception of a few outright Armstrong impersonators, his influence was remarkably fruitful and benign in terms of fostering individuality. (Much the same is true of Coleman Hawkins.) Restricting yourself to the trumpet and the first generation or so of players who fed on Louis, you could easily get to several hundred (maybe many more) really fine and distinctive players. Could the same be said of Charlie Parker-influenced players, particularly if we restricted it to alto saxophonists? Lots of fine players of course, but the number of those who were as much their own man in relation to Bird as, say, Buck Clayton or Bill Coleman were in relation to Louis? Not so many, I think, for several reasons: Technically and in the emotional realm, the musical material to be mulled over by Parker-influenced players was, while at least as intense, a fair bit narrower (or maybe it was forbidding enough on the technical level to be taken ; it was a whole lot harder to absorb Bird and not sound a lot like him -- or more like him than the best Armstrong-influenced trumpeters sounded like Louis. (One of the things that those of who love Jackie McLean love about him is the unique way he "solved" the problem of how to get Parker and be wholly yourself. But imagine [though we don't have to imagine it], a player whose solution to the problem to how to be himself incorporates McLean's solution, as realized in Jackie's music, of how to be alert to Bird and still be himself. At some point the feedback, if that's the way to put it, can get peculiar--imagine [again we don't have to] a guy who's been influenced by Bird through McLean, through Gary Bartz, through a guy who's dug Gary Bartz -- and I'm assuming genuineness on the part of all parties in this chain, though I wonder about, say, some of today's youngish Cannonball devotees.)

Anyway, by the time we get Coltrane it's like Parker but much more so--the techniques are forbidding but also extractable and codifiable, the emotional core is fierce but graspable only if one has a similar temperament (and who does?), yet the sounds associated with that emotional core are readily reproducable by almost anyone. (Of course, Ornette was following his own daemon, but his approach also can be seen as a way of stepping outside of this continuum to some extent -- by stepping sideways or "backwards" -- in order to step forward. As the Art Ensemble slogan went: "Ancient To the Future.") No blame anywhere along the line IMO -- seems like these things have had to be so. And the above is just an outline. There's lots more to be said.

[Larry Kart]

Sorry -- the phrase "... or maybe it was forbidding enough on the technical level to be taken..." should have been followed by something like "and used as a series of licks." Got distracted and forget to type that in.