Stan Kenton: This is an Orchestra!

[fasstrack]

By British Michael Sparke. It's well-written and the prose, many interviews and war stories by alumni move along nicely. He did a very nice job and I have insight into Kenton now. Haven't made my mind up about his music. It ranges from pompous to visionary-but I respect Kenton's passion and self-belief. And that band, love it or hate it, was a playground for some great and daring writers (although I'm not in the mood for, say, City of Glass that often)and was definitely not for lightweight players. That music was DEMANDING! No way to BS through it. And if Kenton didn't like swing he still hired Bill Holman and other writers who did and could write in a way the band loved. And it took guts to pull a big band away from the dance band stereotype. You risked career suicide that way in the 40s-50s. Look at Sauter-Finegan. They got murdered financially. Anyway, a good read.

Edited August 2, 2012 by fasstrack

[JSngry]

I've read a buttload full of liner notes by Speakes to a buttload full of Kenton CDs over the last few month's, and Stanley Dance he ain't, although that appears to be how he fancies/is positioning himself, as Kenton's Stanley Dance. Perhaps appropriate, that.

Haven't read the entire book yet, but it is largely excerpted on Amazon, and I've gotten a good taste of it there. Not at all bad, although there is that "Kenton Worshiper" vibe that comes through in spite of trying not too. They are True Believers, they are, and they give off a vibe that cannot be disguised. Not saying that's good, or bad, but it is what it is. I'm not talking fans, I'm talking Believers.

I've recently grown to more fully appreciate Kenton as a genuine Parallel Universe, a world that created its own ongoing relevancy to its own ongoing self. No small feat, that, even if, as it turned out, at some point inside the world is the only place that cares. Me, I gotta go there to get there, and I can never stay there, but I kinda dig, sometimes genuinely, sometimes perversely, how...adamant the whole thing was. It's almost(?) like that was the ultimate point rather than the music itself, which could range from dreck to magnificent and (usually) various points in between. But it was always adamant. Always.

[John Tapscott]

Yes, I've read it. Nothing much to add to what's been said. You both provide a good summary. I think Sparke tries to be objective and is for the most part, but there's no question that he is a big admirer of Kenton and his music.

In terms of personal taste I am a bigger fan of Gene Roland's writing for the band than Sparke seems to be and less a fan of the Innovations Orchestra which Sparke seems to consider the peak of the Kenton canon.

[fasstrack]

I've read a buttload full of liner notes by Speakes to a buttload full of Kenton CDs over the last few month's, and Stanley Dance he ain't, although that appears to be how he fancies/is positioning himself, as Kenton's Stanley Dance. Perhaps appropriate, that.

Haven't read the entire book yet, but it is largely excerpted on Amazon, and I've gotten a good taste of it there. Not at all bad, although there is that "Kenton Worshiper" vibe that comes through in spite of trying not too. They are True Believers, they are, and they give off a vibe that cannot be disguised. Not saying that's good, or bad, but it is what it is. I'm not talking fans, I'm talking Believers.

It's not as worshipful as all that. Sparke is definitely a fan, but when a piece, a band, project, or tour sucked he says so in boldface and tells why in detail. And the alumni speak their minds if they hate a given chart or project or rhythm section. It's balanced.

[fasstrack]

One thing they nailed about Roland: he was bonkers. I used to see him in the 70s at the Local 802 Wednesday shape-ups (a trip in itself) at the old Roseland, and he wandered that cavernous hall, a tremendous crazy w/a shaved head and a mad glint in his eye. There were always rumblings afoot about his nutty doings. I mean the guy had genuine mental problems.

[JSngry]

I've read a buttload full of liner notes by Speakes to a buttload full of Kenton CDs over the last few month's, and Stanley Dance he ain't, although that appears to be how he fancies/is positioning himself, as Kenton's Stanley Dance. Perhaps appropriate, that.

Haven't read the entire book yet, but it is largely excerpted on Amazon, and I've gotten a good taste of it there. Not at all bad, although there is that "Kenton Worshiper" vibe that comes through in spite of trying not too. They are True Believers, they are, and they give off a vibe that cannot be disguised. Not saying that's good, or bad, but it is what it is. I'm not talking fans, I'm talking Believers.

It's not as worshipful as all that. Sparke is definitely a fan, but when a piece, a band, project, or tour sucked he says so in boldface and tells why in detail. And the alumni speak their minds if they hate a given chart or project or rhythm section. It's balanced.

No, the book itself is not "worshipful", but Kenton Worshipers are a breed unto themselves, and in Speake's liner notes, it comes thorough much more clearly than in the book that this is what he is. Which is ok, but..I'm just sayi'...

Trust me - I spent years at UNT, which in those days was the epicenter of Kenton Worship, even as the tide slowly and inevitably turned. After a while, you can read the signs, and Speake shows them. But he really tries hard not too!

The book, though, what I've read of it, is pretty good. I'll be buying it at some point. But I don't think that Speake's musical judgements are always sound (i.e. - in sync with mine ), nor do I think he ever grasps how truly irrelevant Kenton became in his time to anything but his own insular world, nor how his best later bands and his best earlier bands were pretty much the same thing once you allow for the overall lesser level of soloists in the later bands. Hell, to be honest, if we're talking about bands, I think his Redlands-era band and the Mellophonium band at its very best were better bands than any band he had in the 1940s or 1950s. I mean, airshots of those earlier bands often reveal groups with some questionable concepts of time, tempo, and dynamics. Even, dare I say, blend, and this with a book where blend was crucial to everything really working. Those two other bands, otoh, played like bands, like people who had to play that way or else die trying. I very much appreciate it when people \play like that. And in the last few months, I've gone back and heard pretty much all of it, including a fair amount of "off-label" stuff, so that's not a causal or past-bias based observation.

If you want to read a book that a lot of the True Believers hate (although for the life of me I don't know why) check out Straight Ahead: The Story of Stan Kenton by Carol Easton, from 1973, written while Kenton was still alive. Ms. Easton was definitely a fan, but not so much a True Believer. Yet the stories are pretty much the same, although Speakes has the advantage of writing After The Fact and having access to resources who could probably speak more freely than they could then. The one thing I definitely remember is her recounting of Anita O'Day's first entry onto the band bus. WHOA!

[John Tapscott]

One thing they nailed about Roland: he was bonkers. I used to see him in the 70s at the Local 802 Wednesday shape-ups (a trip in itself) at the old Roseland, and he wandered that cavernous hall, a tremendous crazy w/a shaved head and a mad glint in his eye. There were always rumblings afoot about his nutty doings. I mean the guy had genuine mental problems.

No question all that's true. It's said that Roland used to lie on his back on the floor at recording sessions with his eyes closed, when he should have been conducting or playing as the time ticked away. He wrote himself into the band on 5th trumpet then later on 5th trombone - that how the Kenton band expanded to 10 brass. But dang, his Adventures in Blues is a masterpiece IMO, soloing on both mellophonium and soprano sax, as well as writing and arranging every chart. He didn't write Four Brothers but he had something to do with it -I think Giuffre first wrote the Four Brothers sound for Roland's band, which Woody then took over.

Edited August 2, 2012 by John Tapscott

[JSngry]

But dang, his Adventures in Blues is a masterpiece IMO, soloing on both mellophonium and soprano sax, as well as writing and arranging every chart.

That is indeed a very fine album, and one of the biggest surprises I've ever gotten out of a first-time listen to a Kenton album. Roland is not really "fleunt" on soprano, but his got a sound like Lucky Thompson on the instrument, and he knew how to work that sound.

[fasstrack]

Jim, it's SPARKE-not Speake. And universities love to play incubator to snotty, cerebral art. They throw money at it. UNT has quite a rep! When a musician wants to diss a chart as academic and cold they say lots of times 'I didn't like the writing: very Univesity of North Texas. Yet scads of top writers and players learned there, so... And, John, I guess Roland was either a mad genius or did a damn good impersonation. Funny how no one has stories about 'normal' guys like Bill Holman no matter how great the work is. Non-lunacy/profiglacy makes dull copy, it seems. There's way less stories about Dizzy compared to Bird, and he was quite a character-and drinker.

Jim, it's SPARKE-not Speake. And universities love to play incubator to snotty, cerebral art. They throw money at it. UNT has quite a rep! When a musician wants to diss a chart as academic and cold they say lots of times 'I didn't like the writing: very Univesity of North Texas. Yet scads of top writers and players learned there, so... And, John, I guess Roland was either a mad genius or did a damn good impersonation. Funny how no one has stories about 'normal' guys like Bill Holman no matter how great the work is. Non-lunacy/profiglacy makes dull copy, it seems. There's way less stories about Dizzy compared to Bird, and he was quite a character-and drinker.

[fasstrack]

It was in Roland's rehearsal band where they got that light, alto-ish tenor 4 sax sound together. He must've written some of it, like a lot of good arrangers around L.A. did. I remberer Gene Lees (my least favorite jazz writer b/c he's always writing himself into the action-so you were Woody's friend, nice, here's a cookie-and IMO his prose is show-offy, pretentious, and stiff like his lyrics) talked about this in a Woody Herman bio: Leader of the Band. Can't remember who he said wrote for them.

[JSngry]

When a musician wants to diss a chart as academic and cold they say lots of times 'I didn't like the writing: very Univesity of North Texas. Yet scads of top writers and players learned there, so...

When I was there, I heard it mentioned more than once - always in a casual setting, never a formal one where accountability could come into play - how Kenton had "done more" for jazz than Ellington. Seriously.

That level of True Believerdom is very much wrapped up in the Great White Hero syndrome and all that comes with it. It was not until very recently that I was able to approach Kenton's music being able to set that asise. But even then, I still have the sense that Kenton himself was into that, had some kind of messianic complex or something, and had a complex about wanting jazz the way he did, like it caused a conflict in him or something and he as determined to never give in to it completely for fear of..who knows what.

Now, that's just Kenton himself. A lot of the people who made his sound for him were not into that at all. But the Kenton personality was so strong that it got into the mix anyway, which no doubt caused some...conflict. Holman in particular has been vocal about that. But it's undeniable that, conflicts or not, some people found their voice in that orb, and many more made careers.

Here's the whole ting in a nutshell:

Willie Maiden = Truth. Kenton = The Man, and Oh Those Krazy Kids

Yet The Man is giving The Truth The Gig so...who's really got the upper hand here, or is there any hand in the first place?

[GA Russell]

I'd like to hear the story about Anita entering the bus.

[alocispepraluger102]

thx all for this interesting discussion. i've been a huge adventures in blues fan since it was released in early 60s.

i treasure my redlands recordings. they were at a different level......

[brownie]

I found the book a pretty good assessment of Kenton's career. Read it all the way through even if I have never been able to enter the man's post-60s music.

I wish Sparke had dwelt a bit more on Kenton's dealings with non-white sidemen but overall it left me with quite a lot of respect with Kenton's dedication to his orchestra and music.

[Teasing the Korean]

In my experience, the people who like Stan Kenton are basically guys who look like Kenton.

[Larry Kart]

In my experience, the people who like Stan Kenton are basically guys who look like Kenton.

Interesting. Clint Eastwood was a big Kenton fan in his youth and probably still is. At a certain age, he could have starred in and directed a potentially great Kenton biopic. The subject would have been perfect for him IMO.

[Teasing the Korean]

The thing that's always cracked me up about Kenton - and let me say off the bat that I very much like a percentage of what he did - is that, for all his talk about "innovation" and being "progressive," his basic premise never changed: Bigger, brassier, louder, more dissonant. It's hilarious to read the liner notes of his Capitol albums over the course of, say, the early 1950s to the late 1960s. They say the same things over and over again, and the music never changes.

At the same time, there is something almost poignant in Kenton's obsession with innovation and progress. It very much mirrors the mood of the time, and it is sorely lacking today.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Teasing the Korean

[fasstrack]

I want to play Kenton in the movie. And my big moment will be when I conduct Wagner

[JSngry]

That Wagner album is actually....restrained for the most part. Surprised the hell outta me.

[Teasing the Korean]

That Wagner album is actually....restrained for the most part. Surprised the hell outta me.

I found a pristine copy at the thrift store, and after one spin, dragged it right back.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Teasing the Korean

[Quasimado]

Getting that old deja-vu feeling ...

Q

[AllenLowe]

I'm a big Gene Roland fan - Dan Morgenstern turned me on to him - and I know Jim disagrees, but I think Lonesome Traine (which he arranged for Kenton - in '54? Not sure) is the single best evocation I have ever heard of country blues in jazz (aside from the work of my own guitarist Ray Suhy) -

[JSngry]

That Wagner album is actually....restrained for the most part. Surprised the hell outta me.

I found a pristine copy at the thrift store, and after one spin, dragged it right back.

I paid medium dollars for a Mobile Fidelity Labs copy & was pretty well pleased, but then went back and found an original Capitol LP issue, b/c if you don't do that, you don't get the original packaging and liner notes, which add the Creepiness Factor that just hearing the music along doesn't produce. But the music itself, once you get past the one or two obligatory Space-Age Hyperspew things, is really played with a balance and sobriety not found in that much of Kenton's work. I was, not exactly impressed, but...reached by it?

[fasstrack]

Turgid....pompous... Oh, er, excuse me. Must've drifted off to the vision of Stan waving the Big Baton at Gene Roland and his Merry Mellophonics working up a sweat on the Valkeries. And to think less than a century after Mighty Richard there'd be a Star Wars!

[John Tapscott]

I'm a big Gene Roland fan - Dan Morgenstern turned me on to him - and I know Jim disagrees, but I think Lonesome Traine (which he arranged for Kenton - in '54? Not sure) is the single best evocation I have ever heard of country blues in jazz (aside from the work of my own guitarist Ray Suhy) -

Great minds think alike - Morgenstern, Lowe and me! Heavy company!

BTW, looked at Carole Easton's Straight Ahead: The Story of Stan Kenton this AM. Not as comprehensive as Sparke's book, and has some errors here and there regarding dates and time-lines, but it's perhaps even more insightful than Sparke's book into Kenton the man, and it's better written too,IMO. It's a page turner and often quite humorous, perhaps unintentionally. Some "true believers" as Jim calls them, have told me that Easton really nailed it.

Couldn't find the story about Anita getting on the band bus, but there is enough there to indicate that Anita was well, Anita,during her time with the band. The story is included of the time when Anita was in a dress shop trying on new outfits for a tour. From behind a stall curtain, she called out "Stanley, come and see how this one looks." So Kenton pulled back the curtain, and there was Anita, stark naked.

Art Pepper claims that during his time on the band the champion drinkers were Art himself and wait for it...June Christy.

Edited August 2, 2012 by John Tapscott