So, What Are You Listening To NOW?

[Larry Kart]

FWIW, a review I wrote of a Connor performance:

 

Cool, breathy, and almost barren of vibrato, Chris Connor's voice is a haunted house. Its tone color alone would be enough to freeze the soul, and the way each phrase seems to be exhaled more than sung only increases the impression that in her music Connor must contend with ghostly powers-either that, or she herself is a spirit summoned unwillingly from beyond

It's easy to mistake Connor's otherworldly aura for a chic, dry-martini hipness, which is why she became a star in the 1950s, first with the Stan Kenton Orchestra and then on her own-"the Kim Novak of the jazz set," as one writer put it. But even though she appeared to be a second generation disciple of Anita O'Day and June Christy who took those singers' mannerisms to near-absurd extremes. Connor was a very different type of artist. O'Day and Christy were her models, but Connor inhabited their detached, emotionally oblique style of singing in a way its originators never dreamed of, transforming an attractive show business commodity into an attitude toward life-a desperate wrestling with herself and the world. That such battles could not be won on a nightclub stage actually contributed to the power of Connor's music. Barely contained within the boundaries of performance her losses were so deeply felt and nakedly expressed that communication seemed a paltry word for what took place. While the pain she gave voice to (and the numbness that followed in its wake) must have had an innersource, to be moved by Connor's music was to recognize that her distress was public as well as private-the advance-guard of an emotional void that might swallow us all. In that sense the Kim Novak comparison is perfect, for Connor; as film critic David Thomson said of Novak, has "the desperate attentiveness of someone out of her depth but refusing to give in."

Connor now appears far more confident and optimistic than she used to be. But much of the essential Connor tension remains, the feeling that music is a dangerous medium that must be plunged into at the point of maximum threat. "The Thrill is Gone" is one of Connor's signature tunes, and last night at Rick's Cafe Americain she sang it much more swiftly than in the past-perhaps because, with her vocal technique in fine shape, she needed the challenge of speed to make the emotional content come alive. On "If I Should Lose You," extreme slowness played the same role, forcing Connor into those harrowingly awkward rhythmic corners that only she dares to explore.

Impressive throughout, and altering one's image of Connor to some extent, was the sense of control she displayed on every piece. "Out of her depth" may have been an apt description on her in the past, but now the depths are entered into more out of choice than helplessness. Chris Connor's wounds apparently have healed, perhaps more than she or anyone else dared to expect. But the memory of pain still shudders through her music, creating a dialogue between self and soul, public performance and private meditation, that is as strange as it is beautiful.

 

 

[HutchFan]

Great writing, Larry. Makes me want to explore Connor's music more thoroughly.

 

 

NP:

[JSngry]

More "cleverness".  

 

[Morganized]

1 hour ago, Larry Kart said:

FWIW, a review I wrote of a Connor performance:

 

Cool, breathy, and almost barren of vibrato, Chris Connor's voice is a haunted house. Its tone color alone would be enough to freeze the soul, and the way each phrase seems to be exhaled more than sung only increases the impression that in her music Connor must contend with ghostly powers-either that, or she herself is a spirit summoned unwillingly from beyond

It's easy to mistake Connor's otherworldly aura for a chic, dry-martini hipness, which is why she became a star in the 1950s, first with the Stan Kenton Orchestra and then on her own-"the Kim Novak of the jazz set," as one writer put it. But even though she appeared to be a second generation disciple of Anita O'Day and June Christy who took those singers' mannerisms to near-absurd extremes. Connor was a very different type of artist. O'Day and Christy were her models, but Connor inhabited their detached, emotionally oblique style of singing in a way its originators never dreamed of, transforming an attractive show business commodity into an attitude toward life-a desperate wrestling with herself and the world. That such battles could not be won on a nightclub stage actually contributed to the power of Connor's music. Barely contained within the boundaries of performance her losses were so deeply felt and nakedly expressed that communication seemed a paltry word for what took place. While the pain she gave voice to (and the numbness that followed in its wake) must have had an innersource, to be moved by Connor's music was to recognize that her distress was public as well as private-the advance-guard of an emotional void that might swallow us all. In that sense the Kim Novak comparison is perfect, for Connor; as film critic David Thomson said of Novak, has "the desperate attentiveness of someone out of her depth but refusing to give in."

Connor now appears far more confident and optimistic than she used to be. But much of the essential Connor tension remains, the feeling that music is a dangerous medium that must be plunged into at the point of maximum threat. "The Thrill is Gone" is one of Connor's signature tunes, and last night at Rick's Cafe Americain she sang it much more swiftly than in the past-perhaps because, with her vocal technique in fine shape, she needed the challenge of speed to make the emotional content come alive. On "If I Should Lose You," extreme slowness played the same role, forcing Connor into those harrowingly awkward rhythmic corners that only she dares to explore.

Impressive throughout, and altering one's image of Connor to some extent, was the sense of control she displayed on every piece. "Out of her depth" may have been an apt description on her in the past, but now the depths are entered into more out of choice than helplessness. Chris Connor's wounds apparently have healed, perhaps more than she or anyone else dared to expect. But the memory of pain still shudders through her music, creating a dialogue between self and soul, public performance and private meditation, that is as strange as it is beautiful.

 

 

Beautiful Larry.............. excellent, just excellent!!

[JSngry]

Come to think of it, I do like Chris Connor with Ran Blake, and that's a lot more recent.

Wait, did that ever happen?

[Cyril]

 

[jazzbo]

[jazzbo]

Elaborations

[Larry Kart]

2 hours ago, Morganized said:

Beautiful Larry.............. excellent, just excellent!!

Thanks.

I got to know Chris and her girlfriend after that -- two lovely people --and eventually wrote the notes for a Connor album on Concord. Helen Keane was the producer, but I was asked to do the notes by the label's veteran publicist, Terri Hinte. Late in the game, Keane contacted me, saying the notes were no good and needed to be redone or replaced altogether because in them I hadn't mentioned every song, which would imply  (she said) that the ones I didn't mention were inferior. I replied that I spoke of the songs on the album that to me exemplified Connor's approach, that anyone would understand that, and that it was Hinte at Concord, not Keane, who had asked me to write the notes (IIRC  at Connor's suggestion), and that she (i.e. Keane) could go ---- herself. Heard no more from her; the notes appeared as written.

 

[BillF]

2 hours ago, jazzbo said:

Now playing:

[paul secor]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

More "cleverness".  

 

I guess I'm supposed to be impressed, and would like to be, but I'm not.

When I hear these sort of things, I'm reminded of reading a quote - can't remember where or who said it - but something to the effect that Stan Kenton can be on stage and make dramatic gestures, and every arranger in the audience can tell you exactly how it was done. Ellington can wiggle a finger, three horns will play, and the same arrangers will say - how did he do that?  I know that there was only one Ellington, but still the point was made.

[Larry Kart]

3 hours ago, Morganized said:

2 hours ago, paul secor said:

I guess I'm supposed to be impressed, and would like to be, but I'm not.

When I hear these sort of things, I'm reminded of reading a quote - can't remember where or who said it - but something to the effect that Stan Kenton can be on stage and make dramatic gestures, and every arranger in the audience can tell you exactly how it was done. Ellington can wiggle a finger, three horns will play, and the same arrangers will say - how did he do that?  I know that there was only one Ellington, but still the point was made.

 

 André Previn:

"You know, Stan Kenton can stand in front of a thousand fiddles and a thousand brass and make a dramatic gesture and every studio arranger can nod his head and say, "Oh, yes, that's done like this. But Duke merely lifts his finger, three horns make a sound, and I don't know what it is!"

 

Further re: Ellington's methods, in a specific famous instance (where Gunther Schuller FWIW got it wrong):

http://musicalexchange.carnegiehall.org/profiles/blogs/arranging-ellington-the-ellington-effect

[paul secor]

Thanks for putting my "quote" in proper context, Larry.

I'll have to read the Schuller piece when I have some extra time.

[soulpope]

3 hours ago, jazzbo said:

Great showcase for Barney Wilen ....

[JSngry]

3 hours ago, paul secor said:

I guess I'm supposed to be impressed, and would like to be, but I'm not.

When I hear these sort of things, I'm reminded of reading a quote - can't remember where or who said it - but something to the effect that Stan Kenton can be on stage and make dramatic gestures, and every arranger in the audience can tell you exactly how it was done. Ellington can wiggle a finger, three horns will play, and the same arrangers will say - how did he do that?  I know that there was only one Ellington, but still the point was made.

You guess wrong, you're not "supposed" to be anything. You will have the response you have for the reasons you have it.

As for Kenton vs. Ellington, yeah, sure. But the gap between "Stan Kenton" and Willie Maiden is immense. "Stan Kenton" was ultimately a concept. Willie Maiden was a real, honest to god talent, not a concept, a realization. I'd go so far as to state with no uncertainty (since it's just my opinion) that Willie Maiden & Bill Mathieu are the two people who really "got" that whole Kenton thing in a way that so many other, and so many more greatly lauded) writers did not. They heard real personal possibilities in that music. Which is not to say that somebody like Johnnie Richards didn't, but Johnny Richards was a freak and was going to be a freak with or without "Stan Kenton". Gene Roland, that's another one, but go figure THAT guy out. And of course, Bob Graettinger. But that's a whole 'nother world. Hell, universe. Dee Barton, very narrow but deep within himself.

Besides, the Schuller quote is too easily appropriated by people who just hear names like "Maynard Ferguson" and/or "Stan Kenton" and automatically think Loud Brassy Cheap White Music and then superimpose all their personal moral projections about why they don't want to be associated with That Type Of Thing, and poof, end of thought process. Especially people who can't engage with the music from either a technical or emotional standpoint because they don't have the tools or the curiosity. That's just lazy. Fuck lazy thinking.

I mean, if you can't hear the difference between Pete Rugolo, Johnny Richards, Bill Holman, Slide Hampton, and Willie Maiden, that's not their fault, there are plenty of distinctions to be had. That's like saying that everybody who speaks Spanish sounds the same. And when somebody says something like " Duke merely lifts his finger, three horns make a sound, and I don't know what it is", well, that's bullshit. I can tell you what it is - it's somebody in total command of a full tonal and intonational palate making very specific decisions, that's what it is, and you best believe that a writer like Willie Maiden is taking the tonal and intonational palate of his performers into consideration as well, in Ferguson's band, with the reduced instrumentation, and with Kenton's the expanded instrumentation. You don't play a Willie Maiden chart the way you do a Bill Holman chart...well, you can, but that does neither writer any favors and everybody else no favors at all.

All you have to do is just listen to the music itself,. Not you "impression" of what you hear, but what is actually there.

 

Anybody with an ear can tell you how that's done. What nobody can really tell you is how somebody thought like that in the first place, because there is no formula here, there is just imagination, palate, and decisions.

Formula would have been to just do this for a bigger instrumentation, but that's not what happened, is it.

Individuality is the ultimate enemy of the generalization!

[Bluesnik]

Hall with Carl Perkins, a pianist I like very much, and Red Mitchell on bass.

[BillF]

[duaneiac]

[HutchFan]

[Larry Kart]

6 hours ago, JSngry said:

You guess wrong, you're not "supposed" to be anything. You will have the response you have for the reasons you have it.

As for Kenton vs. Ellington, yeah, sure. But the gap between "Stan Kenton" and Willie Maiden is immense. "Stan Kenton" was ultimately a concept. Willie Maiden was a real, honest to god talent, not a concept, a realization. I'd go so far as to state with no uncertainty (since it's just my opinion) that Willie Maiden & Bill Mathieu are the two people who really "got" that whole Kenton thing in a way that so many other, and so many more greatly lauded) writers did not. They heard real personal possibilities in that music. Which is not to say that somebody like Johnnie Richards didn't, but Johnny Richards was a freak and was going to be a freak with or without "Stan Kenton". Gene Roland, that's another one, but go figure THAT guy out. And of course, Bob Graettinger. But that's a whole 'nother world. Hell, universe. Dee Barton, very narrow but deep within himself.

Besides, the Schuller quote is too easily appropriated by people who just hear names like "Maynard Ferguson" and/or "Stan Kenton" and automatically think Loud Brassy Cheap White Music and then superimpose all their personal moral projections about why they don't want to be associated with That Type Of Thing, and poof, end of thought process. Especially people who can't engage with the music from either a technical or emotional standpoint because they don't have the tools or the curiosity. That's just lazy. Fuck lazy thinking.

I mean, if you can't hear the difference between Pete Rugolo, Johnny Richards, Bill Holman, Slide Hampton, and Willie Maiden, that's not their fault, there are plenty of distinctions to be had. That's like saying that everybody who speaks Spanish sounds the same. And when somebody says something like " Duke merely lifts his finger, three horns make a sound, and I don't know what it is", well, that's bullshit. I can tell you what it is - it's somebody in total command of a full tonal and intonational palate making very specific decisions, that's what it is, and you best believe that a writer like Willie Maiden is taking the tonal and intonational palate of his performers into consideration as well, in Ferguson's band, with the reduced instrumentation, and with Kenton's the expanded instrumentation. You don't play a Willie Maiden chart the way you do a Bill Holman chart...well, you can, but that does neither writer any favors and everybody else no favors at all.

All you have to do is just listen to the music itself,. Not you "impression" of what you hear, but what is actually there.

 

Anybody with an ear can tell you how that's done. What nobody can really tell you is how somebody thought like that in the first place, because there is no formula here, there is just imagination, palate, and decisions.

Formula would have been to just do this for a bigger instrumentation, but that's not what happened, is it.

Individuality is the ultimate enemy of the generalization!

Good points above, but some facts got garbled. The person who said that thing about Kenton and Ellington was Andre Previn, not Gunther Schuller. Also, in the post I linked to from Darcy Jame Argue 

http://musicalexchange.carnegiehall.org/profiles/blogs/arranging-ellington-the-ellington-effect

Argue shows in detail how, in the specific case of "Mood Indigo," no less a talented musician than Schuller (who certainly had an "ear"), both in his transcription of  the opening of "Mood Indigo" and in his explanation of what Ellington was doing there, inaccurately described the specific decisions Ellington made.

[HutchFan]

Cal Tjader - Huracán (LaserLight, originally released on Crystal Clear Recordings)
with Clare Fischer, Gary Foster, Poncho Sanchez, a.o. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

Good points above, but some facts got garbled. The person who said that thing about Kenton and Ellington was Andre Previn, not Gunther Schuller.

I thought it was Michel Legrand who said that . . . 

Could easily be mis-remembering! 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by HutchFan

[soulpope]

5 hours ago, HutchFan said:

My favourite late(r) Bill Barron outing ....

[HutchFan]

2 hours ago, soulpope said:

My favourite late(r) Bill Barron outing ....

Mine too.  

 

NP:

Dannie Richmond Quartet - Ode to Mingus (Soul Note)
with Bill Saxton (ts), Danny Mixon (p), Mike Richmond (b) 

Powerful Mingus tribute.

[soulpope]

1 hour ago, HutchFan said:

Mine too.  

 

NP:

Dannie Richmond Quartet - Ode to Mingus (Soul Note)
with Bill Saxton (ts), Danny Mixon (p), Mike Richmond (b) 

Powerful Mingus tribute.

Bill Saxton being an interesting but unfortunately underrecorded reedman ....

[sidewinder]

Vocalion CD