Tristano/Konitz/Marsh Mosaic liner notes

[wesbed]

I listen to lots of music (mostly lots of jazz music). I have an ear for listening, enjoying, and appreciating the music. I know (at least, I think I know) when I hear styles that sound different... different in timing, phrasing, style of playing.

I knew it when I heard Monk's playing, where it sounds like he's playing 'wrong' or 'stretched' notes, yet the notes are still very acceptable. I knew it when I noticed I could not tap my foot to Brubeck's Unsquare Dance. I knew it when I heard Coltrane and Sander's squealing horns on Ascension. I knew these were things that were different.

Yet, I'm a musical illiterate. I don't play an instrument and I don't read music. I understand only the finished product, how it sounds, how it makes me feel, and what other's opinions of the music are. I know what 3/4 & 4/4 timing are, but my inadequate knowledge ends there.

When I listen to the Tristano/Konitz/Marsh Mosaic, I hear something different about Tristano's playing. Something intense, forceful, and directed. Yet, still jazzy. The box groups Konitz and Marsh with Tristano. On the first page of the Mosaic booklet, it says, "It will be the first and perhaps most important task of these notes to describe just what Tristano, Konitz and Marsh were up to musically..."

I've not read all the notes in the Mosaic booklet although I've enjoyed what I've read so far (thank you, Mr. Kart). I've not listened to all the music but I've heard bits and pieces of the entire set. Besides making very good music, what were Tristano, Konitz and Marsh up to musically? The liner notes make the point that something different is taking place with this music. I can hear the forceful intensity of Tristano's piano. But, what were they up to? I don't believe my knowledge of music is acute enough to fully appreciate the liner notes. Maybe somebody can offer a more simplistic explanation of the intent of Tristano, Konitz and Marsh? Presented in terms that even a musical illiterate can understand?

Edited March 28, 2004 by wesbed

[Larry Kart]

Wesbed --

I'm not all that musically literate myself but thought I'd managed to detect what's different and attractive about this music and describe it pretty well -- in terms that the musically literate wouldn't find inadequate or just plain wrong and that wouldn't leave the less musically literate scratching their heads. If I did manage to do that, I'd say, Just keep listening. Also, if the tack I took doesn't help, Barry Ulanov's illuminating notes to several of the original albums are in the Mosaic booklet too.

[wesbed]

It is so welcome to read comments about the liner notes by the person who wrote the liner notes. Where else could this happen except on an internet discussion board? I believe the liner notes are well written. I believe this set of liner notes is better than those in some other Mosaic boxes.

Sometimes there are nuances of a certain genre of music that aren’t noticed till somebody else describes them. Sometimes these nuances have to simply hit you before they are noticed. It took me several listens to ‘get’ Grant Green. I thought he was over-rated till, one day, I wanted to hear him all the time. I had the same thing happen with Stanley Turrentine only a couple of days ago.

I’ve enjoyed the T/K/M Mosaic very much. I’ve been listening to it every night since I received it last week. The music and the playing are quite good. There something interesting, calming, and intense about this music. To me, Tristano is the most intense of the three players. Konitz is ‘quietly’ intense, as if he’s not really intense at all, till you listen very closely.

I’m not sure how this music is different, yet it is. It’s subtle, in that, if I’d heard these tunes in passing, I’d not have thought there was too much different about them. When listening to the tunes, repeatedly, and late at night, there is something interestingly different about them. I was hoping to gain a better insight into the ‘differentness’ by way of the liner notes. However, it may not always be possible to describe what’s different about music. Just, to understand that it is different and wait for it to click in your own mind.

I don’t know how I’d describe Monk’s music, except to say that it’s different than that played by any other piano player. Listen enough, and you’ll discover for yourself. I'll listen to the music some more, and read the T/K/M notes again.