John Coltrane Quartet Plays "On Green Dolphin Street":
I haven't done any weekend jazz-blogging in a while, but here's a great clip: John Coltrane and the rhythm section of Miles Davis's 1960-era quintet playing "On Green Dolphin Street." Miles was touring through Europe at the time, with Coltrane on tenor, and this clip is of the group without Miles. Wynton Kelly is on piano, Paul Chambers is on bass, Jimmy Cobb plays drums.
He has the intonation one normally expects from 7th grade beginners on $200 horns.
His thin, often out of tune sound just grates on my ears.
Lord, his uper register is so weak and out of tune I want to drive ice picks in my ears to stop the pain.
Sure, he has fast fingers at times, but so do a lot of musicians who know how to make a beautiful sound.
speechless
As a saxophonist -- hey, at least through high school -- ditto.
Or really great players, on very old recordings done on 16mm film shot for TV, with a frequency response worse than many modern cell phones...
Frankly, I'm not into his style either, but that is less objective. The observation that his upper register is often out of tune and thin is objective and undeniable.
While Trane's tone here is sort of off, and admittedly suggests a bad horn or set-up, the suggestion by anyone who has seriously studied the instrument in the last half century that Coltrane was NOT a major innovator on the instrument at this point is (in order of descending respectability (a) a triumph of personal preference over artistic judgment (i.e., "I simply don't CARE what anyone else thinks, I DON'T LIKE IT!") (b) willfully ignorant of the history of music in the 20th century or (c) hopelessly Euro-centric.
Hey Orin, I bet you're an apologist for Pharoah Sanders, Roland Kirk, and Albert Ayler, too!
* which became apparent to me when I had an alto sax performance major as a roommate many years ago in college, and of which I was reminded when I saw Marcel Mule's "Daily Studies" for sale in a Paris music store two weeks ago
This sounds more like the group going through the motions, and Coltrane is clearly having some problem. Cook and Morton say that right about then Coltrane "had had some important dental work done, and had to redevelop his embouchure." Sounds like it was still developing.
Professor Kerr, were you named with a nod to Orrin Keepnews, the founder of jazz label Riverside, and producer of the best work by people such as Thelonious Monk and Bill Evans, among many others?
I'm not sure that a denial of Coltrane's "genius" necessarily follows from your "undeniable" observation about Coltrane's intonation.
I'm under the impression that any meaningful attempt to understand Coltrane's music should really focus on the exploratory and emotional aspects of his performances.
Regarding his tone, just because it isn't (physically) pleasing to the ears, it doesn't mean that it can't be (emotionally/intellectually) appreciated.
About Miles, I'm a bigger fan of his second Quintet, with Shorter instead of Coltrane. In particular: Miles Smiles, E.S.P., Nefertiti, Sorcerer, and Filles de Kilimanjaro are all incredible.
Cellar Door Sessions and Live-Evil are fun too; Holland and DeJohnette are my heroes.
Anyone who knows more about this than I do--which would include most kindergarteners--have any thoughts?
I like Paul Desmond, I like Grover Washington, I like Clarence Clemmons of the E-Street Band.
The problem is that jazz has waned and there are no jazz stars anymore. And with the post 50's jazz movement that did to music what Jackson Pollack and his ilk did to art, there are scarcely any jazz musicians that really make music anymore rather than just make cacophonous meanderings that are largely formulaic.
And yes, Marcel Mule was a god.
The problem is that jazz has waned and there are no jazz stars anymore.... [T]here are scarcely any jazz musicians that really make music anymore rather than just make cacophonous meanderings that are largely formulaic.
Hey there, I'm not sure how you're able to go from not being an expert to saying how there are not many jazz musicians that "make music anymore"!
Honestly, I don't even know where to begin.
However, I do know saxophones. I know that if you compare the power and range of Clarence Clemmons to the weak, thin, out-of-tune wimpiness of John Coltrane, there is a very clear choice between who has mastered their instrument.
Now, if you actually like the style of jazz that Coltrane makes then it's clear that he was very innovative and infuential. There's no getting around that. As a musician of somewhat bad tastes he was quite good. As an instrumentalist, he really couldn't hack it.
See: Herbie Hancock, Frisell/Scofield/Metheny, Joshua Redman, Brad Mehldau, Keith Jarrett, Holland, Corea.
(Of course, jazz is far more commercially viable in Europe.)
But I would certainly concede that jazz isn't as "mainstream" as it was in its heyday... though, are we to evaluate substance on the basis of popularity? If anything, I find there to be a negative correlation here.
So if we could reinterpret "jazz stars" to mean artists who are putting out artistically-relevant or paradigm-challenging work, then I'd have to disagree!
See: Avishai Cohen (bassist or trumpter), Sex Mob, Charles Lloyd, The Bad Plus, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Zorn and anything from Tzadik, David Binney, Cuong Vu (of course, I could list hundreds of artists here; these are but a few that come to mind. There are a ton of interesting Nordic jazz players too.)
It's not like you have to live in NYC to be down with what's hip. The internet is an extremely effective tool for searching out jazz artists.
I don't understand: doesn't it require some (great) degree of expertise to make the broad claim that "no contemporary jazz is good"?
Regardless, I vehemently disagree. What is your evidence to support this grand assertion?
As an instrumentalist, he really couldn't hack it.
I'd echo hawkins and Professor Kerr's sentiment in response to this.
But I'm a snob who doesn't care for anything that isn't challenging; forgive me.
I don't see why not. People vote with their dollars and their presence at concerts as to what they like.
Popularity isn't the end all of measuring artistic worth, but it's a starting place. If jazz is available all over the internet, and it is, and people are being exposed to it so freely, why isn't it selling? Because by and large it has marginalized itself to a non-melodic style that just isn't very fun or interesting to listen to.
There will always be hidden gems out there that aren't popular because they are a little different or because they haven't had sufficient exposure, but when an entire movement such as modern jazz has declined to the extent that it has after being so popular for so long, that's an indication that the style is not appreciated as a whole.
But this is all beside the point. Most of the musicians you list are not saxophonists. I was referring to Coltrane's inability, or refusal to master his instrument. If you like the style of his music, that's between you and your iPod. If you think that he knows how to play a saxophone with the authority of someone who knows what an embouchure is, then you're just flat out wrong.
I was referring to the saxophone instrumentalism of the individual artists. Whether you like Bruce Springsteen is irrelevent. Clarence Clemmons knows how to exploit the full range of the saxophone and stay in tune. So do these others.
And yes, even Kenny G, as sappy as his music is, knows how to play the instrument. You can be a musical snob all you want, but to me your snobbery is an indication that you like to imagine that you have good tastes when in fact you seemingly can't discern the basics of music, which is to control the instrument that makes the music.
As for whether the E-street band has anything to do with jazz, the truth of the matter is that rock and roll is just a variation of jazz. It is where real jazz went when Miles Davis started doing too many drugs and lost his way. Some rock is better than others, of course, but it is still a variation of jazz, just as modern jazz is a variation of what jazz used to be before it became snobbish and unmusical.
Needless to say, I don't find your argument terribly persuasive. Critical review and popular standing are hardly synonymous as methods for analyzing artistic work.
Anyways, I guess we are speaking a different language.
I don't really think that's fair of you to say, but hey, it's the internet, fire away!
You might be a happier person (at least to the extent that you might gain some utility from discovering new music) if you were a bit more open-minded about it!
I wonder if your attitude about the genre is something we extrapolate to the mainstream audience? Perhaps there is some resentment towards the "elite" music of contemporary jazz?
In my experience, pretty much all of the great arts, ranging from music to theater to visual arts to food, are acquired tastes. That goes for beer and opera as well as modern jazz and modern art. Indeed, in many areas of art, people react one way the first time they experience something but then have a very different reaction over time. I'm curious, what's the role for acquired tastes in your vision of art?
Just like with beer, there are many beers that are appreciated more with increased exposure. But there is no amount of Corona you can drink that can make it taste better. :) Modern jazz is like Corona beer. If you put a lime into the intonation people may think its sophisticated when in fact it's simply masking the bad taste.
CLS, I'm not an expert in the names of current artists because I've stopped paying much attention. I've also stopped playing my saxophone since my jazz days in college. I've studied jazz quite a bit back then and whereas I'm not as good as I used to be and I don't follow it much anymore, I do know that whether you like jazz or not, there are some immutable rules about playing the horn -- you have to be able to control it. Coltrane fails that test.
Rock and roll is a derivative of blues. So is jazz.
Bitches Brew (which is what I'm assuming you are referring to?) was one of Miles Davis' most commercially successful albums.
I think the story here is that we approach music from two entirely different perspectives. In my opinion, I can't see how one is right over the other. (I'm a musician too; I've spent some time studying jazz during my undergraduate days at Eastman.)
As for immutable rules and artistic endeavors, all I can think of is Duchamp's Fountain.
No, wait...
I'm a fan of the "performance artists" who actually tried to urinate on it.
Corona is one of those hugely popular beers that people who don't like beer drink because it doesn't taste like anything. Do you really think modern jazz is like that?
The (type of) modern jazz that I'm referring to would be something complex or organic, like a trappist ale or a lambic.
Speaking of which, Professor Kerr, any specialty beer stores in the D.C. area come to mind? I've been scouring the area, but I haven't found anything besides the typical wine/liquor stores. I'm spoiled; I used to live by a beer-grocery store that organized its beers by country of origin.
Chevy Chase Liquor Store on Connecticut Ave has a good beer selection.
My favorite beer is Negra Modelo. It's not really too different from New Castle for those of you not down south and have never drunk it.
But because it is a Mexican beer just about everywhere you buy it they will put a lime in it unless you ask them not to do so (and you really have to insist!). The reason for lime in beer is because either the citrus enhances the flavor, such as with some Belgian beers (I'm not of that opinion, but people do say that) or because the beer is so bad and comes in a clear bottle and the flavor stinks from light exposure, which is the case with Corona.
A beer like Negra Modelo does not really lend itself to having fruit added. But it is done solely because that is supposed to be what you do to any beer made in Mexico.
Likewise modern jazz. People who follow jazz stand around and speak in amazed tones about "emotion" or "intellect" when in fact the music is often atonal, unmelodic, dischordant, dissonant, and the solos are ad lib but are formulaic and predictable.
There is a place for all of that in music, to be sure. Dissonance has an effect. Breaking from melody has an effect. But modern jazz seems to have dissociated itself with beauty for the sake of consciously being dissonant, unmelodic and arhythmical. Jazz musicians have taken the idea of jazz and stuck a lime in it all the time for the sole reason that they like to call it jazz. There is no more beauty in jazz.
I'm overstating the issue, of course, but that is the trend. And this tape of Coltrane playing out of tune and with such a thin tone aptly illustrates the phenomenon.
But I'm a snob who doesn't care for anything that isn't challenging; forgive me.
The wounds are still too fresh, Crim. But perhaps someday.
There is no more beauty in jazz.
Blah blah, beholder, eye, blah...
You know, a lot of modern jazz, if not a majority of it, isn't atonal/unmelodic/discordant.
Of the modern (current) jazz trends, I can discern three general directions: traditionalist (à la Wynton Marsalis; is this "modern"?), fusion-oriented (not just rock-jazz, but rather jazz that is influenced by other genres, such as electronica, rock, klezmer, classical, ambient music, hip-hop), and exploratory (which includes the avant-garde jazz which you are lamenting).
Anyways, maybe we don't have the same "modern" concept in mind here.
The wounds are still too fresh, Crim. But perhaps someday.
QQ
I'm not sure, but you might be interested in this. Perfect timing... the night before the final.
I'm not sure I can entirely concur with your theory that all Great Art is an acquired taste, or even most.
True Great Art acquires you.
Thanks for the tip re the concert -- sounds interesting.
In terms of beer places in DC, it depends on the neighborhood. In general, though, the Whole Foods Markets are pretty good (better than you might expect). In the DuPont area, Cairo Liquors on 17th near Q is excellent (or at least used to be, back when I lived right near there).
So, basically you have terrible taste in beer and in music... I mean, look, at a certain point you like the beer you like, and you like Kenny G. That's OK of course- there's no cure for bad taste, after all.
I'm not actually a huge devotee of Coltrane- I'd rather listen to Joe Henderson, for instance, any day. But on a purely technical level- if you think that 'Trane is not completely in control of his instrument you really can't be much of a tenor or soprano player.
You might not like what he's doing, and you might not like the tone he's chosen. But only a very poor woodwind player could fail to note that he is in complete control of his instrument. The multiphonic stuff he did toward the end of his life is _insanely_ difficult. I can only think of one other player who has been able to do it as well- that would be Trane's collaborator Sanders, who is, IMHO, a better player than Trane was (and is sadly reduced to small club dates these days, since he is alive, and thus not a legend).
I'm curious- what sax(es) do you play, and what is your range on your axe of choice (since you mention that you are a sax player and base your argument on that I think this is a fair question)? Can you play freely in the altissimo register? One of the great things about the saxophone is that you can choose how in tune you want to be (as long as you don't want to be truly in tune, 'cause that's very tricky.)
Also- the sax has not been a failure as an orchestral instrument. It was invented too late to have been written for by most of the greats, so there's a chicken and an egg problem.
Just a random comment: I happened to listen to Joe Henderson's "Page One" today for the first time in a year or so. (I've had it for years and I've listened to it hundreds of times, just not recently.) Henderson's playing is truly incredible on that album: Every note is just right, and it's incredibly thoughtful. Just an amazing performance.
True Great Art acquires you.
That should read: "In Russia, True Great Art . . . "
When I was a bit younger someone told me that I ought to take one player as a model and consciously copy them. At the time Henderson was completely eclipsed by Coltrane, as far as reputation went. But I always liked him better.
It's very hard to explain how one goes about developing a tone on the saxophone. It has something to do with the physical incidents of the instrument- mouthpiece, reed, axe... every serious player messes with the incidental factors endlessly (well, maybe not the axe, unless they are wealthier than the average saxophonist). But it is mostly about having a certain tone in your mind (or in your ears) while you practice- a tone that you measure yourself against. I always thought that Henderson had the best tone of any tenor player I'd heard.
Coltrane's reputation is not really based on his appeal to "white college kids". If Coltrane should be criticized it is for the opposite reason- some of the music his reputation rests most heavily upon is close to incomprehensible to non-musicians. And in his later period- well, I don't know what to say about his last couple of appearances at Newport, for instance. You should listen to them and judge for yourself. To me he sounds like a woman wailing for her demon lover; like a child lost past redemption; like a man emerging from a dark wood who climbs a hill, one foot firm behind one that moves as the planet that guides all men throws just enough light into the sky that he knows a guide will meet him at the crest. Other people think he sounds more like a cat set on fire.
Anyway, part of his reputation is based on his ability to play lucidly over what are still called "Coltrane changes", at an insane tempo. You might not like how that sounds- no one could argue with you if you didn't. But what he was doing was something that no other sax player in the world could have done at the time. Roger McGuinn is a very minor figure in comparison.
"But on a purely technical level- if you think that 'Trane is not completely in control of his instrument you really can't be much of a tenor or soprano player."
Oh, I have no doubt that he's doing exactly what he intends to do. But he doesn't convince the listener of that fact.
Oh, and using the term "axe" really makes you sound so cool. You're so hep.
"Other people think he sounds more like a cat set on fire."
And yet you think my statements here are so out of line.
Some of the aesthetic arguments here remind me of the moldy fig v. bebop battles of the 1940s-50s. "Those doggone beboppers have gone and stolen our music, playing all this atonal, unlistenable, unmelodic, consciously
discordant 'music.' They don't even know how to play their instruments--just listen to Dizzy Gillespie's, Miles Davis's or Bird's tone! Bring back dixieland!!!" For that matter, "real" saxophonists used to complain that Lester Young didn't have a manly enough tone--too weak and reedy. What's old is new...
I certainly understand how some might not like Coltrane's later style. I didn't like much of it until I was exposed to what it came from, and still don't get "Om" or "Sunship" (not enough structure). Try Newport 63 for an entre into some of the more adventurous stuff. But to say that he didn't have command of his instrument reveals more about the commentator than the target of the comment.
And as for "blaming" Coltrane for the discordant nature of much of modern jazz, I would actually put more "blame" on Ornette Coleman. When he titled his Atlantic album "The Shape of Jazz to Come," he was quite prescient. "Sheets of sound" can only take you so far, no matter how brilliant; you need space, too, which Coleman, like Basie before, skillfully incorporated into his musical vision. And the interplay of sound and space, to me, is at the heart of much of modern, experimental jazz.
And thanks for the mention of Joe Henderson--I think I'll go listen to some!
By the way, CrimLaw, Cellar Door/Live-Evil isn't Holland/DeJohnette, it's Mike Henderson/DeJohnette. While I personally LIKE Holland's Fender-bass work (including the wah-wah/fuzz box stuff on the Isle of Wight performance) he himself, and the Master of Darkness himself, apparently weren't crazy about it.
. . . and anyone who doubts Coltrane's powers as an improvisor, go and get a transcription of the solo on say, Freddie Freeloader. Learn it, bearing in mind that what you're doing is the same as copying all the words in Moby Dick, as compared with actually writing it. If you can't sight-read on an instrument, learn the Jon Hendricks vocalese version. Then come back and talk about Coltrane's lack of musical skill....
"True Great Art acquires you.
That should read: "In Russia, True Great Art . . . ""
No, you still get to set the price for the acquisition. I will admit that several Russian artists have made attractive bids, some of which have been accepted.
The larger point is that the Greatest of All the Artists had little difficulty filling his pit with those who no doubt required little training to appreciate his Art.
Whoop, you have the right of it. Looking at it now, I realize that Holland wasn't with Miles for that long of a time.
Regardless, I love Holland's work, especially the albums with Billy Kilson (who, regretfully, has been touring with Chris Botti).
The Miles albums with Dave Holland, though, were my introduction to jazz, and to the use of upright bass in fusion, back in 1970-71, and were pretty startling.
There's a moment towards the end of "Pharoah's Dance" on Bitches Brew, when, as the assembled (3?) e-keyboard players work up a head of steam, and Harvey Brooks lays down a one-note ostinato on Fender bass, Holland comes rumbling up out of the very bottom of his range on upright bass; the effect is almost like slow volcanism, and still makes my (remaining) hair stand up now, 38 years later...
Despite my discounting of Coltrane's tone, he still my favorite jazz saxophonist. This is mostly because he pioneered modal improvisation (along with Miles Davis). Case in point: listen to the solos of John Coltrane and Cannonball Adderley on Miles Davis' Kind of Blue album. This was one of the first albums featuring modal improvisation (improvising for long periods where the chords do not change, as opposed to bebop where they change constantly). John Coltrane gets it, Cannonball doesn't. It sounds like Cannonball is trying to force a square peg (bebop) into a round hole (modal). (I hate to say that because Cannonball is one of my favorite sax players.)
"I'm not much of a jazz historian. But the debate about whether Trane was a genius reminded me of a different criticism of his music. Isn't it the case that a number of jazz aficionados, while admitting his incredible talent on the sax, consider him responsible for the loss of any distinctive rhythm in much of the improvisational jazz that followed him? And that they consider this a loss?
Anyone who knows more about this than I do--which would include most kindergarteners--have any thoughts?"
I am going to get savaged for this by some jazz cognoscenti, but I actually think the Ken Burns Jazz documentary is quite a good historical introduction, and told mostly from the perspective of someone (Wynton Marsalis) who thinks that Trane was one element of the "wrong turn." I happen to disagree vehemently and think he was a genius, but the documentary remains the best holistic integration of pictures, music and thoughtful interviews (some great stuff from Studs Terkel, among many others) I've seen on the subject (despite its many omissions and shortcomings).
Re On Green Dolphin Street. Simply a great song, and lends itself to many wonderful interpretations including the one Orin posted. I also recommend the version by the Keith Jarrett Trio on his At the Blue Note box set from around 1994.
Orin, a lot of people really appreciate these posts digging up these performances. To me it is using YouTube for a much higher purpose than its usual political gotcha or humorous amateur video (or simple serial piracy of current TV shows). So thanks for continuing to do it.