>
> I don't Coltrane's mastery is at issue as much as the haphazard feeling I
> get with regards to the way the bands were put together after ASCENSION. I
> don't like haphazard ensembles. I like real direction in the performance,
> and, frankly, with rare exception, Trane was by far the most qualified
> player on the bandstand after a certain point. I have to wonder what would
> have been recorded if he had, after the quartet split up, mounted a stable
> ensemble with non-shifting personnel, and really developed a group
> vocabulary again, kind of the way Sun Ra did.
With due respect, this party line b.s. about trane is so boring. shades of
freakin' saxophone master class.
His last years are full of great music from everyone in the group. Go back
and listen some more (Expression, Interstellar space, Stellar regions,
Olatunji Center, to name four........and Live In Japan).
What is so unstable about the personnel in his last group? The only unstable
thing is that Trane himself passed away. (so, okay, some people sat in.)
An equally convincing case can be made that it was a monumental achievement
for the group to maintain its identity amidst the guest appearances--which
are limited on record (basically) to percussionists, don garrett, and the
ascension date.
Looked at over the long term...was Ra's personnel any less unstable? Besides
the core, there was quite a revolving door much of the time.
Trane's side-people's playing in 66/67 is greatly underrated.
Look for John Schott's forthcoming book, entitled "John and Alice Coltrane"
to rectify this.
