on 8/23/02 3:51 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
The Impulse! period lasted six years. Checking what he did in 1961 next to what he did in 1967, I see significant differences (and most of those who do not like modern jazz see some serious differences).
If we're gonna be specific abut it, there are really two Impulse periods -- the Quartet period, and the post-Elvin period.
It is ironic that we are expecting old masters to move steadily when most of the alleged avant current players seem to stick to the same kind of music for decades...
I couldn't agree more. But, in the cases of certain artists, I see periods where they're stuck. For me, Trane, Bill Evans, Sonny Rollins, and Lee Morgan -- all of whom I love -- each had static periods.
I mean, a large portion of what is called free improvised music is barely different from what Bailey/Parker/Oxley/etc did more than 30 years ago!
I agree. Many of them are totally revivalists parroting old licks. Kind of like the Stray Cats.
And what about the free-jazz revival? Do you see progress?
It depends on who you're asking about. In the case of Ellery Eskelin, I would give major props for progress and musicality. In other certain cases, I'm not convinced.
Coltrane was such a master at what he did that I am happy that he took time to linger on that for a while. Yes, you don't need all the Impulse! records from a creative point of view, but from a pleasure point of view, they are worth their price.
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.
You seem to imply that he could have spent his energy in a more creative way... He is dead, right? What do we know? If he had moved to Hollywood to write soundtracks, I might have agreed with you. I miss what he could have done if he had not died so young, not what he might have done during his life, for what he did is almost untouchable (IMNSHO).
About all we know of art -- past trivial and speculative theororizing -- is what we like. As for whether he would have done a different kind of great work had he come to Hollywood to write music in the service of film, I have no idea. If you see film music as a dead end and are using it to insult me, it's not gonna work, because the best of film music is as amazing as the best of any other genre. If Trane had moved to Hollywood and aspired to be the next John Williams, obviously it would be a cop-out. But if he had come here and was writing on the level of a Jerry Goldsmith or a Kenyon Hopkins, it would have been a whole other kind of greatness. As to any musician's output being "untouchable", it gets real touchable the minute he offers it for sale and someone gets to decide whether he/she got the desired value for the $. I think it's ridiculous that Coltrane is sacred & untouchable but Prince isn't. skip h NP: the complete blind willie johnson