|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jun 9, 2015 20:19:56 GMT
in Art, painting, music, literature, there are heavyweight champions and...the others. piano: Jelly Roll, Art Tatum, Bud Powell, Bill Evans, Monk are among the best known. they aren't alone. many other pianists who didn't achieve fame nor money, are here to be discovered by Jazz lovers. they didn't sell records in life but their artistic value is very high. I don't wanna insult anyone but a record I can't stand is a million seller, Koln concert. 4' 29" of Amoeba's dance knock that concert out. his author, Herbie Nichols, is one of the unknown I do love. tonight I got one of his records out and started listening. I bought this 25 years ago, in 1990 5 LPs box, ltd 7500. it's all piano trio, no horns. recorded by RVG in five sessions from May 1955 to April 1956. Al McKibbon and Teddy Kotick share the double bass; Art Blakey or Max Roach on drums. mostly in medium tempo, a Gershwin track, all others originals. take a mixer, pour Bud and Thelonious inside, there you go: Herbie Nichols. originally on two 10" and one 12", Blue Note 5068, 5069, 1519. a pianist who never reached success, known and loved among musicians, ignored by the public. a story very similar to Elmo Hope or Sonny Clark. in terms of value, his records are, among this trio, easier to grab. I love his playing, as I love Phineas Newborn or Hampton Hawes. they aren't second rate musicians. it's many listeners' brain that's second or third or fourth rate.  |
|
|
|
Post by lavolpe on Jun 9, 2015 21:26:56 GMT
I will check him out as soon as I can!
|
|
|
|
Post by Con Alma on Jun 9, 2015 21:38:59 GMT
Yes, there is more to modern jazz piano than Monk, Bud and Bill Evans.
Phineas Newborn, Hampton Hawes, Red Garland, Junior Mance, Ray Bryant, Tommy Flanagan, Hank Jones, Sonny Clark, Harold Mabern, George Wallington, Wynton Kelly, Pete Jolly, Russ Freeman, Bobby Timmons, Horace Silver, Billy Taylor, Barry Harris, Richard Wyands, Hugh Lawson and no doubt dozens more.
|
|
Evan
Junior Member
Posts: 99 
|
Post by Evan on Jun 10, 2015 0:17:11 GMT
I've been eyeing up Herbie Nichols' self-titled trio record at my local shop for a couple of weeks, but never got it. But a recommendation from you, Dott, is as good as any, so I'm going to get it.
Can I ask, what's the sound quality of those "Complete Blue Note Recordings" like? I've seen a few lying around here and there, reasonably priced, and I'm especially interested in the Curtis Fuller one since even Japanese reissues of his Blue Notes are hard to come by.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jun 10, 2015 15:39:48 GMT
I've not listened to much Herbie Nichols, but as far as second-rate jazz musicians go: i don't really feel that there are many. few jazz musicians in my experience are light on ideas. but plenty lack the prowess to execute them. perhaps that's what a second-rate musician is.
storytime: years ago a friend of mine knew i was just getting into jazz and asked if i knew a certain "hank mobley". i said no, and that at the moment i was most interested in free jazz but that i would listen to anything. he put on a record that oddly had no title. but i remember the cover. it was 1568. not an original, i've since checked, but at the time it meant nothing to me. just another album. i loved it. the intro grabbed me and brought me in, and the expanded head was fabulous. listened to the whole thing. twice. it has always been one of my favorite records. fast forward a few years and i get into collecting and find out that it is one of the top of the heap of rare and treasured collectibles! i thought "of course! it's such a great record! anyone who has an original is very lucky." but then i read on al's jazz collector site that it only received 3/5 stars and was panned as little more than a bunch of "blowing" when it came out. so to me, second rate listeners far outnumber second-rate musicians. that's just one story of many. see be-bop's birth for plenty more.
so many of my friends, otherwise lovely people, ask when the words will start in jazz, or say they can't understand them when i put on black metal, or say the guitars don't solo enough, or that the drummers in jazz are boring. second-rate listeners indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jun 11, 2015 17:32:58 GMT
Can I ask, what's the sound quality of those "Complete Blue Note Recordings" like? sorry to say not so high, old story between RVG and piano..., in trio setting. the last of the five records is better. the music is very interesting indeed, worth while |
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Jun 13, 2015 12:36:54 GMT
There are lots of neglected geniuses, but Herbie Nichols is the genuine article. Dead from leukaemia when he was 44, you never read a bad word about Herbie from those who knew him - a modest and gentlemanly person. He was also clearly that relatively rare thing - or perhaps what I mean, is that rare thing against which all th odds at that time were stacked - an accomplished compose, player and intellectual. He could write superbly as well as play superbly. Read the sleeve notes to HERBIE NICHOLS TRIO if in doubt.
also worth hearing are the various 'projects' that have sought to promote or interpret his legacy. CHANGE OF SEASON, the 1985 record on Soul Note by Misha Mengelberg, for instance, is a superb record - and marvellously recorded too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jun 14, 2015 14:30:02 GMT
I've not listened to much Herbie Nichols, but as far as second-rate jazz musicians go: i don't really feel that there are many. few jazz musicians in my experience are light on ideas. but plenty lack the prowess to execute them. perhaps that's what a second-rate musician is. storytime: years ago a friend of mine knew i was just getting into jazz and asked if i knew a certain "hank mobley". i said no, and that at the moment i was most interested in free jazz but that i would listen to anything. he put on a record that oddly had no title. but i remember the cover. it was 1568. not an original, i've since checked, but at the time it meant nothing to me. just another album. i loved it. the intro grabbed me and brought me in, and the expanded head was fabulous. listened to the whole thing. twice. it has always been one of my favorite records. fast forward a few years and i get into collecting and find out that it is one of the top of the heap of rare and treasured collectibles! i thought "of course! it's such a great record! anyone who has an original is very lucky." but then i read on al's jazz collector site that it only received 3/5 stars and was panned as little more than a bunch of "blowing" when it came out. so to me, second rate listeners far outnumber second-rate musicians. that's just one story of many. see be-bop's birth for plenty more. so many of my friends, otherwise lovely people, ask when the words will start in jazz, or say they can't understand them when i put on black metal, or say the guitars don't solo enough, or that the drummers in jazz are boring. second-rate listeners indeed. I've always been very interested in the subject of art criticism and I have a thing or two to say on this topic.  I wouldn't be inclined to think of a professional music critic or anyone for that matter as a second-rate listener (I'm sure Dott could have predicted this coming based on the controversial choice of words). I'm guessing the review of 1568 was from Down Beat. I think it's valid for a professional jazz critic to give a lot of hard bop albums 3 stars or any other rating less than 'excellent'. That even goes for albums I love. It all depends on how the individual defines greatness. If they are rating based on personal preference, well of course everyone should be entitled to their opinion. But perhaps someone writing for a prestigious publication like Down Beat at that time may have either 1. been bitter about the fact that hard bop didn't 'advance' beyond bebop and perhaps they might argue that jazz 'digressed' to the more accessible blues influence of hard bop, or 2. they may have been more interested in new musical ideas opposed to 'feeling', to which an album like 1568 might fall short, which wouldn't necessarily imply that the critic think it's a sub-par album. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jun 14, 2015 14:34:02 GMT
I've been eyeing up Herbie Nichols' self-titled trio record at my local shop for a couple of weeks, but never got it. But a recommendation from you, Dott, is as good as any, so I'm going to get it. Can I ask, what's the sound quality of those "Complete Blue Note Recordings" like? I've seen a few lying around here and there, reasonably priced, and I'm especially interested in the Curtis Fuller one since even Japanese reissues of his Blue Notes are hard to come by. I don't own any but my understanding is that the mastering is quite well done. I'm not sure who did it but I know the project was produced by Michael Cuscuna and released on his label, Mosaic. I've also heard that the mastering is more 'natural' sounding than the typically more bold (compressed) mastering work of Rudy Van Gelder. They seem recommended in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jun 14, 2015 14:44:18 GMT
Can I ask, what's the sound quality of those "Complete Blue Note Recordings" like? sorry to say not so high, old story between RVG and piano..., in trio setting. the last of the five records is better. the music is very interesting indeed, worth while I actually think Van Gelder's piano sound in trio settings is more pleasing than in larger ensembles, which might have something to do with the fact that the piano isn't competing as much for energy both within the mix and in the recording studio. According the Jazz Discography Project, these dates were recorded in 1955 and 1956. In my opinion, Van Gelder was getting a good trio sound going back as far as 1953 (not long after he started recording for Blue Note), as evidenced by the even sound of the Elmo Hop Trio session from that year. The main difference I think one is likely to notice in Van Gelder's sound between '53 and, say, '57, is in the cymbals. The high frequency response of the recording technology improved over that time and one is likely to progressively hear more detail and definition in the cymbals. I'll revisit the early Herbie Nichols sessions based on your recommendation Dott, which I may have heard once. |
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Jun 14, 2015 14:56:01 GMT
Evan (diginjapan) asked about the quality of Complete Blue Note recordings... Do you mean the Mosaic boxes or the Blue Note issues - like say the Herbie Nichols - billed as Complete Recordings?
I'm not sure how they compare, but the Herbie Nichols that was being discussed gets a mighty thumbs up in the Penguin Guide, both for sound quality and overall presentation. I meant to buy it when it came out and forgot, and the last time I looked on Amazon even secondhand copies were demanding a ridiculous price....
Actually, on the subject of Herbie Nichols, the only recording I do have is the s/t trio: what other recordings would people recommend?
I did have the 70s Blue Note two-fer in the beige series which I didn't keep - now that, to my ears, sounded pretty awful and one of the discs in my set looked punched off-centre...
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jun 15, 2015 14:28:46 GMT
I've always been very interested in the subject of art criticism and I have a thing or two to say on this topic. I wouldn't be inclined to think of a professional music critic or anyone for that matter as a second-rate listener (I'm sure Dott could have predicted this coming based on the controversial choice of words). I'm guessing the review of 1568 was from Down Beat. I think it's valid for a professional jazz critic to give a lot of hard bop albums 3 stars or any other rating less than 'excellent'. That even goes for albums I love. It all depends on how the individual defines greatness. If they are rating based on personal preference, well of course everyone should be entitled to their opinion. But perhaps someone writing for a prestigious publication like Down Beat at that time may have either 1. been bitter about the fact that hard bop didn't 'advance' beyond bebop and perhaps they might argue that jazz 'digressed' to the more accessible blues influence of hard bop, or 2. they may have been more interested in new musical ideas opposed to 'feeling', to which an album like 1568 might fall short, which wouldn't necessarily imply that the critic think it's a sub-par album. i find the subject fascinating as well, rich. i am not in any way educated on the subject. just an observer. i don't necessarily think 3 stars is a poor rating in general. given a gaussian (bell curve) distribution, about 68% of records should receive 3/5 stars! it means 'average'. but that record to me is so much more than average. they gave 3 stars to bullshit like kenton back then. yuck. i begrudge no one their opinions of music, but in this one case i just can't handle how 'wrong' it is to me. |
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jun 15, 2015 19:54:37 GMT
I was too young to read critics' evaluations in the 50's but, since my late teens, I never looked after a good critic. I've elected me as my only critic. I've always accepted suggestions but I always judged a musician or a single record by myself. when I was learning about Jazz (and still am), no internet, no radio, no tv, very rare books. I used to go to record shops and listen. I was pushed by my love for jazz, had a huge will to know. I started with Trane and went on to almost all musicians from 50's to 60's. as I've been always travelling a lot, I visited all record shops I could find anywhere in Europe and USA and got in contact with other jazz fans, so we could have a good exchange of infos. I usually read Jazz/music magazines from England, France, Usa and Italy. I began to build my collection of books, mostly in English: now they are hundreds, and everyday I keep at least one out to look for something. I'm a good reader and I read more than a book at a time. one is always a Jazz book. what I wanted to learn was as much as possible about the music I liked best. I can say I did it and am satisfied.
question: how many, among millions who listen to music on a daily basis, like to learn something more than a pop song from the radio?
how many will be able to get out of hits charts? and have the desire to know something else?
it's so comfortable to stop to Lady Gaga or Madonna or U2, and don't go further. Jazz is difficult many say...
most people know nothing about Jazz, maybe some have heard the name of Armstrong.
it's to these people I was referring, second, third, fourth rate listeners.
guilt is ignorance, the one and only incurable illness.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jun 16, 2015 14:48:13 GMT
i have no problem with those who stick to the hits. everyone has hobbies. jazz is ours. they have different ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jun 16, 2015 17:41:36 GMT
it's ok BUT: anyone can judge what he knows, not the unknown. frequently I have to do with people who DON'T know anything about good music BUT who believe that good music is from radio/tv, that's all they know and don't mind about anything else.
it we consider Music like the universe, the more we look afar, the more we can find and appreciate.
most people sometimes look (briefly) upward and stop at the first cloud layer. I try to look higher and higher, try to go over the clouds: that's the real universe of Music.
that's where my pleasure in listening lays. I began building my voyage into good music more than 4 decades ago and still going on. it's very satisfying to find something new yet.
I consider myself a sort of spaceman into Good Music universe.
from a musical point of view I see most people from top to the bottom. very, very few try to raise their musical taste: they stop at peel.
astonishing that we, as Music spacemen, are so few.
|
|
