Dave Holland Quintet - Extended Play: Live at Birdland

[Clay Fink]

Available on the 26th. Yeehaaaa!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000A9DYQ/qid=1061223740/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/104-5643517-7962363?v=glance&s=music

[mke]

Customers interested in Dave Holland may also be interested in:
Sponsored Links (What's this?) Feedback

Hotels Holland from € 25
750 hotels in Amsterdam and Holland Book online, last minute discounts
www.Travel-Holland.com

Nice one, Amazon!

The cover seems a bit out of touch with the music as well as with recent DH album covers...

[jazzfiend]

Clay, you can snag the sucker from cd Universe for 18 smackers & some change.

[Stuckinagroove]

Dave has been on a roll of late, can't wait to hear them let loose live. It's almost a forgone conclusion that this disc will rock (errr... I mean, swing).

Pardon me while I wipe the drool off my face.

[HLJ]

Back in April me and My main man MicahW dug the Dave Holland Quintet at Roanoke College and all the Props this group got was sho-nuff up they are a Supergroup.When I dropped The "Extend Play" disc on the player,put on the heads,turn out the lights, closed my eyes Man it was like being at the set.THIS SHIT IS THE TRUTH!!Bands tighter than a pair of size 8 short/shorts on a size 16 ass.Eubanks solo on "Bedouin Trail" is Phat , Potter plays his ass off and the more I hear Billy Kilson on the skins I say there is none better.Steve Nelaon on vibes is way underrated and Holland as allways strong and steady.One of the best live albums I've every bought.Peace and all that.

[MRS]

Does Dave get a lot of solo time?

[HLAW]

Not a lot Mike he has a really good one on the last track on disc 2 "Metamorphos".I think he showing off his composing , arranging skills and leadership skills. Letting his band members abilities showoff his writing skills.Peace and all that

[Tanager]

I think one of the best things about Holland's group is the way they share not just solo space, but writing responsibilities as well. On the last studio side (Not for Nothin') by the 5tet, each of the band members other than Holland contributes a tune to the mix. It's nice to get such a mix of flavors, especially when they meld as well as they do with this group.

I'm a little over-budget this month for CDs, but I'll be picking this one up next month, to be sure. I'm really looking forward to it. I caught the group opening for Joshua Redman (whom I didn't particularly enjoy) in London back in July, and they were phenomenal. There isn't a weak link in the band for my $$$.

[gnhrtg]

Received this morning. Listened to the first two tracks of Disc 1, if the rest holds up, this will be a recommendation with no reservations whatsoever. Great interplay, great blowing, and great compositions (but of course, the last bit everyone knows without even picking up the set). And, though this might be due to me getting a much superior headphone recently, I can hear Holland more clearly than ever before. More on this later (as I listen).

P.S. Do check out Potter on the double-time section in track 2.

Edit: Just got through it first time and the second disc is every bit as good as the first one and Potter uses quotes more than I would have expected. This thread is not that active, I see, and I don't expect to see many posts other than a few just raving about this.

[Derek Taylor]

It’s a good ‘un, sho’ nuff.

Dave's funky intro on "Metamorphos" had me aping some mean air-doublebass.

[Robin Eubanks]

Hello All,

I just got back from Europe last night from a week of work with Dave's Big Band and Quintet.
It 's nice to read these comments. I have to listen to Extended Play some more.
I heard a test pressing a few month's ago, but not the finished product.

If I recall, the band sounds very good, but I don't like aspects of my playing too much. This is probably due to the fact that the recording is about 2 years old and I hope I've improved some since then. I recall thinking my solo on "Bedouin Trail" was interesting.
I have to listen to the CD again to comment further but I enjoy reading yours.

Feel free to comment on the" Ask Robin..." thread over in "Ask the Musicians", if you like.

-Robin

[Stuckinagroove]

I ordered this over a week ago and still don't have it!

[gnhrtg]

"I recall thinking my solo on "Bedouin Trail" was interesting."

It is, indeed (as, I think, is your playing overall in the set - though I'm sure that you're more discerning than me in this case).

[Robin Eubanks]

Hi gnhrtg,

Thanks for your comments.

I will say that once I listened to the officail cd and not a test pressing, I like my playing a bit more. The sound quality is nicer on the cd and although we've certainly had better nights,
I think this recording caputres the feel of the band in a live setting.

-Robin

[Brian P]

Robin,

You're interaction with Chris on the "Prime Directive" is incredible. This whole set of music is very inspiring. I can't even imagine what a "better night" would sound like!!! :) Thanks for the music.

[Robin Eubanks]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your post.... and you are welcome :-)

I love playing free open improvisation, like I do at the beginning of "Bedouin Trail".
I also enjoy doing it with other people.
The more people you have, the more dificult it is to communicate with everyone.
A duet setting like I do with Chris on Prime Directive is ideal because everything you do is "more", when you have another person to interact with.
Chris and I have been playing together for over 5 years now and we know each other very well musically. It feels like we're talking to each other when we play duo. However, for some reason, it works better when we play together, than it would if we were speaking to each other, at the same time. When we play like that, we listen, play and respond simultaneously.

-Robin

[Stuckinagroove]

Just go it today. First impression: it sounds fantastic, of course. It's nice to hear their studio compositions in a live context. Good sound quality for a live disc- and Kilson is killin'!

[Emankcin]

I heard Prime Directive on the radio and was really smitten by that sax/bone duet. (The impact of the song in general might have something to do with hearing the source of the BBS theme song) The way they ended up playing in unision really killed me. The pairing of the trombone and bass during the theme also struck me as both fresh and natural.

[Sand]

(one star)

Dave Holland Quintet Extended Play: Live at Birdland

, ECM
Stuart Nicholson is deeply unmoved by a technically perfect - and perfectly soulless - live workout.

Sunday October 19, 2003
The Observer

Here's a glimpse of the future; you tell me whether it works. Jazz as a music for a technocratic elite, a music speaking to itself - to jazz musicians, to jazz educators, music business types and jazz critics. Jazz as a touchstone of craft rather than creativity, a place where like-minded musicians gather to sharpen their skills to impress other musicians. All this seems possible listening to Extended Play , no doubt destined to be among the critics' picks of 2003.

Here is improvised music by four incredibly well educated young musicians, all virtuosi - Chris Potter on saxophones, Robin Eubanks on trombone, Steve Nelson on vibes and Billy Kilson on drums - under the stewardship of the respected elder statesman, poll-winner and bassist Dave Holland. Yet the music they play is so flawless it drives you insane.

You want men in white coats quietly to remove them from the stage and hotwire them to make the odd mistake or add an occasional touch of humanity. Its jazz-as-chamber-music ethos takes the (post-) bebop style to its logical extreme, where the music communicates nothing other than virtuosity itself.

The problem is that solos in this style of jazz - and this style consists almost entirely of solos - have long been so circumscribed technically it's now difficult for musicians to say anything new. Even as Dave Holland, Steve Nelson and Billy Kilson alternate two bars of this metre with two bars of that metre behind a Chris Potter or Robin Eubanks solo, they are limited by the syntax of style.

In 1965, Miles Davis recorded his groundbreaking quintet at the Plugged Nickel, a Chicago nightclub, in some of the greatest acoustic small group jazz ever recorded. But in so doing he all but exhausted the potential for further innovation as far as post-bebop jazz was concerned - Q: 'Where we go from here?' A: 'A new style entirely.' Accordingly, the jazz caravan struck camp and moved on. Now, musicians who return to this musical territory effectively become custodians of a style within well defined parameters so that technique becomes an end in itself to signify mastery within the genre. Yeah, man.

[Sand]

Uli may help me here...

[mke]

Are Robin, Chris, Steve and Billy really that "young"?

Personally, I don't see the connection between "flawless" and "soulless." I like many of the band's melodies a lot and I think that something than other than virtuosity is being communicated in the solos. I don't see that much of a relationship with Miles's 2nd Quintet.

[hermann]

wash your ears critizen
what you hear is what you think

[Uli]

Here you go, Sand:

On the right hand side at the bottom of your screen (with the skin i use) is a
scroll down box called Admin. Options. The creator of a thread can change the
title if he/she choses "edit thread".


btw I think Nicholson is full of it

[Pete C]

I think Nicholson's been reading too much Abbey.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, that's what happens after so many years of not having real working bands, for the most part. When the guy finally hears a real band that knows how to play together and interact on something other than standards, and do it very well, and very tightly, with precision -- he doesn't like it.

He probably wouldn't have dug the Jazz Messengers, either.

And of course there's always the unwritten law in the jazz world. If lots of people like the band, there must be something wrong with it.

[Tom Storer]

No, the other four members of the Holland quintet aren't exactly wet-behind-the-ears youngsters compared to Holland the "elder statesman."

Potter's the youngest at 32. Robin Eubanks and Steve Nelson are 47 or 48 (compared to Holland's 57). I couldn't find Kilson's date of birth, but he was at Berklee at the same time as Branford Marsalis, who graduated in 1980 - let's say Kilson left Berklee, at the latest, 20 years ago. Kilson must be in his early 40's.

It doesn't have much to do with the substance of Nicholson's article, but it's not terribly careful of him to characterize Eubanks and Nelson, veterans pushing 50, as "well-educated young musicians."

As to substance:

Jazz as a music for a technocratic elite, a music speaking to itself - to jazz musicians, to jazz educators, music business types and jazz critics

Yeah, all of us here who love the Holland quintet are a technocratic elite. Those of us who aren't musicians or educators must be music business types or jazz critics (unlike Nicholson). Right.

the music they play is so flawless it drives you insane

I don't know - I recall Robin saying it wasn't their best night, so perhaps it isn't quite the cold perfection Nicholson seems to hear. Personally, I don't mind flaws in music, but I don't demand them, either. "Listen to that melody! Not a single mistake! And the drummer kept the beat! What a bore!"

You want men in white coats quietly to remove them from the stage and hotwire them to make the odd mistake or add an occasional touch of humanity. Its jazz-as-chamber-music ethos takes the (post-) bebop style to its logical extreme, where the music communicates nothing other than virtuosity itself.

Well, he's entitled to his opinion. This band's music communicates a lot more to me than "gee, they play all fast and complicated." What I like about this group is its human warmth - its playfulness, its swing, its imagination. They're virtuosic as hell, but with an almost swaggering, at times, pleasure in it, and that's what's communicated. That's a perfectly valid part of skilled performance. Virtuosity can be soulless, but it can also be full of life and feeling.

As for "the (post-bebop) style," I wonder just what that is.

solos in this style of jazz - and this style consists almost entirely of solos - have long been so circumscribed technically it's now difficult for musicians to say anything new. Even as Dave Holland, Steve Nelson and Billy Kilson alternate two bars of this metre with two bars of that metre behind a Chris Potter or Robin Eubanks solo, they are limited by the syntax of style.

I'm no musician (despite my apparent membership in the "technocratic elite" Nicholson decries), but I just don't hear this band's music as "circumscribed" or "limited by the syntax of style." I think they manage a lot of freshness and freedom within a group style that is very distinctive.

[Miles Davis] all but exhausted the potential for further innovation as far as post-bebop jazz was concerned - Q: 'Where we go from here?' A: 'A new style entirely.' Accordingly, the jazz caravan struck camp and moved on. Now, musicians who return to this musical territory effectively become custodians of a style within well defined parameters so that technique becomes an end in itself to signify mastery within the genre.

What is he going on about? I'd like a musician to come in here and tell me if the Holland quintet's music is really "the same territory" as Miles' 60's quintet. Do the two bands really share "well-defined parameters"? Doesn't sound that way to me.

[hearsay]

I haven't heard this record yet, but this review reminds me of the one in Downbeat many years ago of Chick Corea's "Now He Sings NOw He Sobs". The critic gave it zero starts and said pretty much the same thing- that is was virtuosic but lacking any emotion. I can't remember that critic, but I seem to still remember that record.

[Nate Dorward]

Oh, well, Nicholson's simply like that. I picked up a copy of a UK jazzmag--I think Jazzwise--off a stand the other day & noticed that Nicholson's reviews were either pans or foaming-at-the-mouth raves. (The recipients of his one- or two-star reviews included Marty Ehrlich & Steve Lacy; of his four-star reviews, Bobby Previte, for Counterclockwise, which also got a feature-length article to itself: admittedly it's not a bad disc but Nicholson's anointing it as the future of jazz is ridiculous). Anyway, why get excited about what one cranky tineared git writes about anything? I haven't even heard the Holland disc yet but the review is patently a dumb one, because the guy can't even manage to make an original criticism--as hearsay points out the criticisms are threadbare hand-me-downs.

[Tom Storer]

Here's an imagined 1940's version:

"Here's a glimpse of the future; you tell me whether it works. Jazz as a music for a technocratic elite, a music speaking to itself - to jazz musicians, to jazz educators, music business types and jazz critics. Jazz as a touchstone of craft rather than creativity, a place where like-minded musicians gather to sharpen their skills to impress other musicians. All this seems possible listening to Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie Live, no doubt destined to be among the critics' picks of 1948.

Here is improvised music by five young musicians, all virtuosi - Charlie Parker on alto sax, Dizzy Gillespie on trumpet, Bud Powell on bass, Teddy Kotick on bass and Max Roach on drums. Yet the music they play is so flawless it drives you insane.

You want men in white coats quietly to remove them from the stage and hotwire them to make the odd mistake or add an occasional touch of humanity. Its jazz-as-chamber-music ethos takes the bebop style to its logical extreme, where the music communicates nothing other than virtuosity itself.

The problem is that solos in this style of jazz - and this style consists almost entirely of solos - are so circumscribed technically it's now difficult for musicians to say anything. Even as Roach and Powell add their pyrotechnic punctuations behind a Parker or Gillespie solo, they are limited by the syntax of style."

[Sergio Zamora]

I don't disagree with the abstract notions that he raises, but to say they apply this band seems way off, imo. I haven't heard this recording, but this band kicks all the ass in the World and gots soul to spare. That they achieve something close to technical perfection is not an isolated event, but a result of their close *human* interactions and their success in expressing a musical vision.

Yes, there are plenty of insanely virtuosic musicians and bands whose biggest fans are other musicians, but this is not one of them.

And I've said before that I like to hear mistakes, flaws, imperfections, and any other frailties in music. It reminds me that there's a human there. But part of the fun of hearing these flaws is to subsequently hear them overcome them. These guys have overcome them.


Originally posted by Sand
You want men in white coats

Lester?

[Jon Abbey]

so, Tom, just to be clear, you believe the quintet you cited and the Holland quintet occupy roughly equal places in the cultural worlds of 1948 and 2003, respectively?

[Pete C]

Post #6 was not a joke.

[kenny weir]

Interesting. A few months back Nicholson was in Melbourne in his role as a judge of the inuagural Australian Jazz Awards.

I had him on my radio show for an interview. It was entertaining but very frustrating. He came across as something of a politician in that his long-winded answers quite often had very little to do with the questions being asked. I had trouble getting a word in - like he was a faucet I couldn't turn off.

He had jet lag, having just arrived, but also had an agenda - the banruptcy of the American jazz scene. Whatever merit that his argument may have had was undercut by any acknowledgement of the many fantastic musical happenings occuring in the US away from the major labels and festivals.

And at least three or four times he referred to Michael Brecker with phrases such as the "greatest", "best", "most significant" jazz artist/saxophonist in the US (I forget the exact words). Fine player to be sure, but give Holland & Co any day!

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by Jon Abbey
so, Tom, just to be clear, you believe the quintet you cited and the Holland quintet occupy roughly equal places in the cultural worlds of 1948 and 2003, respectively?

No, I don't pretend to judge hierarchies of position in the "cultural worlds" of either era.

[Jon Abbey]

that certainly seemed to be your implicit point, thanks for clarifying.

[Sand]

I have not listened to “Extended Play” yet. The recording can’t be that far removed from the last three quintet recordings. It was pretty obvious that Nicholson had an agenda with his one-out-of-five stars review. He might even have had jetlag and a bad hair day as well.

Wait! A cup coffee while opening this thread did wonders. I suddenly remembered that I read something about Nicholson views a few days back, when I skimmed through the notes by Alyn Shipton (http://www.jazzforum.no/docs/news.php?n_id=151) from a Colloquium about “Education and Jazz” that took place at the end of September this year (#7 - Nicholson). The notes may give you more insights than you would expect...

[gnhrtg]

So Mr. Nicholson says that "they are limited by the syntax of style." - who I ask, in any musical genre let alone jazz, is not? Not that this should, for this reason, be omitted but simply that the statement applies to everyone as long as labeling is ubiquitous. It might apply in different degrees though Mr. Nicholson does not care to delve into this.

Mr. Nicholson also states that "[t]he problem is that solos in this style of jazz - and this style consists almost entirely of solos - have long been so circumscribed technically it's now difficult for musicians to say anything new." - Being circumscribed conceptually, and not technically, is what necessarily provides limitations around what you can "legitimately" say within any style. However, it might also be the case that these technical delineations might also come to be included under the conceptional ones; still, they are conceptual.

"Jazz as a touchstone of craft rather than creativity, a place where like-minded musicians gather to sharpen their skills to impress other musicians." - and what were the bebop lot doing when they first emerged? More generally, I don't think we can tell, unless we asked the artists, whether what we end up hearing (as in Ned Rothenberg's Intimations in "The Crux") is the result of an intention to show-off or solely the realization of the honest creative drives of the artists.

Oh, and I'm also very disturbed by the usage of "moving on" among jazz (also classical and more generally among art) critics which necessarily treats art as though it were science as though you had to objectively improve on/change what had been done before to make a worthwhile contribution which places variety (as far as I can tell), at the expense of other characteristics, as the core component of asthetics.

[Gary Sisco]

I would never take seriously any reviewer who says this band is treading the same waters as Miles2Q. That's simply ridiculous and, musically speaking, is gibberish on all counts. If he has actually listened to these CDs and can still make such a comparison with a straight face, he needs to find a different line of work, as he's doing the readers a disservice.

Well, such are the bothersome aspects of a free press. Anyone can spew.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by Jon Abbey
that certainly seemed to be your implicit point

Sorry, that's not what I had intended at all. My point was not to compare Holland and Parker but to show that, IMO, the criticism that can be summed up as "this music is too codified and virtuosic to communicate human feeling" is not a new one. Bebop, like the Holland quintet's music, got the same sort of reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if Louis Armstrong got the same reaction with the Hot Five. But although innovative music is perhaps most likely to provoke this criticism, especially if it involves greater technical sophistication than was previously the norm, it doesn't really matter how innovative or important the music is; it only has to be perceived as more abstract or "technical" to get this kind of reaction.

And that criticism isn't necessarily unwarranted. It's just that it's kind of facile and should, IMO, be accompanied by more detailed and personal commentary from the reviewer if it hopes to give any insight.

[John L]

Originally posted by Jon Abbey
so, Tom, just to be clear, you believe the quintet you cited and the Holland quintet occupy roughly equal places in the cultural worlds of 1948 and 2003, respectively?

the Diz-Bird quintet occupied a much lower place in the cultural world of 1948. In fact, it didn't exist in 1948.

[mke]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
I would never take seriously any reviewer who says this band is treading the same waters as Miles2Q. That's simply ridiculous and, musically speaking, is gibberish on all counts. If he has actually listened to these CDs and can still make such a comparison with a straight face, he needs to find a different line of work, as he's doing the readers a disservice.
Exactly.

From the link Sand provided:

"America was criticised for its canonical approach, and Europe praised for its more eclectic culture, with greater freedom and openness."

Mr. Nicholson seems to like to work in broad brushes, as the participants in the Norwegian jazz forum commented afterwards: "A lively discussion followed, in which the point was made in different ways that not all American teaching complied with the description given, any more than all European teaching did."

I can add my own anecdote: I interviewed a baritonist over here who spent 5 years at the Dutch Hilversum Conservatory and he said that it was great technically, but was very narrowly and rigidly focussed on bop.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by John L
the Diz-Bird quintet occupied a much lower place in the cultural world of 1948. In fact, it didn't exist in 1948.

There you go intellectualizing again. Try to just feel that imaginary 1948 quintet. What are you, part of the technocratic elite?

[Chris D]

Anyone who says Holland's band is technocratic and then sings the praises of Michael Brecker -- a fine player but a technician if there ever was one -- either has no ears or choses to ignore what those ears are hearing.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

In my experiences seeing and playing straight ahead jazz music, this fellow is spot-on.

straight ahead jazz in 2003 IS chamber music. it's choked itself with its own bullshit rules.

[John L]

Originally posted by Tom Storer
There you go intellectualizing again. Try to just feel that imaginary 1948 quintet. What are you, part of the technocratic elite?

Mmmmm! Feels good! No more technocratic poll winning virtuoso redoing-Miles-in-the-60s David Holland music for me. :D

[Mike Schwartz]

I was checking this thread for the latest entries, and hadn't noticed until just now that this cat's review gives the 2CD set 1* [one star]

Getting out of the way that these things are all subjective, what he dislikes, I might love...yadda yadda, etc. etc....this guy is an IDIOT

Holland, Eubanks, Nelson, Potter, & Kilson don't have a 1 star CD in them, even if they flew into NY from the far east, straight to the venue, all five of them burning up with high temperature with the flu [well, maybe under those conditions they might do a 2 star]

I don't pay any attention to star ratings so far as decision making in going to a movie or aquiring a CD, but wouldn't 1* be a horrible recording?

I understand from what he writes that this stuff somehow leaves him feeling 'cold', but to use his own words "...where the music communicates nothing more than virtuosity itself" CANNOT BE A 1, presumably out of 4 or 5

Virtuoso perfomance and 1* ratings don't fit

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by Salvador Dali Lama
straight ahead jazz in 2003 IS chamber music. it's choked itself with its own bullshit rules.

A) Just what rules are you talking about?

B) What's wrong with chamber music?

[Gary Sisco]

First off, DHQ doesn't play "straight ahead" by any historical measure of the term, or even close. They rarely swing in the traditional 4/4 manner for more than a few bars, to name one huge difference. The time signatures they use weren't (and aren't) used in straight head. Steve Nelson's harmonic approach certainly isn't "straight ahead." And Billy Kilson's drumming is nowhere near that style of jazz drumming. Many of Holland's compositions are informed by musics other than jazz, especially rhythmically. Robin of course is schooled in bop, as is Potter, but he's also very much his own man. If the we want to call it mainstream today, it's fine with me and, in fact, I'm ecstatic if mainstream jazz is now represented by DHQ, which apparently it is, since it's certainly one of the top few favorites of many jazz fans, and one of jazz's very few real working bands in existence. But "straight ahead"? No way.

I've had the great fortune to have heard DHQ live three times in as many cities, and the kicked butt all three times, and all three shows were different, even if there was some overlap in the set lists (and not much, really -- I've heard people with indisputable "a.g." cred play shows that were a lot more similar to each other, actually, than DHQ's).

I'm glad they have a live release out now, and gladder that it's two discs. And I'm superglad that Kilson on the new one is way up in the mix as he is at gigs. Murderous. Great stuff.

[Gary Sisco]

And by the way, when was there a time when jazz *wasn't* a "music speaking to itself" and the rest of the jazz world? Certainly not in Dizzy's day, as the reviewer implies. Bebop was hardly popular music in 1948. Hell, hardly anyone in the world had even heard it, yet, and most of the jazz world that had, didn't like it and considered it too far out. Some went so far as to not even consider it music.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+AA++A+A+A+AA++A+A+AA+

[Gary Sisco]

My favorite live band. What can I say? Instantly on my year's end list.