Jazz Gem Made in '57 Is a Favorite of 2005

[Mike Schwartz]

December 21, 2005
Critic's Notebook
Jazz Gem Made in '57 Is a Favorite of 2005

By BEN RATLIFF
My favorite jazz record released this year, and one of my favorites of any year, was made in 1957. I first heard "Thelonious Monk Quartet With John Coltrane at Carnegie Hall" (Blue Note) at the Library of Congress in April, after the news of its discovery had been made public. It sounded pretty good then, but you can never really tell when hearing something over a high-quality sound system in front of interested parties. I have listened to it repeatedly since, and it seems to be much better than I first thought - solid, juicy, truly great.

Another of the year's new jazz records - John Coltrane's "One Down, One Up: Live at the Half Note" (Impulse) - was made in 1965. It disqualifies itself from consideration for my list of the year's best jazz albums only because it has been heard, in bits and pieces, on illegal tapes for 40 years. (I got mine from a great saxophonist who wanted to spread the word.) But it is also, I think, a masterpiece.

There's a reason why these records stand out as the year's best, and I get the sense that many people feel they know that reason.

They believe, or have heard, that jazz crinkled up and collapsed after Coltrane. That the musicians have defaulted on audiences, going deep into their own heads instead. That there's been no successor, because Coltrane broke the mold, threw away the key, set the bar too high, stretched the envelope as far as it would go, established a holding pattern, and other truth-obscuring clichés.

It would simplify things, but no. In fact, I don't think the reason has much to do with Coltrane per se - other than the obvious fact that he made superior music. (He did create a few stock models in jazz that persisted for an impressively long period after his death, but that's a different matter.)

These are among the year's great albums because they are high-quality proofs of one of jazz's basic properties: the possibility for transcendence on the gig, for a great band to be even better. This is true in any kind of music, but it is much more true in jazz.

There are a lot of great jazz musicians in New York, and in the world. But the number of great and economically sustainable bands has declined, along with an international audience and a circuit of clubs that encourages those bands to feel a sense of competition, and opportunities for those bands to play repeatedly for regular audiences in the same small places. A. J. Liebling once wrote that French food declined after World War I with the rise of highway driving, since small restaurants weren't committed to satisfying the same clientele night after night. Instead, they could serve the same dishes and not worry about improvement; regular waves of new diners would chew away, unaware of the stasis.

In a way, the same goes for jazz. Both bands, the Monk-Coltrane Quartet of 1957 and the Coltrane Quartet of 1965, had places in New York to take root. Monk and Coltrane played as many as 75 nights within a five-month stretch at the Five Spot Cafe in the East Village. The Coltrane Quartet played 14 weeks at the Half Note in the span of a year, from spring 1964 to spring 1965. Fourteen. It was a different time in many ways: it seems that anytime I meet someone who saw either of those bands at those clubs, they won't say that they went once, as if to cross it off a list; they went twice or three times a week, as part of their lives. (No Internet. No TiVo. Cheap rent. No risk of being thought a loser if you liked to go to jazz clubs at night.)

So there were hundreds of new jazz records this year that weren't as good? It gets forgotten, so it needs repeating: the studio is an unreliable gauge of what the best jazz groups are really up to, even at the highest levels.

Monk's quartet with Coltrane recorded three songs in the studio in summer 1957, at the beginning of that band's short existence. They can be heard on "Thelonious Monk With John Coltrane" (Riverside/Fantasy). They're very good, and they contain a newly advanced Coltrane. But they are dry-runs when set next to the 51 minutes from Carnegie Hall, which were discovered for the first time in January.

The Carnegie tape comes from late November 1957, after five rigorous months of Five Spot gigs, toward the end of the band's six-month life. (Very little taped material of this band in that year at the Five Spot, and with low fidelity, is known to exist.) On the Carnegie album the band is relaxed, limber, magnetic; the tempos are more wakeful. Compare the tune "Nutty" between the studio and stage versions, and you will hear it quickly. Coltrane has become agile, finding a flexible way of running his original patterns. Monk balances an inscrutable serenity against driving, almost violent figures. And everything coming from Shadow Wilson, the drummer, is to be savored: he guards and upholds the groove, while building small, richly detailed accents around it.

But the band ended a little more than a month later, and contractual issues between Coltrane and Monk's record labels made it impossible for them to record again. We're lucky to have this.

The Coltrane "One Down, One Up" recordings were made by the radio station WABC-FM, in 1965, for a radio show called "Portraits in Jazz" with Alan Grant. Even more than the Monk-Coltrane recording, the music is completely based in the rhetoric of the band's live performances; it is a different discipline entirely from studio recordings. The longest piece on the Monk-Coltrane, "Sweet and Lovely," is nine and a half minutes; the title track of "One Down, One Up" runs to nearly 28. The Coltrane band had been playing pieces at this length for at least four years, but was still making fairly structured music in the studio. What we hear is a band's shared language in its highest period; Coltrane and the drummer Elvin Jones rarely sounded more individually free, and still elastically tethered to each other.

The same principle has generated other good records this year, too. An excellent, previously unknown Charlie Parker-Dizzy Gillespie concert from 1945, released on Uptown Records. A new Wynton Marsalis record, "Live at the House of Tribes," recorded in front of an audience of 50 - his best, to a certain way of thinking, since "Live at Blues Alley" in 1986. And coming in February, a recording from 1996 of the Omer Avital Sextet at Smalls, an excellent band of its moment that played hundreds of nights at that tiny club and never got to put out a record properly during its life.

Whenever history tells you that a masterpiece was recorded in the studio on a certain day at a certain hour - Charlie Parker's "Koko," Pat Metheny's "Bright Size Life," Ornette Coleman's "Shape of Jazz to Come" - it's probably not a patch on what those groups did later that night.

This is how jazz works. It is not a volume business. (Its essence is the opposite of business.) Its greatest experiences are given away cheaply, to rooms of 50 to 200 people. Literature and visual art are both so different: the creator stands back, judges a fixed object, then refines or discards before letting the words go to print, or putting images to walls. A posthumously found Hemingway novel is never as good as what he judged to be his best work. But in jazz there is always the promise that the art's greatest examples - even by those long dead - may still be found.

[Gary Sisco]

I agree with his remarks about the unreliability of studio recordings as documentations of musical history. The studio can and often does lie. Many more factors, time included, come into play than what the cats are up to, musically. Another Coltrane example would be to listen to the Live At VV recordings and compare them to the studio releases of the same time.

[Steve Reynolds]

will be listening to both the Monk/Coltrane and Coltrane Quartet recordings within the next few weeks


and I was with ratliff until he mentioned something about a Wynton record - what does that have to do with the dead legends?

and maybe they are the best things to come out last year - I don't know - havn't heard that much - but there are things recorded in the past 10 - 30 years that stand up to the grand masters - the argument can be made that it isn't quite the same - and on some level, this is true

but if one is looking to Wynton or Omar Avital to make music that transcends time - like the great music made by Monk, Coltrane, Miles, Mingus, Powell, Ellington, etc. - then one is looking in the wrong direction

if one takes a listen to, let's say, Hemingway's "Demon Chaser" or maybe Clusone's "I Am An Indian", I say they stand on par with the supposed only great ones





Slamadam, baby

[Gary Sisco]

Oh, man. Let's forget the HWSNBN Road forever. How about that for a new year resolution?

[Steve Reynolds]

how would I know about what?

the stuff by Coltrane/Coltrane-Monk?

I have a pretty damn good idea that I am going to love these recordings


my point is why would he use Wynton recent live release in this discussion

the answer is simple - he always has to talk about his guy as if he is in the continuum - fact is, he never was in it and never will be in it- he has littel to do with anything that came from guys like Monk and Trane


only in his mind and in minds like Ratliff's

[Gary Sisco]

No, no, no. Take the detour. Really.

[Steve Reynolds]

point made, Gary

I'll try - but I was actually enjoying Ratliff's piece until that silly portion appeared - I just don't understand why his name has to sneak into an article/discussion that he has nothing to do with...

[stonemonkts]

ok. uncle (I cry).

I'll delete my post in a minute. I'm with Gary.

sorry I said anything

[Gary Sisco]

Sweet relief.....

[lkaven]

Originally Posted by Steve Reynolds

[...]but if one is looking to Wynton or Omar Avital to make music that transcends time - like the great music made by Monk, Coltrane, Miles, Mingus, Powell, Ellington, etc. - then one is looking in the wrong direction

This article is similar to a conversation that I had with Ratliff a couple of weeks before. I talked about how the history of jazz is mistakenly identified (tacitly anyway) with the history of recordings, but that really the history of jazz is found in night after night of sessions, few of which are recorded as other than memories, and often remembered by only a (key) few. I hold Frank Hewitt as an example of someone whose achievements as now recognized imply a retrospective rewriting of the last few years of jazz piano history to whatever degree.

The Omer Avital recordings in question are mine, and I used them as an example of something that existed as far as anyone knew until now only as memories. They are documents of many nights at Smalls, and they help to make a point about where the life blood of jazz is. It is more in places like Smalls, and less in the academic institutions or the record labels for that matter. I built my label around a living scene for that reason and also to make a point as well.

This Avital group, the sextet of the mid 90s, was a nexus for the development of the contemporary group sound. A number of saxophonists came through that band and were influenced by it beyond their tenure there. Mark Turner, Greg Tardy, Myron Walden, Charles Owens, Joel Frahm, Jimmy Greene, Grant Stewart, and Jay Collins were all regular members at one time or another before they became well known. Over time, it stands out to me as one of the few contemporary groups of significance, though I'll leave it up to the listener to judge to what degree in the context of history. A lot of contemporary work of the last ten years sounds sterile and dry to me, or overly simplistic and self-indulgent. But this group did not strike me that way. It often has a great deal of dramatic force.

I was somewhat surprised by the very strong advance critical notice on this disk from all sides, and I'm still weighing its significance. The storytelling nature of Avital's early writing with the dramatic presentation, and the four saxophones as dramatis personae, gives it a musical dimension that is lacking in much of what is presented today. Many musicians today are adept at combining forms in an eclectic fashion, but very seldom synthesize something beyond that.

Luke

[Gary Sisco]

It's the same with all forms of music, the many times false history of music presented by its recorded history, alone. It wasn't all that long ago that almost all music when unrecorded, while it seems to be nearly the opposite case today, when, arguably, too much gets recorded. The real history is always what's happened live, and, I agree, most of the real history gets heard by those who were there -- or not.

But great music is great music, regardless of when it was performed or recorded, and this band with Monk and Coltrane played great music. This might become my favorite of all Monk recordings on my shelf.

[Nate Dorward]

Yeah, the Avital record is a killer -- Luke was kind enough to send me an advance CDR of some of the tracks & it'll really be worth the wait, folks. Catches Mark Turner at a good phase in his playing (somehow I've not been that taken with his more recent stuff), among other things. What's Avital up to nowadays Luke?

I don't buy the "studios are sterile, live recordings are always better" line. It's as half-true as the old Beat slogan "First thought, best thought", & there's a similarity to the ideas too.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Steve Reynolds

will be listening to both the Monk/Coltrane and Coltrane Quartet recordings within the next few weeks


and I was with ratliff until he mentioned something about a Wynton record - what does that have to do with the dead legends?

and maybe they are the best things to come out last year - I don't know - havn't heard that much - but there are things recorded in the past 10 - 30 years that stand up to the grand masters - the argument can be made that it isn't quite the same - and on some level, this is true

but if one is looking to Wynton or Omar Avital to make music that transcends time - like the great music made by Monk, Coltrane, Miles, Mingus, Powell, Ellington, etc. - then one is looking in the wrong direction

if one takes a listen to, let's say, Hemingway's "Demon Chaser" or maybe Clusone's "I Am An Indian", I say they stand on par with the supposed only great ones





Slamadam, baby

I thought it was a fine article. Steve, you are looking for straw men. Ratliff didn't say that WM's music stands up to Coltrane's. He said that WM's two best releases in the last 20 years were both live dates.

Now what do "Demon Chaser" and "I am an Indian", both very good records have to do with the theme of Ratliff's article? I'll answer for you, absolutely nothing.

[Steve Reynolds]

my only point is that even if the studio recordings are not representative of what bands are capable of - that so many recent or fairly recent studio or live releases (Indian is live, Demon Chaser is not) exist that guys like Ratliff or the mainstream press don't even consider as part of what matters - and the Avital stuff might be fantastic - maybe it is a part of the story - but isn't Mujician part of the story as well?

but it isn't because it isn't known by the guy who writes for the Times - or it is deemed somwhow unimportant or out of the loop

if these are considered, it would change their story of the history of this music

but in Ratliff's NYC centric world of jazz, none of that matters - what has always mattered are the blue notes, the verve releases - the scene as he sees it - an altered reality that only exists in his mind

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Steve Reynolds

my only point is that even if the studio recordings are not representative of what bands are capable of - that so many recent or fairly recent studio or live releases (Indian is live, Demon Chaser is not) exist that guys like Ratliff or the mainstream press don't even consider as part of what matters - and the Avital stuff might be fantastic - maybe it is a part of the story - but isn't Mujician part of the story as well?

but it isn't because it isn't known by the guy who writes for the Times - or it is deemed somwhow unimportant or out of the loop

if these are considered, it would change their story of the history of this music

but in Ratliff's NYC centric world of jazz, none of that matters - what has always mattered are the blue notes, the verve releases - the scene as he sees it - an altered reality that only exists in his mind

The range of music that Ratliff listens to is much wider than you credit him. He is writing for the New York Times, not the Jazz Corner. He'll more effectively make his point to NYT readers by referring to Wynton Marsalis than Paul Dunmall.

[Mike Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

The range of music that Ratliff listens to is much wider than you credit him. He is writing for the New York Times, not the Jazz Corner. He'll more effectively make his point to NYT readers by referring to Wynton Marsalis than Paul Dunmall.

Well stated...as history here simply repeats itself.

It's a pretty decent article, which is why I posted it, but as those on the JC boards can attest to, most musician references that are not *USDA Reynolds approved* have a pretty good chance of being rejected;:-)

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Steve Reynolds

so many recent or fairly recent studio or live releases (Indian is live, Demon Chaser is not) exist that guys like Ratliff or the mainstream press don't even consider as part of what matters

I get your point, but, dude, both of the records you've picked as examples are over 10 years old--not particularly "recent"!

[Jon Abbey]

disclaimers: Ben is one of my best friends, I was at his house for a party just last weekend. and I've always believed that the financial ties between the NY Times and Lincoln Center (the Times corporation is one of their biggest sponsors) make the overabundant coverage of Lincoln Center events and Wynton pretty dubious journalistically, which I've told Ben more than a few times over the years. I still find it stunning to this day that announcements of upcoming Lincoln Center calendars merit actual articles in the Times.

but Steve, there's no reason to get all in a tizzy about this piece. Ben believes that his main job at the Times is to cover the US jazz tradition, but that doesn't stop him from paying attention to other things entirely. he's reviewing Otomo's new Out To Lunch disc in the paper next week, for instance (assuming it actually runs). and his Wynton example seemed perfectly relevant in the context of that piece (although I personally still have major issues with believing a genre is still vital where the best "new" record is almost 50 years old).

he's fully aware of the guys in Mujician, he just doesn't think they're very interesting, something musical that he and I can agree on actually.

[lkaven]

Originally Posted by Nate Dorward

What's Avital up to nowadays Luke?

He's got a working quintet at the moment with Mark Turner, Avishai Cohen (the trumpet player), Aaron Goldberg, and Ali Jackson. There are some collaborations from Israel involving a young pianist named Omri that I'm supposed to hear in a minute. And he's been working on an opera with libretto by Ari Roland's father Alan. I'm planning to record the quintet live in Jan at Fat Cat.

[Gary Sisco]

I don't always agree with Ratliff (or anyone) but he does listen to a lot of music, and he can also write.

Sometimes after the New Year the Times writers are allowed to write about the more "obscure" or surprising stuff they heard and liked through the year. Those are usually more interesting than their standard fare. Working writers are still working people. They have bosses to answer to as well as a public, but it's the bosses who sign the paychecks, so, like most, they answer first to the boss. There's no mystery, there. No mystery about the financial connections, either, but that too is out of the writers' control. Ratliff was a step up and forward for NYT when he signed on, I've thought.

[Jon Abbey]

Kelefa Sanneh is doing an incredible job for the Times, I think, best mainstream music writer since I don't know when.

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

and I've always believed that the financial ties between the NY Times and Lincoln Center (the Times corporation is one of their biggest sponsors) make the overabundant coverage of Lincoln Center events and Wynton pretty dubious journalistically, which I've told Ben more than a few times over the years. I still find it stunning to this day that announcements of upcoming Lincoln Center calendars merit actual articles in the Times.

I'm not following. Is the NY Times Corp merely sponsors? Or are they investors? Because if they are sponsors, and not financially benefitting from it, what's the big deal? Lincoln Center is one the most important cultural institutions in the city and the world, why shouldn't it receive a lot of attention? Seems like most local readers of the Times might want to have such information.

Even if if the Times were investors, it still seems utterly reasonable that they should focus a lot of attention on Lincoln Center events.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Ratliff was a step up and forward for NYT when he signed on, I've thought.

I agree. He's much better than Peter Watrous.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by achilles

I'm not following. Is the NY Times Corp merely sponsors? Or are they investors? Because if they are sponsors, and not financially benefitting from it, what's the big deal? Lincoln Center is one the most important cultural institutions in the city and the world, why shouldn't it receive a lot of attention? Seems like most local readers of the Times might want to have such information.

Even if if the Times were investors, it still seems utterly reasonable that they should focus a lot of attention on Lincoln Center events.

a lot, fine, but they really push it. like I said, they run articles when the upcoming LC schedules are announced, basically just reprinting the PRs. and there's of course also the question of how much of "local readers of the Times wanting to have such information" is because the Times has given it their imprimatur. what makes them "one of the most important cultural institutions in the city and the world", specifically the jazz component? it's not because they're presenting the best music in NY, that's for sure, even the most serious fans of those musicians would rather see them in downtown clubs like the Vanguard.

basically, I just think they go a little too far, maybe 20 percent, and I always have.

[Rob Damen]

Ahhhhh, nothing like the fresh scent of denial!



Cheers,

Rob

[Jon Abbey]

This message is hidden because Rob Damen is on your ignore list.

[Rob Damen]

Thanks for the confirmation.



Merry X-Mas!

Cheers,

Rob

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

a lot, fine, but they really push it. like I said, they run articles when the upcoming LC schedules are announced, basically just reprinting the PRs. and there's of course also the question of how much of "local readers of the Times wanting to have such information" is because the Times has given it their imprimatur. what makes them "one of the most important cultural institutions in the city and the world", specifically the jazz component? it's not because they're presenting the best music in NY, that's for sure, even the most serious fans of those musicians would rather see them in downtown clubs like the Vanguard.

basically, I just think they go a little too far, maybe 20 percent, and I always have.

Nothing personal, Jon, but that's just nonsense.
Lincoln Center events feature a lot more than jazz, as you know, and one doesn't haven't to like any of their programming to recognize the importance of what goes on there.

Now dubious? Your old employer TIME running cover stories on films and cds that are released by the very same company that TIME is part of, now that's some dubious shit. Plenty of dubious shit in journalism. I just don't see the NYT focusing a lot of attention on Lincoln Center to be a problem.

[letchhausen]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

It's the same with all forms of music, the many times false history of music presented by its recorded history, alone. It wasn't all that long ago that almost all music when unrecorded, while it seems to be nearly the opposite case today, when, arguably, too much gets recorded. The real history is always what's happened live, and, I agree, most of the real history gets heard by those who were there -- or not.

Can you expand on this? Because to me, the idea that the recorded history is false history sounds, uhh specious at best. I understand that you're pointing to specific occasions where the recorded legacy doesn't match the live historical record (obviously recorded by someone's anecdotal evidence - reviews etc) but when you say the real history is always what's happened live, you seem to take the prior statement to be universal. To me the so-called "real" history is made up of all these things. Definitely for other forms of music the recorded legacy is often the point and very often the best part.

[Gary Sisco]

It goes back to what I said earlier. Not so long ago, almost nothing was recorded, compared to what was played, and very often, what was recorded was also controlled more by the record-company people than the musicians (unless they were very large names, indeed, and many times they were told what to do as well). Today nearly everything seems to get recorded. It's still a matter of scale, of course,but by comparison to previous times, it's nearly the opposite situation.

So people who weren't actually on the scene (whatever genre, not just jazz) to hear the music being played live, and who therefore form their view of music history via recordings, are often misled by them. It's not a conspiracy. It's just a fact. A lot less got recorded while just as much got played, and the musicians had much less say about what did get recorded, by comparison, so the recorded history is misleading in that regard also.

It's not an amazing insight if you stop to think about it. For example: compare what Coltrane & Co. was playing live at the VV in '61 to his recordings of the time (under his own name or with others). If those live recordings were not available and all you had to go by was Coltrane's studio releases of the same time, you'd have a much different and less accurate picture of what Coltrane was up to in '61.

That's all.

In the best of cases, what recordings give us is a collection of snapshots or still photos taken out of context from a film strip. We get to hear those little bits of a much larger, often different, whole.

In pop music there's an additional twist; that being that many of the things recorded in the studio are studio productions that many couldn't reproduce live with a pistol to their heads, because live, you get one shot, in the moment, and nothing more. You don't get a whole bunch of takes from which to draw and combine with studio techniques to get the finished product.

Here's a major example: Pet Sounds (and other Beach Boys hits) With very minor exceptions scattered across the record, Brian Wilson was the only Beach Boy to play on it (as opposed to singing on it). The rest is played by studio aces. Indeed, everything but the vocals was recorded before most of the rest of the band had even heard the (at the time) new material. Some, Mike Love in particular, stupidly, didn't like it or want to do it, even, much less release it.

So, technically it's a Beach Boys record but in reality it's a Brian Wilson And Others studio production.

Coltrane's solo on "Someday My Prince Will Come" was overdubbed after the band had recorded the rest of the parts, Coltrane having left Miles's band by then, but Miles wanted to hear him on that one because of its song structure, rather than Hank Mobley, who was in Miles's band of the time.

Etc. The recorded history is misleading in ways like that. What it is is a history of recordings more than of music.

That's all.

But to me, live music has always been the real thing, and still is. Recordings, at best, are a convenient substitute.