Eric Dolphy's Legacy

[crawjo]

A Proposition:

In terms of technique, Eric Dolphy exercised a greater influence on avant-garde saxophonists than any other player of his generation, including John Coltrane.

Discuss.

(I recognize that there are a bunch of terms in that statement that have very broad definitions which can be interpreted in multiple ways, but for now I will leave it at that.)

[Paul B]

Not sure that Dolphy was more technically advanced than many in his generation (Lacy, Giuffre, Coleman, Ayler) as far as finding new terrain on the saxophone, though he obviously had his own voice. His influence on saxophonists does not eclipse Coltrane's, and I'm not sure that he really developed any original ideas about improvisation or composition that would make him an innovator in those arenas.

He was a helluva of a horn and bass clarinet player, though.

Bye-ya

[Gentle Giant]

What I think is striking about Dolphy is that any session he was on became Dolphy-esque. He could never just be a sideman adding his voice to the leader's vision. His style was such that the date took on his perspective, regardless of whose date it was.

As but one example, compare Andrew Hill's Black Fire (sans Dolphy) and Point of Departure (with Dolphy) (both recordings feature Henderson on tenor and Richard Davis on bass; Kenny Dorham plays on POD). Granted, the drummers are notably different (Roy on the former and Tony on the latter) and that may indeed be because Hill wanted to open up the music on POD, but these two sessions - recorded only 144 days apart - are markedly different in vibe, structure, and approach. Playing alto, flute, and bass clarinet, Dolphy all but takes over the POD session.

[Ron Thorne]

Excellent point, gg!

His early work with Chico Hamilton's Quintet echoes this dynamic, too. He was simply, unmistakably . . . infectious.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Granted, the drummers are notably different (Roy on the former and Tony on the latter)

Yes, but there is much Roy at the core of Tony.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Yes, but there is much Roy at the core of Tony.

Excellent observation, Mr. Cherches!

[Pete C]

I'm pretty sure Roy retained a Boston connection and was somewhat of a mentor to Tony, no?

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I'm pretty sure Roy retained a Boston connection and was somewhat of a mentor to Tony, no?

I'm pretty sure of that, too, but Alan Dawson was truly Tony's mentor, without question.

Edit: Max Roach was also very influential in young Tony's life.

[Frisco]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Not sure that Dolphy was more technically advanced than many in his generation (Lacy, Giuffre, Coleman, Ayler) as far as finding new terrain on the saxophone, though he obviously had his own voice. His influence on saxophonists does not eclipse Coltrane's, and I'm not sure that he really developed any original ideas about improvisation or composition that would make him an innovator in those arenas.
He was a helluva of a horn and bass clarinet player, though.
Bye-ya

I agree. Dolphy was a remarkable musician, had that infectious sound and approach that Ron refers to, and was definitely one of the greats on his instruments. One of my all-time favorites. But, like Paul says, I'm not sure that he had anything all that innovative happening. Braxton referred to that thought as well in one of his books. He basically grouped artists into three categories. One being the innovators, the singular voices in music who developed unique ideas to improvised music. The second group being those who expanded upon the established idiom, and the third group those who copied the style. He placed Dolphy in that second group.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Frisco

I agree. Dolphy was a remarkable musician, had that infectious sound and approach that Ron refers to, and was definitely one of the greats on his instruments. One of my all-time favorites. But, like Paul says, I'm not sure that he had anything all that innovative happening. Braxton referred to that thought as well in one of his books. He basically grouped artists into three categories. One being the innovators, the singular voices in music who developed unique ideas to improvised music. The second group being those who expanded upon the established idiom, and the third group those who copied the style. He placed Dolphy in that second group.

That's interesting, because sometimes I hear Dolphy in Braxton's playing. Sometimes. Also, those three categories seem really oversimplified. I'm not sure what, exactly, makes Coltrane an innovator while Dolphy was someone who expanded upon something already established. That expansion, to me, is precisely where innovation lies.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I'm not sure that he really developed any original ideas about improvisation or composition that would make him an innovator in those arenas.

As nothing more than a fan, I don't know that I can agree with this at all.

The sounds that came out of that mans horns was certainly different from what had come before. You are correct when you mention a few contemporaries who were onto the same thing, but I'm not sure that means they did it first, or better for that matter. They all had a unique voice, and I still find Eric's to be the most unique(on alto, anyway).

But, I will agree that he did not have a larger influence than Coltrane. Hell, that's not even worthy of discussion in my book. You may have a scant few that explore some of Dolphy's habits, like the aforementioned Braxton, Lyons, etc. but it's been nearly impossible to hear anyone who picks up a tenor not rip some Coltrane licks.

I've been listening to Kenny Garrett the last couple of days, and although he's on the smaller horn, HE plays a lot more like Coltrane with little, to no, Dolphy noted in his style.

Then again, perhaps the question isn't as moot as I previously thought if you ask yourself how much influence Eric had on Coltrane.

A Love Supreme.

Indeed.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Yes, but there is much Roy at the core of Tony.

Granted, but there's a way that Tony plays with time that is distinctively his own, and better suited to a more exploratory style of group improvisation than Roy (whom I also love), IMO. Hentoff's notes in POD quote Hill remarking on what freer Tony's approach offers the band.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

As nothing more than a fan, I don't know that I can agree with this at all.

The sounds that came out of that mans horns was certainly different from what had come before. You are correct when you mention a few contemporaries who were onto the same thing, but I'm not sure that means they did it first, or better for that matter. They all had a unique voice, and I still find Eric's to be the most unique(on alto, anyway).

But, I will agree that he did not have a larger influence than Coltrane. Hell, that's not even worthy of discussion in my book. You may have a scant few that explore some of Dolphy's habits, like the aforementioned Braxton, Lyons, etc. but it's been nearly impossible to hear anyone who picks up a tenor not rip some Coltrane licks.

I've been listening to Kenny Garrett the last couple of days, and although he's on the smaller horn, HE plays a lot more like Coltrane with little, to no, Dolphy noted in his style.

Then again, perhaps the question isn't as moot as I previously thought if you ask yourself how much influence Eric had on Coltrane.

A Love Supreme.

Indeed.

That's why I limited my statement to avant-garde players. I'm not interested in mainstream guys who play like Coltrane. I'm interested in free/avant-garde players (a tricky term, I know), guys who were pushing the envelope. It seems to me that Coltrane spawned a lot of imitators...something about his spiritual approach to playing jived well with the zeitgeist of the 1960s, but my thought was that Dolphy may have inspired more innovators.

[Paul B]

Truth be told, I'm not sure I agree with Braxton's breakdown of innovators/stylists/copiers...The older I get, the less this kind of thinking seems to hold up.There will always be copiers, that's a given. But the key is individuality. Dolphy definitely had it; I just don't think he had time in his short life to work out a deeper concept of composition to suit his approach to improvisation as did Lacy, Coleman, Guiffre, et al. I have no doubt that had he lived longer Dolphy might well have been as influential as Trane or others. But his presence is still strong, and obviously his legacy as a major player is assured.

Bye-ya

[lkaven]

Originally Posted by Frisco

I agree. Dolphy was a remarkable musician, had that infectious sound and approach that Ron refers to, and was definitely one of the greats on his instruments. One of my all-time favorites. But, like Paul says, I'm not sure that he had anything all that innovative happening. Braxton referred to that thought as well in one of his books. He basically grouped artists into three categories. One being the innovators, the singular voices in music who developed unique ideas to improvised music. The second group being those who expanded upon the established idiom, and the third group those who copied the style. He placed Dolphy in that second group.

What Braxton offers up reflects a taxonomy that is often echoed, but one that should have been rejected long ago. Poor scholarship in the area of semantics (among others) is a part of the jazz world's pathological legacy.

* The tendency to define using mere characteristics, superficial qualities
* The confusion of appearance with reality

In the span of a very short recording career, Dolphy turned some very important corners. His use of synthetics, strata, and other esoterica, was not a mere expansion on earlier music. Affectively, it was very different. It is hard to think of his work on Last Date as merely expanding on a stylistic predecessor.

The suppressed assumption seems to involve novice semantic analysis of what the term "bebop" is as a natural kind term. As though Dolphy is merely more of that. But Charlie Parker didn't define bebop any more than elephants define the entire animal kingdom. You would not say that something is an animal based upon how similar it is to an elephant.

Luke

[John L]

Yes, we are dealing in multidimensional concepts here.

Coltrane was essentially a whole movement in jazz. His very approach to improvisation provided a clear formula for those who followed. He was like Bird in that respect. For better or worse, Coltrane had, and still has, a good portion of the jazz world under his spell. I disagree that Dolphy has been more influential. I don't even think that it is close.

Dolphy was a highly individual musician with his own sound that is much harder to imitate than that of Coltrane's. In that sense, he is a bit like Ornette Coleman. His tone, interval jumps, slurs, and deep blues feeling were a very personal mix.

[Chris D]

Well said, John.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by John L

Dolphy was a highly individual musician with his own sound that is much harder to imitate than that of Coltrane's. In that sense, he is a bit like Ornette Coleman. His tone, interval jumps, slurs, and deep blues feeling were a very personal mix.

Exactly. I think Coltrane inspired lots of imitators, both with the way his spirituality infected his music and also his general technique. But in my initial question I didn't pose it that way. I'm not interested in imitation, I'm interested in inspiration. And when I hear players from, for instance, the AACM (Braxton, Art Ensemble, etc.) and then further improvisers from the 70s onwards, I hear a lot of Dolphy's influence: the interval jumps, slurs, playing multiple instruments, etc. That's all there, but those players took it and made something personal out of it.

And I know that everybody and their cousin says Coltrane was a huge influence on their playing. But it has been my experience that artists are not always entirely forthright about their most important influences.

I'm not sure if I agree with my own argument, it's something that I'm testing out. But I'm starting to feel that Coltrane's approach, particularly from A Love Supreme onwards, was basically a dead end. And those whose playing sounds most similar to Coltrane have done little to advance the music. Coltrane has become such a demi-god to jazz saxophonists that it seems the only way to follow in his footsteps is to imitate him. And that's not innovation. (I know, I know, I'm still being really clumsy with these terms. I'm still working this idea out in my head.)

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Chris D

Well said, John.

+1

[crawjo]

I guess I should lay out my own opinion on some of Coltrane's immediate followers: The next great album that Archie Shepp or Pharoah Sanders make will be their first.

Also, whenever I listen to the Village Vanguard box, I'm struck by the influence Dolphy was having on Coltrane's playing at that time, though of course he eventually expanded into new areas.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

The next great album that Archie Shepp or Pharoah Sanders make will be their first.

I've been interested in hearing you work out your arguments and opinions, but I'm afraid I can't disagree with you more vehemently here.

[Chris D]

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

The next great album that Archie Shepp or Pharoah Sanders make will be their first.

"Mama Too Tight" and "Karma" argue against that position.

[John L]

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

I guess I should lay out my own opinion on some of Coltrane's immediate followers: The next great album that Archie Shepp or Pharoah Sanders make will be their first.

Also, whenever I listen to the Village Vanguard box, I'm struck by the influence Dolphy was having on Coltrane's playing at that time, though of course he eventually expanded into new areas.

That is a pretty severe judgment. Ironically, although Archie Shepp may have been a follower of Coltrane in the spiritual sense, his style does not owe that much to Coltrane. That may have to do with the fact that he already reached his mature style before Coltrane's departures in the mid-1960s. I think that Shepp has made quite a number of great albums, most of which are free of a dominant Coltrane influence.

On the other hand, although I like Pharoah Sanders, I agree that the Coltrane influence on him may have been so strong that it turned into a sort of artistic straight jacket. But I agree with Chris that Karma is a great album. Most of his other Impulse albums also have strong high points.

On the other hand, people as diverse as Joe Lovano, Evan Parker, and Fred Anderson have arguably succeeded into channeling a strong Coltrane influence in a highly productive direction. No?

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Chris D

"Mama Too Tight" and "Karma" argue against that position.

Perfect choices.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by John L

Dolphy was a highly individual musician with his own sound that is much harder to imitate than that of Coltrane's. In that sense, he is a bit like Ornette Coleman. His tone, interval jumps, slurs, and deep blues feeling were a very personal mix.

I'm reminded of a quote by Martial Solal. I don't have it at hand, but to paraphrase, he says (regarding imitation and influence) that it's interesting that a deeply complex style of music such as bop can be imitated by hordes of players, but a seemingly simple approach such as Monks is, essentially, inimitable. Wish I had the exact words here, but that's the gist.

Point being that Coltrane may have been (and still be) a larger influence on other players, but that in no way means his voice is more original than Dolphy's, or a host of other players.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by Face of the Bass

The next great album that Archie Shepp or Pharoah Sanders make will be their first.

I never liked Archie Shepp one bit, but Pharoah had a helluva run on Impulse, not just Karma, Summun Bukmun Umyun (my fave), Black Unity, Thembi, Tauhid, Jewels of Thought...

[Frisco]

Speaking of individual voices, and great runs of records on Impulse, Archie Shepp would get my vote in both categories.

[stonemonkts]

Personally I'd take Marion Brown over both Shepp and Sanders (as long as we're speaking about Impulse! artists from the '60s and '70s).

[Frisco]

I'll take Marion too, in addition to Shepp and Pharoah. I was just thinking of artists who were deeply influenced by Dolphy and Oliver Lake immediately comes to mind. Regarding the Braxton comments, I don't think that Braxton menat that artists like Dolphy were not innovative. The categories that he made (for what it's worth) were made in reference to those artists who he felt had developed a language of their own, those who added greatly to a pre-existing language, and those who simply followed the language.

Reagrding influential saxophonists, Braxton is known to have been greatly influenced by Paul Desmond and Lee Konitz. However, he would not have listed them in the first category. Nonetheless, very influential artists.

[al j]

Coltrane begat guys like David S. Ware with masturbatory music that initially fools the listener into thinking they're hearing something original. Dolphy has not, to my knowledge. Maybe I'm being too harsh here, but eh, this says to me that Dolphy is on some ground far more inimitable than the others. With the exception of Out to Lunch and one or two of the Out... records, there's nothing crazy or terribly original about Dolphy's compositions. In many respects I feel like like Dolphy's music is almost interchangeable with somebody like Booker Ervin's and especially Booker little in terms of compositional style and arranging, which has nothing to do with the fact that pressure levels rise when ED takes a solo or that his phrasing more often than not makes you stop and really listen. I'm completely on board with those who've said that Dolphy personalized just about every record he took part in. THE QUEST is as much a Dolphy record as it is Mal's, IMO.