NYjazzcat,
Hello friend. I'm not sure if you're a musician or not. If you are, and if you're a jazz musician, then you know, appreciate, and understand what are called "Coltrane changes", and maybe were testing me. And no, the last thing I'm about to do is compare myself against anyone, especially someone who was so hugely important IMHO to the evolution of western music! So if you seriously do want to discuss Trane's "3 & 4" , or 2 for that matter- tonic systems, then we can certainly do so via email, I'd be happy to point you towards cd's, info etc to help you get acquainted. Let me know the extent of your harmonic knowledge & we can go from there :-) Also, it's not that it's really taking 'all' people time to 'catch up', but it's just a fact, that Trane's contributions to western harmony, especially in the realm of improvisation, are a nice little "litmus test" for developing musicians. A littel tougher than other things that come before it. That's all. Then again, he's not the first in western music to use the principles, it goes way back, but even in the standard repertoire there are numerous precedents like Richard Roger's "Have you Met Miss Jones" (the bridge, which is the middle section for you jazzcatsinNY), or even Cole Porter's "I Love You" speaking of "2 tonic systems". ( A bit of a stretch I know)
Okay, next point: "What do I feel was lacking in his playing and mastery of the instrument" as you ask. Well, to start, to put it quite bluntly, I dont think he mastered the instrument. If anything he mastered (and surpassed) the harmonic constraints of his day, which is what I love about his playing and his tunes. The other players I mentioned in my previous post, in my HUMBLE opinion, have better control over different and important parameters of music: time, tone, sensativity, phrasing, etc that I 'personnaly' find to be also rewarding, on top of the things that Trane did so well. As for musical examples, it's quite evident that Trane's control, (or his CHOICE to control, if I may concede a slightly adversarial side to my own premise), is not as advanced as say, Joe Henderson's , ummm on for instance, 'The Bridge' or 'So Near So Far', or many countless others ( more than ten actually, I guess that's not countless, I got carried away), in my CD collection. Also in the tone realm, Bergonzi just blows me away, what an amazing palette of sound he has, and that breath! and his tongue, woe, he has quite the technique, yes, better than Trane, in that realm, no doubt.
Surely you can't argue with me that Coltrane was as adept and comporable of a listener to the cues around him when considered against his peers and contemporaries? But yes, then again, he may have been so possessed of an imperative drive to 'get the facts out' about the beautiful gifts and discoveries he had to share with us that he chose to 'lead the conversation'- another matter of opinion of course. It's also my opinion that players like George Garzone or Joe Lovano have equalled Trane's harmonic innovations and in some respects added to them in their own way. Which is not to demean Trane of course, music evolves, collectively, thankfully.
Whether I am a 'musician of some sort' or not is irrelavent. And Coltrane IS "my cup of tea", big time, in many ways. I wish I could have met the man, or even seen him play in person, instead of the videos I own of him.
As for me being in a position to critique him: I'm sorry. I offered my heartfelt opinion of him. Maybe I did so because I feel that there is a somewhat unjustified pedestal he's been put on by history- and before you jump all over me for saying that- what I mean is this: History tends to overemphasise certain things at the diminution or exclusion of others, events, people, etc, and as history moves on, these things tend to become even more polarized, IMHO... So I guess my original post was trying to help others to see things in a more balanced, impartial way.
Yes, I agree with the greats you cite, he WAS a high point of modern improvisation-Harmonically-(sorry :-) )...
George Russell is a great man, a brilliant thinker, and yes, I'd agree with that statement, (as long as we don't overexagerate the point), and then again, that's something I thought I said in my original post...
Heh. 'Have "my studies" given me more insight into Trane than the other greats with whom he played with'? I doubt it. Enough said. BTW, What's an MP3?
As for the future of jazz, jeeze, I don't know. It's a great subject for discusion, or a new thread. I'd love to open up a nice bottle of wine & delve into that one with you. Off the top of my head, I'd say we're heading towards a more 'through composed' era of jazz. And as for specific improvisors who may lead the way, wow, that's a toughy, I hate to stick my neck out on that one, but if you want, I'll give it some thought & we can continue this. Sorry to be such a blasphemer, I REPENT!, I'll say a thousand "Hail Coltrane's" tonight :-) Jay
Hello friend. I'm not sure if you're a musician or not. If you are, and if you're a jazz musician, then you know, appreciate, and understand what are called "Coltrane changes", and maybe were testing me. And no, the last thing I'm about to do is compare myself against anyone, especially someone who was so hugely important IMHO to the evolution of western music! So if you seriously do want to discuss Trane's "3 & 4" , or 2 for that matter- tonic systems, then we can certainly do so via email, I'd be happy to point you towards cd's, info etc to help you get acquainted. Let me know the extent of your harmonic knowledge & we can go from there :-) Also, it's not that it's really taking 'all' people time to 'catch up', but it's just a fact, that Trane's contributions to western harmony, especially in the realm of improvisation, are a nice little "litmus test" for developing musicians. A littel tougher than other things that come before it. That's all. Then again, he's not the first in western music to use the principles, it goes way back, but even in the standard repertoire there are numerous precedents like Richard Roger's "Have you Met Miss Jones" (the bridge, which is the middle section for you jazzcatsinNY), or even Cole Porter's "I Love You" speaking of "2 tonic systems". ( A bit of a stretch I know)
Okay, next point: "What do I feel was lacking in his playing and mastery of the instrument" as you ask. Well, to start, to put it quite bluntly, I dont think he mastered the instrument. If anything he mastered (and surpassed) the harmonic constraints of his day, which is what I love about his playing and his tunes. The other players I mentioned in my previous post, in my HUMBLE opinion, have better control over different and important parameters of music: time, tone, sensativity, phrasing, etc that I 'personnaly' find to be also rewarding, on top of the things that Trane did so well. As for musical examples, it's quite evident that Trane's control, (or his CHOICE to control, if I may concede a slightly adversarial side to my own premise), is not as advanced as say, Joe Henderson's , ummm on for instance, 'The Bridge' or 'So Near So Far', or many countless others ( more than ten actually, I guess that's not countless, I got carried away), in my CD collection. Also in the tone realm, Bergonzi just blows me away, what an amazing palette of sound he has, and that breath! and his tongue, woe, he has quite the technique, yes, better than Trane, in that realm, no doubt.
Surely you can't argue with me that Coltrane was as adept and comporable of a listener to the cues around him when considered against his peers and contemporaries? But yes, then again, he may have been so possessed of an imperative drive to 'get the facts out' about the beautiful gifts and discoveries he had to share with us that he chose to 'lead the conversation'- another matter of opinion of course. It's also my opinion that players like George Garzone or Joe Lovano have equalled Trane's harmonic innovations and in some respects added to them in their own way. Which is not to demean Trane of course, music evolves, collectively, thankfully.
Whether I am a 'musician of some sort' or not is irrelavent. And Coltrane IS "my cup of tea", big time, in many ways. I wish I could have met the man, or even seen him play in person, instead of the videos I own of him.
As for me being in a position to critique him: I'm sorry. I offered my heartfelt opinion of him. Maybe I did so because I feel that there is a somewhat unjustified pedestal he's been put on by history- and before you jump all over me for saying that- what I mean is this: History tends to overemphasise certain things at the diminution or exclusion of others, events, people, etc, and as history moves on, these things tend to become even more polarized, IMHO... So I guess my original post was trying to help others to see things in a more balanced, impartial way.
Yes, I agree with the greats you cite, he WAS a high point of modern improvisation-Harmonically-(sorry :-) )...
George Russell is a great man, a brilliant thinker, and yes, I'd agree with that statement, (as long as we don't overexagerate the point), and then again, that's something I thought I said in my original post...
Heh. 'Have "my studies" given me more insight into Trane than the other greats with whom he played with'? I doubt it. Enough said. BTW, What's an MP3?
As for the future of jazz, jeeze, I don't know. It's a great subject for discusion, or a new thread. I'd love to open up a nice bottle of wine & delve into that one with you. Off the top of my head, I'd say we're heading towards a more 'through composed' era of jazz. And as for specific improvisors who may lead the way, wow, that's a toughy, I hate to stick my neck out on that one, but if you want, I'll give it some thought & we can continue this. Sorry to be such a blasphemer, I REPENT!, I'll say a thousand "Hail Coltrane's" tonight :-) Jay