Excellent comments re Harold Land; with which I completely agree. He was a great tenor player and while not as widely known by the public as some of the tenor stars, no question about how his peers felt about him. I heard him play live in 1982 in a small club in a small town in the mid-West (I was on tour and there were so many small towns that I don't remember which one it was). What I do remember (and this goes to Rok's question re how jazz musicians make money) is thinking and wondering what a great player like that was doing playing in such a small club, practically in the middle of nowhere. How much could that club be possibly paying him?
The comparison to Sonny is an interesting one, and one that is a study on just what it is, exactly, that makes a great player. As with most things, it's all about context. There is no question, IMO, that Sonny is the more important player in the overall scheme of the history of the music. He was (is) a true innovator with a distinctive sound and approach, and an incredibly powerful musical personality. When one listens to his recordings there is no doubt that he is the overwhelming driving force. It is almost as if the rhythm section plays around HIS time feel; not the other way around, as is usually the case. That was one of the reasons that his piano-less performances were so successful. Harold Land was a more subtle player with a certain elegance in his improvisations who did not demand that he be the "center of attention"; this made him a much better ensemble player and a better complement to Clifford's playing.
