Jazz for aficionados

Shiela E is prettier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwywj2y9s8g

You're a hard customer to please Rok; how about Pepe's Samba by Chico Freeman.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug8xBLdcyfc


or "The Kings of Mali"



      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buFUP2LvK2s


or is hard bop on your menu


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFPP1ERil0

**** Talk about the sax playing on this tune. ****

Your link came through as “not available”, but both the 1956 and 1957 recordings have plenty of links available and I’m sure what you posted is one of those two. It’s one of my favorite Ellington/Johnny Hodges features (“Come a Sunday” from Black, Brown and Beige is still the greatest, imo; with “Blood Count” a close second).

What you are reacting to is the art of section playing and Duke’s saxophone section did it better than just about any other big band saxophone section. It is truly an art. Not only were Duke’s saxophone players great soloists, but they were also great section players who knew how to blend, match vibratos and, very importantly, recognize when they had to play to serve the orchestration and not their individual egos. They saved that for their solo outings within the orchestration or solo projects. Now, an important issue in all thisrelates to something that has been discussed here (tried to, anyway): the evolution of jazz. We have discussed the evolution of styles, but not so much the specific component of style as demonstrated by the tone of players; and not just saxophone players. Alex is very keyed in to that specific aspect of playing styles. As jazz in general evolved and individual styles evolved, generally speaking, players’ tone concepts would become more aggressive, brighter and louder. Even when playing softly; what I like to call the sound of a quiet scream. A “modern” sound doesn’t lend itself to that kind of homogenous blending as does the tone that players from Duke’s era generally played with. A kind of tone which, believe it or not, is a lot closer to what is considered an appropriate tone for Classical music than most modern sounds.

**** To me it seems to be a very difficult piece to play. They way they, both the soloist and sax section, are able to maintain their tone while slow and low. ****

Its a good observation. It really is not a difficult piece to play at all in the technical sense; and “maintaining the tone while low and slow” is a technical skill. What is difficult (very), and why it’s called the “art” of, are the aesthetic difficulties which have more to do with what may seem to some to be almost anti the spirit of jazz; total freedom and self expression. However, that is a very incomplete and unsophisticated view of what jazz playing is about in its totality; even solo playing. The fact that great players can be a piece of the whole while adding just enough (!) of their own musical presence to the whole, and all the while following the lead of the section leader (Hodges), is very difficult. How section players, the leader of each section, and each individual section as a whole approaches the composition’s orchestration is key to how successful the music will be and how good the listeners’s perception and reaction to the music will be. Good players will tell you that executing these challenges are in many ways just as musically satisfying as playing solo. There is little correlation between a player being a good or a bad section players and being a good soloist. Some do both very well and some are terrible section players. Duke’s band had players that were great at both.

Now, and as always, in the spirit of striving for better dialogues, I have to point out that I find a certain irony (and this is, by far, the kindest word that I might use) in the idea that you can frequently put down what is achievable in music education (which is what allows explanation of these things in a way that makes sense) and often in a personal way, and then also frequently ask for answers and explanations of these things. As I have pointed out many times before, understanding the technical can help understand the aesthetic more deeply. Musical likes and dislikes is an entirely different issue. And, yes, we know about Ruby’s 😊

On a related note:

I agree about the Tito/SheilaE clip; a lot of showmanship and not a whole lot of music. I almost agree with your comment about Tito’s “Take Five”. I agree with O-10 that the chart has a lot of “pep in its step” and I kind of like it. However, I don’t understand the comparison to Brubeck’s music, nor why the comparison is relevant. What I mean is that the only thing that it has in common with Brubeck is that they used the same melody (actually, Paul Desmond’s composition). However, they play it in a completely different style (Salsa); so, apples and oranges. Even more importantly, they removed the most important aspect of the tune, the fact that the tune is in 5, or five beats to the measure. They do “Take Five” ...IN FOUR! This gives it a completely different feel. One could say that the feel of the Brubeck’s “Take Five” is that of a great steady walk with a skip after every four steps and Tito’s is a just a steady walk with more swagger and the waistline way too low; if you know what I mean.