[Dixielandjazz] Listening & Warning was John Coltrane, Giant Steps, & AJB

[Steve Barbone]

on 5/25/07 4:20 PM, Marek Boym at marekboym at gmail.com wrote:

> I've had the misfortune (great, I should add) of listening to it.

OK, I can understand and relate to that.

> Why subject others to the same?  While listening with one's own years is
> highly laudable, why not warn people they might suffer?

Why? Because you can't speak for their tastes. Remember on the DJML we had
some discourse about Woody Allen and a strong warning for listees not to go
hear him because he sucked.

Now, interestingly enough there are several letters to the editor in the
current edition of American Rag. (One of two monthly trade publications
about OKOM). These letters extol Woody's performances in California, and
that of his band.

Suppose these people had heard and heeded the warning not to go? They would
have missed some OKOM that THEY loved.

What I'm saying is simple. Speak for yourself, but not for others because
you don't know how they will react to the music you hate.

> Many years ago, a very close friend of mine attended the North Sea
> Jazz Festival, and went to hear a group named "Satchmo's Legacy,"
> certainly an enticing name.  She left with disgust.  When she told me
> about it, I asked: "What did you expect from a band under the
> leadership of Freddie Hubbard," and the reply was: "how could I know
> Freddie Hubbard?"  She was simply too young - in her twenties at the
> time.  So warning people has some value.

That conclusion does not logically relate to the anecdote. And no doubt,
people who went there heard Hubbard's take on Satch and came away enthused.
Hubbard like every other jazz trumpet  player in the world owes Satch a huge
debt. And Hubbard  is certainly aware of that debt. It could have just as
easily been that your friend didn't like Satch either. After all, at twenty,
how could she know Louis Armstrong?

> From my experience, Coltrane's "music" is not worthy of listening.
> Personally, I try to avoid any exposure thereto, even if, in some
> cases, it is tolerable (but not more).
 
You are entitled to your opinion. From my experience all music is worthy of
listening. Unless one listen to it all, one can't possible know whether to
like or dislike it. Coltrane has recorded prolifically. He has put out some
very beautiful ballads, and some great blues that I would think you might
like, but unless you listen to them all, you'll never know.

I remember early Coltrane which was very melodic. Heck, as a teenage
clarinet player, one of the first tunes he learned was "Margie" based upon
the Jimmy Lunceford arrangement.

"Late" Coltrane is admittedly not for everybody Here's what Jazz Saxophonist
Dave Liebman had to say about the far out stuff Coltrane was playing toward
the end of his life:

"People still don't get the late Coltrane. This is why I play Meditations
every five years on his anniversaries, because I think that's a major piece
of music, and the late Coltrane, when everyone was playing continuously
together- I mean almost Dixieland in a way, only different kinds of notes
and style, that's a very difficult period for the audience for sure, let
alone musicians, to understand because it was chaotic, there was a lot of
cacophony, yet there was an incredible amount of beauty. It's unbelievable
what he does! And his saxophone playing, I mean what he was doing
technically, is even beyond what he was doing in the middle sixties, so it's
some different kind of music, and not for the faint-hearted, and I don't
believe it's meant for even the good average listener."

True? Perhaps, but there are also listeners who appreciate Trane's music.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone