|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: What exactly didn't sit well w/you re:Jacknife? posted by suretyguy on November 15, 2002 at 09:30:31:
"I think it is important to remember that many Blue Note dates were essentially somewhat better organized jam sessions with musicians who had not often-if ever-played together with results that were not always sterling."Substitute the words "Blue Note" with "jazz recording" and you've hit the nail on the head. Sadly, this remains largely true to this very day.
Follow Ups:
You're probably right, especially in the historical aspect, although my sense is that on the whole many sessions these days are far better thought out-in some instances too much so-but not always better. Because of the overall economics of the industry, record labels are far less inclined to just let a bunch of guys run into the studio to knock off a few half-assed takes for a few bucks.Which raises another issue: There is a dark side to this subject that is frequently swept under the rug to avoid tarnishing the music's (jazz) image. Many dates in the '50's & '60's happened because the musicians pushed/begged/wheedled/conned the owners/producers of these small independent labels (Remember that Blue Note, Prestige, Riverside, Pacific Jazz, Contemporary, Verve/Clef?Norgran, etc., were not then owned by huge conglomerates.) into sessions for which they would get an advance to carry their drug habits for a time. The people running those labels usually did so as a labor of love rather than as businessmen (except for Norman Granz) and furthermore had developed strong personal relationships and empathy with many of those musicians. The potential upside came from the fact that the revenues largely went to those owners, so if a release caught on (e.g., something like Lee Morgan's "Sidewinder"), they enjoyed a windfall. (That is also, I think, why they recorded so many sessions: If you throw enough up on the wall, part of it may stick.) None of this is to say that the musicians were necessarily getting royally screwed-although the session guys virtually always got only a flat fee-and/or that the label owners were bad people (although some of them were, but not necessarily the ones I've mentioned), but those were the realities of the economics that existed.
By the way please do not assume that anything I've said above represents specific knowledge about the "Jacknife" sessions. My comments are strictly general in nature to try to provide some background to the conditions of the times.
...as the NYC doper's label in the 50's. When the guys would start to "get sick" they could often cobble together a quick record date for Weinstock, get some cash, and "get well".Allan points out that labels sometimes need to pay for rehearsals and prep time by musicians. Ironically, this is often the cause of record dates that sound like (are) pick-up dates. I know guys who have records out on Criss Cross and other labels who have great bands of their own. But the label execs fear new talent won't sell without big names on the record too. A pianist may have to make his debut recording with great players he's never even met before. All the acquaintence they may get is a couple of hours--not enough to build real rapport. The labels can't (or won't) pay the big names more money for more rehearsal. Thus, jazz recordings (especially by lesser known players on bigger labels) often reflect only a hint of what the artist can do in/with a band that really knows their playing. It's an unfortunate reality.
dh
But some of those Prestige pure "blowing" dates are unreal, don't you think? I am thinking of "Taylor's Wailers," "All Morning Long," "Soul Junction" and "The Elmo Hope Sextet"(or "2 Tenors" depending on which version you have!) among others. Slop? Yes. But REALLLLLY hot slop! Love that John Coltrane, circa 1958!
....just pointing out the less pleasant reality of that scene. There was a lot of great music made there in spite of the tyranny of junk, which is pretty amazing.
dh
A perfect example is the now classic Tina Brooks date "Minor Move." Even though the soloing is jaw-dropping in it's intensity from ALL on hand, the ensemble blowing is somewhat rough around the edges and thus it was rejected back in '58 only to see the light of day in the early 80's. Blue Note sessions in the Lion era (with the exception of some of the "live" dates like "Night of the Cookers," etc.) were for the most part NOT freewheeling blowing sessions. Lion actually booked rehearsal time for each session and PAID the musicians for that time! He really cared about the final product and you can hear it. I'm not saying the music is any BETTER than the freewheeling Prestige dates of the era, but it's CERTAINLY more polished. Wouldn't you agree?
I would certainly agree that on the whole the Blue Note sessions are better than those on Prestige, which also came up with some strange matchings just to see if 3 or 4 tenor players or a couple of trumpeters, etc., might turn into something worthwhile even without any rehearsal, planning, arrangements, etc. You've also brought out another good point, i.e., Alfred Lion didn't release a lot of material because he didn't think it was all that good. That kind of discrimination has not extended to subsequent owners of the catalog which have seem determined to mine those vaults for any old thing, frequently in multiple incarnations. And we as consumers keep buying based upon the label's well deserved reputation.
Can't put the blame all on the BN label, although they do deserve some. If you peruse the BN BB you will find many posts asking for Jacknife and others of the current crop of reissues to be released. (Might remind you that "fan" is short for "fanatics"). Such posts create a demand, albeit for inferior product. No doubt the label saw a chance for max profit with minimal investment. Cuscuna & Lundvall (at BN) should think twice before second-guessing Alfred Lion's initial evaluations of recording quality. Speaking of Cuscuna, he gets credit for keeping BN alive in the dark days, but much of his current work since then on the label is pretty questionable from an artistic standpoint; plus he has a tin ear for sound quality. I think it's pretty cheeky of him to list himself as the "reissue producer" right next to Lion's name, as if he should be equated with Mr. Lion. Anyway, we can have this discussion again when BN dumps its CDs and goes to SACD, and gets to recycle all of its product yet again.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: