Defining "Modal Jazz"

[Buster Loaf]

Why do people bring their anal retentions to music?

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Spirit59

Absolutely. Being glued together time-wise was never in their marching orders. Lots of freedom, lots of push-pull. Respectfully, the idea that HH had to babysit RC is preposterous.

It was definitely overly-critical and opinionated of me. My apologies to the RC fans here. Like I said, after reading a "scholarly" breakdown of each session and many songs, I came away disappointed with certain things- The old quote that the group really had "ESP" fell short- They were AWESOME and very inspiring, but human nonetheless. That is a good thing, IMHO. It means you don't have to be psychic to play jazz; you just have to do your best and be flexible- listen and play.

[Soco]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

It was definitely overly-critical and opinionated of me. My apologies to the RC fans here. Like I said, after reading a "scholarly" breakdown of each session and many songs, I came away disappointed with certain things- The old quote that the group really had "ESP" fell short- They were AWESOME and very inspiring, but human nonetheless. That is a good thing, IMHO. It means you don't have to be psychic to play jazz; you just have to do your best and be flexible- listen and play.

It is not that easy. That group did have a special chemistry that developed into a group interplay on a level that you don't see very often. You can put together some of the best players in the world and still not be able to achieve that.
The players in the classic quintet where the best players in the world AND had a very special chemistry. Together they pushed the music into some new directions, by taking risks and trusting each others musical instincts.
You won't be able to achieve that if one of the band-members have to "babysit" another player. That is just too stupid. They where also playing a lot together and that's how they developed this as well. If you really know the musicians you are playing with and have a similar way of thinking and approaching music you can be able to achieve certain mind-readings in terms of where to go in a song. I have experienced that myself.

[JonnyPac]

These are all good valid points you all have brought up. Being a bit of a collector of modal jazz and such hybrids in the 60's, I've ended up with good old RC on probably over 30 CDs in my "desert island case". I can say that he "made" too many of the albums for me. I'm a HUGE Andrew Hill fan and a large percent of his sessions either had RC or Richard Davis- both abstract inside/outside players- ultimately, I prefer Richard Davis in such settings, though RC was good too. I guess I am making a giant assumption that Richard Davis or another skilled post-bop bassist could have done "better" (IMHO) in the combo given the sessions' circumstances.

I really have no point to make besides stating a personal opinion. This is the internet (the world wide web), and any strong personal (subjective) opinions I post for/or against an iconic figure will be refuted. See the "Miles was Mediocre" thread where John Lennon is being argued over!!!

Again, I regret not staying strictly on topic and stating a personal aside from my readings of the OP book's excerpt. Calling me anal retentive is insulting; I have learned from the recent posts and have an open mind about jazz performance. The opportunity to read alternate views is a good thing and I have nothing to lose by changing my mind at any given point.

[Spirit59]

Look at it this way - one has to be at least anal retentive enough to do the work required to play this music. It's just knowing when to use it to your advantage and when to turn it off.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Spirit59

Look at it this way - one has to be at least anal retentive enough to do the work required to play this music. It's just knowing when to use it to your advantage and when to turn it off.

I prefer to think of it as mild OCD.