Tubby Hayes Interview on Youtube (1960)

[burning dog]

Anybody heard this? Anyone remember it from 1960?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QHmTu451gM

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

quite possibly listened as enthralled as i just did burning dog, but no memory alas .... [sounded very familiar] the programme is referred to as Jazz Session ..

in a similar vein i have just acquired this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pub-Crawling/dp/B00533PXCE)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41gElfkJ-xL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

with Tubby Hayes on all but one trac (http://britjazz.blogspot.com/2010/01/jimmy-deuchar-pub-crawling-flac-63837.html)k ...


aah nostalgia

[Serial_Apologist]

Anybody heard this? Anyone remember it from 1960?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QHmTu451gM

Nope. The interviewer's voice sound a bit too pawsh for it to've been Steve Race; but I'm willing to bet Trevor would know. A great interview, btw; Tubby gives fascinating replies,doesn't pull his punches, and one believes every word he says. Well done finding this BD - a good excuse to stay indoors and :cool2: without the shades!

[burning dog]

Digging Giant Steps was pretty hip and quick off the mark then, but Tubbs had access to imports and probably bought it in the USA. Makes you realise how quickly it all happened in those days. When Tubby started plalying in 1950 Monk was a madman, Bird squawked and Dizzy played Chinese music. By 1960 they were establishment heroes to the hip.

Jazz has been having the LCJO versus the Avant Garde argument for twenty years now:doh:. Bands that were mainstream modern 'cool' then, ie outside of that battle, are still making recordings and gigging!

1990
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/6421557/a/Bill+Evans%3A+Tribute+To+The+Great+Post-Bop+Pianist.htm

[Ian Thumwood]

The paul Motian CD "Plays Bill Evans" is terrific and I would urge anyone who hasn't acquired it aleady that they won't be disappointed. The music is more visceral than you might expect but it is striking how many good tunes there are on this. I have always loved the track "Five" where Lovano's corruscating tenor and Frisell's almost industrial noise on guitar push the music is a very unexpected direction. There are some quiet moments on this record which , I would suggest, is one of the best Motian has made.

[burning dog]

The paul Motian CD "Plays Bill Evans" is terrific and I would urge anyone who hasn't acquired it aleady that they won't be disappointed. The music is more visceral than you might expect but it is striking how many good tunes there are on this. I have always loved the track "Five" where Lovano's corruscating tenor and Frisell's almost industrial noise on guitar push the music is a very unexpected direction. There are some quiet moments on this record which , I would suggest, is one of the best Motian has made.

I agree Ian, that's what made me think of it, but it doesn't seem possible how old it is. As you say, it's more dynamic than quite a few of their albums, which is what like about it.

[burning dog]

Nope. The interviewer's voice sound a bit too pawsh for it to've been Steve Race; but I'm willing to bet Trevor would know. A great interview, btw; Tubby gives fascinating replies,doesn't pull his punches, and one believes every word he says. Well done finding this BD - a good excuse to stay indoors and :cool2: without the shades!

I was hoping that Trevor looks in here now and then. My Dad remembers hearing Giant Steps first on the radio, so Ill play it to him sometime.

Didnt know Tubby more or less learned vibes as he went along.
.................................................. ................
Thursday
midday


PS Have found out a bit. The programme Jazz Session(s) was on Network 3 ( the Third programmes evening "Brand") and was usually presented by Steve Race, though obviously not this time.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Tubbs picked up on vibes after Vic Feldman was late at a Flamingo gig. App he played "Buesology"just fooling around, straight off and was enthused. I've been listening to Tubbs "After Lights Out" album (Tempo 1956 ) which is lovely relaxed quintet thing. Not all Brit jazz of that period was breathless and lumpy. The album with "Mesage for the Messengers" and "Hall hears the blues" on it. Remined me also how good Bill Eyden was.

BN.

[Serial_Apologist]

Tubbs picked up on vibes after Vic Feldman was late at a Flamingo gig. App he played "Buesology"just fooling around, straight off and was enthused. I've been listening to Tubbs "After Lights Out" album (Tempo 1956 ) which is lovely relaxed quintet thing. Not all Brit jazz of that period was breathless and lumpy. The album with "Mesage for the Messengers" and "Hall hears the blues" on it. Remined me also how good Bill Eyden was.

BN.

Interesting what you say about "After Lights Out" which I didn't know of, Bluesie - there was a kind of West Coast/Cool School in British jazz of the 50s around people like Don Rendell and Ronnie Ross, and I'd never have known Tubbs related to or was part of that; it seems so unlikely to one's stereotyped image of him, though imv some of his best work was in ballads where he would really build up a narrative rather than reiterating them fast bop licks.

S-A

[gurnemanz]

One time we sat on the carpet to hear him at The Bull in Barnes in the 60s. Fond (but rather vague) memories.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ah history .... there are already two versions of the vibes beginnings on the thread, one in the interview [Now's the time] and one from El Senor [Bluesology] ... a safe bet it was a blues!

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

SA - Tubbs - "After Lights Out" is now part of the Proper Hayes box set put together by Simon Spillet. Quite unlike the usual image of Tubbs with him in a kind of bluesey Mobleyesque phase and Harry South being "oblique". A really good album. I remember him more from Ronnies chez Gerrard st. in the early '60s in the classic quintet with Jimmy Deucher, which on a good night, and they very often were, was hugely impressive. For a young person.

To my shame (at age 14, 1961?) I walked down those stairs in the afternoon and up to Ronnie Scott when the Hayes quintet was running thro some tunes and asked "what time does real music come on?" He was very understanding. And broke both my legs.

BN.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

you probably passed me on the stairs ... i was often being interviewed by the plod who wanted to know what a young grammar school lad was doing in the den of iniquity ... listening to Tubby Hayes was my usual answer ...why they should think we would be daft enough to get up to anything in the middle of soho beats me, ... all the best iniquities i knew happened in council flat and suburban bedrooms ....

[Serial_Apologist]

you probably passed me on the stairs ... i was often being interviewed by the plod who wanted to know what a young grammar school lad was doing in the den of iniquity ... listening to Tubby Hayes was my usual answer ...why they should think we would be daft enough to get up to anything in the middle of soho beats me, ... all the best iniquities i knew happened in council flat and suburban bedrooms ....

I once attended the hairdressers opposite Ronnie's for a "college cut" - very mod at that time (1965). Afterwards the hairdresser asked, "And would sir be wanting anything else, perhaps for the weekend?" - indicating the... condominium.

[handsomefortune]

in the audio, young tubby sounds like someone from the 'seven up' docu series imo ...bless him.

(fwiw, 'seven up docu' tracked a bunch of people, over time, to see where they ended up, and (possibly) why).

[Serial_Apologist]

in the audio, young tubby sounds like someone from the 'seven up' docu series imo ...bless him.

(fwiw, 'seven up docu' tracked a bunch of people, over time, to see where they ended up, and (possibly) why).

Don't remember that one, hsf

[simonspill]

Anybody heard this? Anyone remember it from 1960?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QHmTu451gM

This was broadcast as part of BBC Network Three's Jazz Session on Wednesday November 9th 1960. It was recorded at Studio B5, Broadcasting House, Portland Place on Tuesday October 25th 1960. The interviewer is unidentified. Tubby received a payment of £5.5s for this appearance.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

that would be 5 Guineas then .... and thank you for that biographer's [i assume simon] detailed knowledge ... (http://www.jazzscript.co.uk/extra/art.hayes.htm)

[simonspill]

that would be 5 Guineas then .... and thank you for that biographer's [i assume simon] detailed knowledge ... (http://www.jazzscript.co.uk/extra/art.hayes.htm)

Yes, 'tis I.

The interview is an excellent barometer of Hayes' musical thoughts at the time. "Tubby's Groove" was released in June 1960 and gained lots of critical praise, with many critics aligning Tubbs to Coltrane. He was seriously checking out both Coltrane and Johnny Griffin, and both influences can be heard on "Tubby's Groove" and "Tubby's New Groove".

However.....Tubby wasn't as convinced by the early Coltrane Impulse LP's and on another Beeb interview from January 1963, he says he thinks that he "got it wrong" about Trane leading the way and cites Rollins as the current front runner on tenor.

These surviving BBC interviews also illustrate very well what a nice, genuine and modest man Tubby was.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

"got it wrong" about Trane leading the way and cites Rollins as the current front runner on tenor.


must say that i agree on the whole [duck]

[burning dog]

Sonny seems impossible to copy!

Both Hayes and Joe Henderson seemed later to tread a middle path between those tenor giants.

Thanks for the extra info Simon:ok:

[simonspill]

Sonny seems impossible to copy!

Both Hayes and Joe Henderson seemed later to tread a middle path between those tenor giants.

Thanks for the extra info Simon:ok:

I think a strong argument can be made that Tubby effectively synthesised elements from Getz, Rollins and Trane to come up with his mature style. Ultimately he was his own man, but he was strongly influenced by all of them at one point or another. His ballad playing always tipped the hat to Getz and I think in the sheer clout of his up-tempo work he was every bit the equal to Rollins and Coltrane. Significantly he used very few devices that directly echo their work and did what I've always admired in truly great jazz players, he took the inspiration of these giants to help him find his own voice. I also think that musicians outside of the US sometimes do this better than those right in there among the changing fashions.
Other British tenorists stand out; Dick Morrissey, who blended a love of all the 1950s greats to come up with a beautiful natural sounding style. Skid, who worships Trane but has always stressed his inspiration above rote copying. Another is Art Themen, who I was working with on Tuesday night. He's like a mini-encyclopedia of jazz tenor with all sorts of bits echoing Webster, Trane, Sonny, Dexter and more outside players too.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Other British tenorists stand out; Dick Morrissey, who blended a love of all the 1950s greats to come up with a beautiful natural sounding style. Skid, who worships Trane but has always stressed his inspiration above rote copying. Another is Art Themen, who I was working with on Tuesday night. He's like a mini-encyclopedia of jazz tenor with all sorts of bits echoing Webster, Trane, Sonny, Dexter and more outside players too.

well said!

[burning dog]

I agree Tubby never swallowed whole the Coltrane system like so many others did (mostly US musicians), he was not a Rollins copyist, had the speed of Griffin but sounded nothing like him. He was of the generation of Joe Henderson though his early importance as a British hard bopper with the Couriers leads people to imagine he was significantly older (in fact only 2 years in it). I think they were "in a similar place" in the mid late sixties, not that there was copying involved.

PS

Ive just found an internet reference( by Simon) to Hayes and Henderson treading a middle ground between Rollins and Coltrane. I think the point made is they were between those players approaches to playing IMO not they took bits of the "giants" personal styles, but I wasn't quoting this article in my last post ...honest!!!

http://www.jazzeddie.f2s.com/tubby_hayes.htm

[Oddball]

I think a strong argument can be made that Tubby effectively synthesised elements from Getz, Rollins and Trane to come up with his mature style. Ultimately he was his own man, but he was strongly influenced by all of them at one point or another.

Other British tenorists stand out; .....Art Themen, who I was working with on Tuesday night. He's like a mini-encyclopedia of jazz tenor with all sorts of bits echoing Webster, Trane, Sonny, Dexter and more outside players too.

I would be interested to know how Jazz musicians develop, in this day and age with Jazz having splintered into various types and kinds, with free Jazz, crossover/ fusion, new orleans, hard bop, etc. I guess it may have been easier in Tubby's day, when there was just one type of Jazz current, and musicians could be easily compared. But these days with the benefit of history, I would say Trane and Sonny are just about as different as chalk and cheese. But then I'm not a practising Jazz musician. But I can certainly see Art Themen's point of view.

[Ian Thumwood]

Having played both parts of these interviews the comments are very much of their era and, in my opinion, seem to echo some of the entrenched views of this time. They almost echo the kind of remarks that Trevor Cooper used to indulge in on the old messageboard and share some of the same ridiculous prejudices. The comments are fascinating but I think are pretty narrow-minded and (setting aside the image of a "Pete n' Dud" type sketch that the interview conjurs up) unintentionally amusing with the passage of 52 years. Granted that Hayes' must have been hugely exciting in live performance, his music is further away from us than the styles he considered dated in 1960!

Picking upon Simon's interiguing comment about Tubby's assessment of Coltrane and listening to the remark that, in 1960, Coltrane was on the right track (!!), I have always felt that Hayes' owed a lot to Hank Mobley with regard to his tone and perhaps improvised line (can't write music so I would be intrigued to read if Simon has ever transcribed both soloist's work to confirm this) but with the aggressive attack of the under-appreciated Johnny Griffin. Although there are moments where Tubby goes pretty outside on "Mexican Green" , most of what I have heard of him on record is firmly in a "Modern Jazz" tradition and I would never have placed him in a generation that took their cues from 60's Coltrane. I know he is supposed to have flirted with the Avant Garde but , for the most part, I feel Hayes belonged to that generation of musicians from prior to the Miles Davis 2nd Quintet which was such a line in the sand. His music doesn't sound "modern" today the way that the likes of Wayne Shorter does. He was the archetypal "be-bopper."

It's a shame to read some of the comments here suggesting the reduced influence of Coltrane these days although I do concur with the fact that Sonny Rollins does seem to be more and more relevent concerning the way jazz has developed. I was at a solo John Surman gig on Tuesday and he embarked on a blues which was pure Sonny - another piece mutated into a calypso in a similar fashion. There was a thread a few months back that discussed the same matter. Like Keith Jarrett, I feel there is something fundamental about Rollin's approach to improvisation which is timeless and basically beyond any school of jazz as it is a way of expressing an improvised line to perhaps the fullest potential. Coltrane at full stretch is something to behold and his thorough understanding of scales extending the intervals to suggest different keys was essential in broadening harmony beyond be-bop. This harmonic development has defined the best jazz since the early sixties even if it had it's roots with the likes of Yusef Lateef's exploration of exotic scale.

The comments I almost took exception to in the interview appertained to his attitude to earlier forms of jazz. How different this is these days where I think nearly all jazz musicians have a better grasp of what came before Charlie Parker and can talk affectionately about jazz from the 20's and 30's. Even when being favourable to Louis Armstrong, the reference of Coleman Hawkins illustrates a perceived difference in style between pre and post-war musicians. Listen to the recordings Hawkins cut in the 40s-60's is suggestive that he continued to evolve and nowadays Hayes' approach seems more akin of Coleman than some of today's more harmonically and rhythmically innovative tenor players. (Brecker, Lovano, Donny McCaslin, Chris Potter, Walter Smith, David S Ware, etc, etc.) Play any record by Charlie Parker and it sounds pretty vintage and of another era in 2012!

The final fascinating comment was how he learned to play the vibes and the fact that Victor Feldman was seen as offering the potential for the future of the instrument in 1960. It was also amusing to hear his describe milt Jackson as the most eminent musician on this instrument - a somewhat pointed snub towards Lionel Hampton! I must admit that I find Hayes' vibes playing to be perfunctory but i suppose this comes with the territory if you are familiar with Bobby Hutcherson, Gary Burton ,Steve Nelson or Stefon Harris who have all arrived on the scene since this time. Feldman is someone I am aware of by reputation . I must prefer his work on flute which I do feel is worthy of praise.

All told, the interview was fascinating even if very much a period piece.

[simonspill]

Having played both parts of these interviews the comments are very much of their era and, in my opinion, seem to echo some of the entrenched views of this time. They almost echo the kind of remarks that Trevor Cooper used to indulge in on the old messageboard and share some of the same ridiculous prejudices.

Picking upon Simon's interiguing comment about Tubby's assessment of Coltrane and listening to the remark that, in 1960, Coltrane was on the right track (!!), I have always felt that Hayes' owed a lot to Hank Mobley with regard to his tone and perhaps improvised line (can't write music so I would be intrigued to read if Simon has ever transcribed both soloist's work to confirm this)

Ah, T. Cooper - my nemesis! I'd forgotten about him (thankfully).

Yes, Mobley was a huge influence on both Ronnie and Tubby and the Jazz Couriers and Scott's own bands played his compositions. There is certainly some similarity in linear construction between Mobley and Hayes, although Tubby of course had a far more assertive sounding articulation and delivery. I always felt Ronnie was in many ways far more idiosyncratic than Tubby - and had a more gritty attack. Go back and listen to the Jazz Couriers first album and you'll hear what I mean. It remained that way into the 60s too, as Sonnymoon for Two on 100% demonstrates. I think it was Brian Priestley's review in Jazz Monthly (1967) that said Ronnie cuts Tubby on this track - although I don't agree I can see what he was driving at. However, Priestley rarely had a good word to say about Tubby at the time, being one of the "far too many notes" brigade.

[Ian Thumwood]

I always felt Ronnie was in many ways far more idiosyncratic than Tubby - and had a more gritty attack. Go back and listen to the Jazz Couriers first album and you'll hear what I mean. It remained that way into the 60s too, as Sonnymoon for Two on 100% demonstrates. I think it was Brian Priestley's review in Jazz Monthly (1967) that said Ronnie cuts Tubby on this track - although I don't agree I can see what he was driving at. However, Priestley rarely had a good word to say about Tubby at the time, being one of the "far too many notes" brigade.

Simon

Never really been grabbed by Scott's playing and the early "be-bop" recordings seem enthusiastic at best. (There was a Django track on JRR tonight which was brilliant and demonstrated that some French players were far more relaxed in their approach to the nervous energy that comes from some of the late 40's jam sessions made in London with everyone falling over each other to quote Charlie Parker.) Scott is one of those musicians who I don't dislike but have never been too enthused about enough to explore. He was also someone who tried too hard to give the appearance of being an "archetypal" jazz musician who had disdain for other working musicians. In the end, you just get tired of reading / hearing his comments and the casual " Music Hall humour" laced with references to drink and drugs. In the end, these kind of comments have always got in the way of the music for me and ultimately it just seems tiring. It wasn't as if he was Lee Mack when it came to humour either.

I must admit to much preferring Haye's work which is far more varied in it's input than Scott's. The attraction of Hayes' music is the attack and dynamics. Although there are plenty of saxophonists on the British scene like Harriott, John Surman or Iain Ballamy (or even Soweto Kinch although I am not fan of the Raps) whose work is compelling and original, Hayes always scores because his ability to swing which is something he had akin to Johhny Griffin. Must admitting to preferring listening to Hayes more than Mobley - the latter has everything sown up technically but lacks the aggression of Hayes' best work although I have heard some recordings a friend loaned me where Hayes seems uninterested which surprised me. (I think they stemmed from studio recordings made for radio broadcast.) The appeal for the music on the Hayes CD's I have in my collection (about 4-5) is the aggression and energy of the playing. I also think that he very much had his own voice and style of composition that gave him an edge on his contemporaries.

The whole argument about one style of jazz being superior to others is nonsense . As a rule, I feel that jazz criticism has improved considerably over the last 20-odd years and comments like "far too many notes" are given less credibility. A bit taken aback to read that Brian Priestley wrote this since as he is a musician himself, I thought he might have been more aware of what was going on. I suppose you could still level than argument at some of today's players like Brad Mehldau but I feel it really misses the point about what the music is about. Even the vast majority of the comments made in the Youtube clips would probably be subject to revision if Hayes was alive today and I don't feel they are representative of the situation these days where most jazz musicians would not make these kind of distinctions between jazz recorded in different eras. From the pre-1965 era, the only record of a musician a similar bite working in the UK much have been Bogey Gaynair but I stand to be corrected as this is not an era I am particularly familiar with. In summary, I prefer Hayes as he ticks more boxes.

[simonspill]

Simon

Never really been grabbed by Scott's playing and the early "be-bop" recordings seem enthusiastic at best. (There was a Django track on JRR tonight which was brilliant and demonstrated that some French players were far more relaxed in their approach to the nervous energy that comes from some of the late 40's jam sessions made in London with everyone falling over each other to quote Charlie Parker.) Scott is one of those musicians who I don't dislike but have never been too enthused about enough to explore. He was also someone who tried too hard to give the appearance of being an "archetypal" jazz musician who had disdain for other working musicians. In the end, you just get tired of reading / hearing his comments and the casual " Music Hall humour" laced with references to drink and drugs. In the end, these kind of comments have always got in the way of the music for me and ultimately it just seems tiring. It wasn't as if he was Lee Mack when it came to humour either.

I must admit to much preferring Haye's work which is far more varied in it's input than Scott's. The attraction of Hayes' music is the attack and dynamics. Although there are plenty of saxophonists on the British scene like Harriott, John Surman or Iain Ballamy (or even Soweto Kinch although I am not fan of the Raps) whose work is compelling and original, Hayes always scores because his ability to swing which is something he had akin to Johhny Griffin. Must admitting to preferring listening to Hayes more than Mobley - the latter has everything sown up technically but lacks the aggression of Hayes' best work although I have heard some recordings a friend loaned me where Hayes seems uninterested which surprised me. (I think they stemmed from studio recordings made for radio broadcast.) The appeal for the music on the Hayes CD's I have in my collection (about 4-5) is the aggression and energy of the playing. I also think that he very much had his own voice and style of composition that gave him an edge on his contemporaries.

The whole argument about one style of jazz being superior to others is nonsense . As a rule, I feel that jazz criticism has improved considerably over the last 20-odd years and comments like "far too many notes" are given less credibility. A bit taken aback to read that Brian Priestley wrote this since as he is a musician himself, I thought he might have been more aware of what was going on. I suppose you could still level than argument at some of today's players like Brad Mehldau but I feel it really misses the point about what the music is about. Even the vast majority of the comments made in the Youtube clips would probably be subject to revision if Hayes was alive today and I don't feel they are representative of the situation these days where most jazz musicians would not make these kind of distinctions between jazz recorded in different eras. From the pre-1965 era, the only record of a musician a similar bite working in the UK much have been Bogey Gaynair but I stand to be corrected as this is not an era I am particularly familiar with. In summary, I prefer Hayes as he ticks more boxes.

As they say, horses for courses. I have always liked Ronnie. Not sure that he ever set out to be a comedian, but then again I'm not sure that Lee Mack ever set out to be a world class tenorist! I've always gained the distinct impression that Ronnie commanded a great deal of musical respect, both by English and American players, and I'm sure that the list of the good and the great who praised him (Zoot, Stitt, Kirk, Griffin, Moody, Coleman, Berg) weren't the kind to offer plaudits where none were deserved. Likewise, all the front runners over here (Wellins, Skid, Art etc) always speak highly of Ronnie, and appear to have the upmost respect for him as a musician and not simply as "one of the chaps". I only heard him live once, but have listened to virtually everything he recorded, right from those embryonic Bebop things from the late 40s to the very Berg and Brecker oriented stuff he was playing in the early 90s, and think he really did possess a beautiful talent as a saxophonist. I also think of the fact that it was Ronnie and not Tubby who got the job with Francy Boland/Kenny Clarke. There's a live recording from Paris where Griffin, Tony Coe and Ronnie play long solos on Sax No End and they ALL sound bloomin' marvellous!

Think that's me done here now.

[grippie]

Ah, T. Cooper - my nemesis! I'd forgotten about him (thankfully).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio3/MP7054550

[Serial_Apologist]

Ah, T. Cooper - my nemesis! I'd forgotten about him (thankfully).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio3/MP7054550

Well disinterred, grippie! :ale: :ok:

[Serial_Apologist]

Even the vast majority of the comments made in the Youtube clips would probably be subject to revision if Hayes was alive today and I don't feel they are representative of the situation these days where most jazz musicians would not make these kind of distinctions between jazz recorded in different eras.

Ah, there sounds the voice of the committed postmodernist... :erm: :whistle:

[Ian Thumwood]

SA

Don't really understand your comment but I don't feel that my comments are really that unusual. The Hayes clip seemed to illustrate, at the prompting of the interviewer, a position whereby the then contemporary aspects of jazz were seen as superior to what had gone on before. My point is that a lot of the best contemporary these days is informed by earlier styles of music and jazz musicians are not necessarily so sniffy about what happened within the music post-1945. This can involve the likes of Bill Frisell taking his cues from Eddie Lang and Charlie Patton or Steve Bernstein playing 1920's material as a launch pad for some pretty "out" improvisation. I don't think today's players have any reservations checking out these styles, especially as Hard Bop (as opposed to Post-Bop or Free-bop - call it what you want) or even Modal Jazz are increasingly seeming to offer little in the way that is fresh to my ears. This is hardly a surprise given the fact that it was been such a staple of jazz for 50-odd years.

The passage of time has shown Tubby Hayes to be too critical in his judgement and perhaps lacking in judgement but it would be unreasonable to critcise him for not having a crystal ball. As great as his work was, it was only mid-point in the 100 year history of jazz and of an age where critics, musicians and fans would have been less tolerant of what "jazz" actually was.

Hope this explains what I was trying to get across. Not saying that any style is better or inferior to the alternatives but the position taken by Hayes was suggestive that, in 1960, he believed this to be the case.

[Serial_Apologist]

SA

Don't really understand your comment but I don't feel that my comments are really that unusual. The Hayes clip seemed to illustrate, at the prompting of the interviewer, a position whereby the then contemporary aspects of jazz were seen as superior to what had gone on before. My point is that a lot of the best contemporary these days is informed by earlier styles of music and jazz musicians are not necessarily so sniffy about what happened within the music post-1945. This can involve the likes of Bill Frisell taking his cues from Eddie Lang and Charlie Patton or Steve Bernstein playing 1920's material as a launch pad for some pretty "out" improvisation. I don't think today's players have any reservations checking out these styles, especially as Hard Bop (as opposed to Post-Bop or Free-bop - call it what you want) or even Modal Jazz are increasingly seeming to offer little in the way that is fresh to my ears. This is hardly a surprise given the fact that it was been such a staple of jazz for 50-odd years.

The passage of time has shown Tubby Hayes to be too critical in his judgement and perhaps lacking in judgement but it would be unreasonable to critcise him for not having a crystal ball. As great as his work was, it was only mid-point in the 100 year history of jazz and of an age where critics, musicians and fans would have been less tolerant of what "jazz" actually was.

Hope this explains what I was trying to get across. Not saying that any style is better or inferior to the alternatives but the position taken by Hayes was suggestive that, in 1960, he believed this to be the case.

This is where we differ to the largest extent, Ian.

The point about innovations is implicitly that they represent "improvement" on what had gone before. This is in no way to denigrate what went before - merely to pint out that with the knowledge, the rules, the evolution of consciousness and the means available, Schoenberg would have recognized that whole eras of progress, art parallelling historic progress if you will, would need to have been undergone before composers were in any position to contemplate taking music beyond diatonic-based means of formal organisation; likewise jazz was not yet ready in Charlie Parker's time for steps into freedom from chord-change-based improvisation 50 years following Schoenberg's step over the abyss on behalf of the art music tradition.

Artistic revolutionaries often dissociate themselves from the work of their predecessors, apart from those they see as immediate torch-bearers: Monk, Mingus, Russell etc for the 1960s freedom lovers. This way they can draw attention to the importance they want to see others to see in their own, contemporary work, and for it not to have the past hanging around its neck. The point is surely what with the passing of time is maybe only gradually recognised as tacit from the past in what Armstrong, Parker, 'Trane et al took on board, owing to the difficulty of taking the new on board being inherent in what really is new. The past does not require acknowledgement by going back and dotting all the undotted i's and croossing the uncrossed t's, but by picking up where the present leaves off. Herbioe Hancock did not have to style-check Fats Waller, Earl Hines, Art Tatum, Willie the Lion Smith and Bud Powell, for instance, to enter some pantheon of eligibility to Jazz Heritage Inc. This is not to discount the old in the new, just to say that its presence is tacit, and should not require drawing attention to itself, just in the same way as all the major and minor keys - and more! - are tacit in twelve tone serial music.

It's just more economical that way!

If you get me...

[Oddball]

S_A - I'm sure that Ian will speak for himself - but your position appears to imply that innovation necessarily incorporates all that has gone before - so what is the point of listening to anything other than "cutting edge"? In other words if Schoenberg is listened to hard enough and long enough, than we will hear all that Brahms and Mozart had to offer.

Aren't we allowed to chill out sometimes?

And as for innovation, may be the best innovators recognise the roots of their musical discipline, and that by emphasisng the roots, then are then well placed to say what they have to say.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hi Oddball

Obviously I disagree! :biggrin:


S_A - I'm sure that Ian will speak for himself - but your position appears to imply that innovation necessarily incorporates all that has gone before - so what is the point of listening to anything other than "cutting edge"?

I don't see how what I wrote can be claimed to be saying that innovation incorporates all that has gone before - necessarily or otherwise.


In other words if Schoenberg is listened to hard enough and long enough, than we will hear all that Brahms and Mozart had to offer.

And, I'd argue, more, as well as building on the classics.


Aren't we allowed to chill out sometimes?

Why not? We have many, many old recordings to inform us on what was once cutting-edge, The Proms to put it on at affordable prices... and people like Ian to guide us! :winkeye:


And as for innovation, may be the best innovators recognise the roots of their musical discipline, and that by emphasisng the roots, then are then well placed to say what they have to say.

Well placed indeed! :smiley:

[Ian Thumwood]

The more I listen to music, I find myself becoming more and more open minded about what is good or indeed what is important in music. This is the problem with the kind of Trad v Modern arguments presented in the clip as they are an indication of trying to prove yourslef to be fashionable by aligning yourself with the so-called "cutting edge."

With 50 years of hindsight, we can more readily appreciate that Tubby could have had no idea just how different jazz would have been even ten years later let alone in 2012. I agree with SA that "Great" musicians have innovated but it is equally true that there are "Great" musicians in all styles who haven't. The more I think about this position of always searching for the innovative and new, the less convinced I am by the strengths of the argument. The Hayes interview was diplomatic but gave an indication of the somewhat entrenched views of the time. Nowadays, I don't believe that these entrenched views would be reflected by many musicians and the differences between a player like Coleman Hawkins and Tubby are not as pronounced as they may have seen to be in 1960.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i tend to agree Ian .... and i think some rather small differences of approach were magnified out of all proportion in the 60s and 70s ..... now they seem pretty unremarkable ....

if i listen to the Ornette Coleman Trio at The Golden Circle it matters not a whit that they are 'harmelodic' in approach what matters is the tiotal conviction and attack of the music

[Serial_Apologist]

i tend to agree Ian .... and i think some rather small differences of approach were magnified out of all proportion in the 60s and 70s ..... now they seem pretty unremarkable ....

if i listen to the Ornette Coleman Trio at The Golden Circle it matters not a whit that they are 'harmelodic' in approach what matters is the tiotal conviction and attack of the music

Well to me a large part of enjoying music is what goes into making it work - well, OK. for me - and at the time, what's new is an important barometer of hope and progress in general, while stagnation and refuge seeking in past solutions moulded in different conditions speaks of a stranglehold of reaction. Most innovations do get taken on board over time, (pace those who find say Schoenberg or Braxton hard going), some take longer than others because of the magnitude of possibilities they offer to successors. This is surely different from magpie raids on history trying to make up for what is perceived as lacking in the vernacular of today, but one sometimes gets the impression from the way you guys talk that it would not have mattered one iota had jazz not evolved at all. Points at which art forms are in transition are always of fascination as illuminating historical progress - the contemporary juxtapositionings of, say, Byrd and Monteverd, (Here the secular replacing sacred narrative); JS Bach and CPE Bach; Mozart and Beethoven (the change from church and royal patronage to artists marketing their wares); Mahler and Schoenberg; Lester Young and Charlie Parker; Louis Jordan and Ray Charles; etc etc - points when the new emerges confidently from within the old without need for backward looking, reflecting, facing on, and even driving changes in the outer world.