Jazz for aficionados

Beauty comes in different shapes and sizes. Next to Brecker, my favorite post-Coltrane tenor player: Dave Liebman.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BrIfp7F6wR8

"If they act too hip, you know they can't play shit" - Miles Davis

Thanks.

****You dissed it then****

I will have to search the archives :-) and get back to you. I am 100% consistent; you should know that :-) :-)

****Why should they? Nothing new about this. The soloist always gets top billing. Miles did the playing. Evenas arranged and conducted the orchestra. He did not conduct Miles!

Think of Anne-Sophie Mutter playing with the Berliners. Who gets top billing? Not the conductor nor the orchestra. The person the public is paying to hear. ****

Not a relevant comparison; and I think you miss the point of my comment. I would argue that the reason that "The Birth Of The Cool" is important is the arranging and overall concept, not Miles' playing; Mulligan plays his ass off as well on those sessions, btw. Those sessions were seminal in the evolution of jazz. When Mutter puts out yet one more version of the Beethoven concerto, it does nothing to shape the direction of the music nor of the place of that concerto in the history of classical music; that place is already well established.

Besides, how is this relevant to the bigger issue of Miles' constant search and change? That's the more important point I was making.

And BTW, clearly, I was not there, but I would bet you my copy of that LP that Evans DID "conduct Miles" quite a bit.

**** I think Branford might be better than his brother.****

Duh!

****I have always thought of Wynton and being more than just a Jazz player****

Very true. He is a formidable force in jazz today; as you said, "the face of jazz". An outspoken embassador for jazz with a dedication to and understanding of the history of jazz that, were he to take part in this discussion, would make all of our comments seem like those of kindergarten students. He is an incredibly talented trumpet player with the kind of meticulousness in his playing that allows him to be a very credible classical player. But, an interesting jazz player none of this necessarily makes; he never really was, but perhaps from the standpoint of sheer virtuosity. His brother Branford is a much more laid-back and relaxed individual who plays much like the way he is as a person. He, also, has recorded some of the classical repertoire, but with less success. I find it an interesting study on personality and how that translates to certain players' musical personality. In a nutshell, I doubt Wynton would EVER title one of is records "Four MF's Playing Tunes" (I assume we all know what MF stands for).

One of my very favorites by two of my favorite singers. If you have never heard Betty Carter in her "earlier" voice, this may be a revelation. Ray Charles; well, what more can be said about his genius. I can probably do without the chorus "sweetening" on a couple of the cuts, but overall, a beautiful record:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Rbkcxiibw

Rok, your silence is deafening ;-)

****Hard to understand music, is better than nothing to understand.****

Exactly.

Perhaps for a different thread, but apropos your comment, and knowing you are also a fan of classical and opera, have you tried Alban Berg's operas (Wozzeck, Lulu)? Very difficult to understand, but fabulous mind-bending music.

Good comments, Rok. Agree with your assessment of the Canadian Brass recording; great brass players, but don't have the necessary feel and looseness for that music. The Oscar Brown Jr. recording is definitely a classic; I've always wondered why his recordings don't get more attention.
Brackeen does indeed play great piano; although I have always been mixed about her playing. To me, she is, in some ways, one of the most beautiful pianists, but with a not completely convincing swing feel. This live recording is a perfect example of what I mean. She plays in a gorgeous rhapsodic style and uses the keyboard almost like an orchestra with her use of dense harmonies and textures with great flow and shape, but at around 4:30 when she goes into a double time swing feel things fall apart for me; too stiff and rushed. Still, beautiful playing.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n3mTrBHRQPA

This post is about the big boy of the saxophone family (we'll skip the bass saxophone; for now), the baritone saxophone. Pepper Adams, appropriately nicknamed "The Knife" by Stan Kenton, probably the greatest of the great baritone saxophonists. I particularly like how he uses the extreme bottom of the instrument. While it may seem an obvious thing to do, many more modern players have a tendency to play in the extreme upper range of the instrument (the tenor saxophone range), Pepper loved the bottom of the horn. Of special note on this recording ("The Master"; probably his best) is George Mraz's bass playing. What a beautiful bass player! Notice the fabulous definition and intonation of what he plays. Too often, and in part due to the instrument's fret-less nature, even the great players play with less than perfect intonation and definition, especially in up-tempos. His lines are like melodies that can be easily followed.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m-q01aPQ8J0

Ronnie Cuber is another great baritone saxophonist in a more modern bag who can be heard on many pop recordings (Steely Dan, Stuff, SNL) but who is a bebopper at heart. Some of his best work was as part of George Benson's Cookbook. A really fun record:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLG2ssX2oto&feature=plpp

Gary Smulyan is probably the most prominent young(er) baritone saxophonist on the scene today. Member of the Vanguard Jazz Orchestra, he filled Pepper's shoes; and what shoes they were. A great player:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=lGfYkNgCshA

Now for something different. World Saxophone Qt. member Hamiett Bluiett is an acquired taste:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UOjiIXyVNM

Rok, if you want Lulu on DVD be sure to get the Met Opera, James Levine cond. DVD; terrific. BTW, of special note about this music is the fact that the saxophone (alto) features very prominently in the piece; unusual in orchestral writing.

Total babe!

Exactly! Good description; like a second movement, and not a bad thing at all. It is common for players to change the mood by double timing at a certain point in the ten. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but my issue it is not with her choice to double time, but rather her swing feel at the faster tempo. Listen in particular to her left hand; that's a solo piano player's rhythm section when there is none. I think it falls a little flat. Don't get me wrong, she's a great player, and she sounds fabulous in a looser style as in the first 4 minutes of the cut. I just think she is not as convincing with her swing feel as some other players. Remember the Vignola/Peplowski cut; the fact that they could swing so hard without a rhythm section is why I liked it so much.

Thanks, Charles1dad; ditto. Have not heard "Night Lights", but will definitely check it out. Being very familiar with both Mulligan and Farmer, I imagine they are a beautiful pairing indeed.

"...certain point in the TUNE." Not, ten.

****This guy was in all types of music. From Classical Orchestras, to the Cuban Army Band. I am sure this background influenced his approach to Jazz. **** - Rok2id re PDR

Bingo!

Paquito's first and most important influence was the music of his native Cuba; not to mention the influence of the culture of that country in general. He came to jazz from that direction, as opposed to the many players who were jazz players first, and later discovered Latin music and incorporated it into their repertoires. There will be a clearly identifiable flavor in the playing of musicians depending on what their primary influence was. It is a little like the accents of the spoken word of people of various nationalities; a person for whom Spanish was their first language will, more than likely, speak English (even if perfect English) with a Spanish accent.

Not only do I agree with Chazro about Paquito being a great player, but I would also point out that he is a very accomplished composer in various genres including chamber music. I bring up the above in order to possibly explain why he is not generally considered one of the greatest; not as a criticism. While I agree about the exuberance that Paquito demonstrates on his first records, this exuberance is more than anything, a reflection of simply who he is; he is a very exuberant individual in general. This exuberance, and the influence of his Latin music background in general are things that are often pointed out by die-hard jazz players as qualities that are questionable. IN GENERAL, Latin players play jazz with a unique, and readily identifiable, swing feel. There is a bit of a "ball rolling down the stairs" feel; they play much more on the front side of the beat than American jazz players who generally play with a more laid back (back of the beat). Please remember that these are generalities and certainly don't apply to all players and all circumstances. Conversely, jazz players generally bring their own unique approach to Latin music; I have been in playing situations where great jazz players had trouble sounding convincing with the unique syncopations of Latin music.

When we talk about who "the best" are, we are setting an extremely high bar. Players like Paquito, Wynton, Eddie Daniels, and others who are extremely competent in a variety of styles and genres deserve their well-earned respect, but it takes something really special to be in "the best" category; IMO.

Overlook the flash, and "Wow factor", and see which ones belong in "the best" category due to strong sense of thematic development, musical logic, and ability to let you follow the tune at all times. It's clear to me. What do you think?

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=9OtZrIjQuwA

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=D4bgd2yAY54

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=-Y6U0TD3z34

Sonny, taking no prisoners:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MgZVT2m0ziY

But then again, Freddie nor Clifford would have stood a chance with this:

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=related&v=Gu2f_-01BdE

Amazing!

Rok, musicians' wages? Yikes! That's gonna take some time; lot's to say. Will be back.

And BTW, interesting that those comments should come from Max Roach, a drummer. I would imagine that because of what I described above, Sonny's rhythmic forcefulness did not suit a drummer's traditional role in an ensemble.

Well said, Charles1dad. BTW, and this is simply a statement of fact and not a criticism, but Wynton's salary from Jazz At Lincoln Center alone is $1 million+

"There are two kinds of music, good music and the other kind" - Duke Ellington

I think a certain idea is getting lost in these discussions. Well, at least the idea that I tried to bring forth about the "nuts and bolts" part of music appreciation. The idea that disregard for, lack of interest, or ignorance of that aspect of music is somehow a higher calling, or that it leads to a deeper emotional connection to music is simply mistaken. It is not a prerequisite for the appreciation of music (obviously), but it can do nothing but enhance the emotional experience, and helps us be a better judge of the good and the bad.

On a more personal note, and this is something that every musician feels strongly about is the obvious (if cliched) truth in Duke's comment. I listen to everything, there is no genre of music that doesn't have the good and the bad; and I confess that I find it remarkable (and this is not meant to offend) that anyone can feel so passionately about a particular genre (any genre) and dismiss the incredible beauty in Kathleen Battle's singing, even if that genre is not the preferred genre. We all have our likes and dislikes, but like Duke said....Anyway, I strongly encourage all to be more open to this idea.

The "My Favorite Things" comparison. Orpheus, at first I thought it was a joke; it's like being asked to compare grandma's chicken soup to a spicy Cajun gumbo. I am not sure where to begin. One is a vocal rendition, the other is an instrumental version in which the tune is almost inconsequential; it's simply a vehicle for the players' improvisation within that tune's framework. On the vocal version you have classic production values and orchestration coupled to Andrews' charming and mildly theatrical singing; impeccable in the nuts and bolts considerations of pitch, control, and beauty of tone while (even more importantly) conveying the perfectly appropriate feeling of innocence that the lyric demands. A timeless, classic, and beautiful vocal rendition with an orchestration full of subtlety and restraint; what is there not to like? Coltrane's version could not be more different. His ascerbic and raw tone on the soprano gives this version an almost surreal quality. There is not much of an "arrangement" to speak of and obviously no orchestration. The rhythm section lays down a waltz feel very different from that in the vocal version, being much more swinging and not as appropriately light and buoyant. As I said, more than anything, a vehicle for improvisation which is done in typical Coltrane fashion; reaching, searching, with a sense of purpose that is typically Trane.

Grandma's chicken soup may not be as interesting as a Cajun gumbo, but man, there sure was perfection and comfort in that chicken soup; in its own way, a thing of beauty. Love that Cajun gumbo, but it could give me heartburn like the chicken soup never did. All in all, as far as the MUSIC, the emotion, both equally valid and good.

BTW, I don't tire of that story; I am envious as hell. I look forward to your comments about the two versions of MFT.

"“I believe in things that are developed through hard work. I always like people who have developed long and hard, especially through introspection and a lot of dedication. I think what they arrive at is usually a much deeper and more beautiful thing than the person who seems to have that ability and fluidity from the beginning. I say this because it’s a good message to give to young talents who feel as I used to.” - Bill Evans

And not very good sausage at that! But fear not, most of the players that do that kind of thing are not worth listening to anyway.

Rok, thanks for "getting" where I am coming from. Too much great music out there to spend time bashing. Analysis and criticism is a different matter altogether, and serves to gain a deeper understanding of the music, IMO. No artist should be put on such a high pedestal that they are above it; and most of the great ones would be the first to admit it.

O-10, thanks for the links; great stuff! "Yesterday's" is simply incredible. I was not familiar with that record, so it has to go on the "to buy" list. Sounds like Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis on tenor (?). Beautiful!

And the Kirk/McDuff! In the pocket indeed.

Jimmy Forrest was another often overlooked great tenor player. Indisputably out of the Texas tenor camp, this cut teams him with two other greats: King Curtis and Oliver Nelson who we often forget was a great player as well as composer/arranger. Check out Forrest's opening phrase, but first fasten your seatbelt. His solo is first, followed by King Curtis and the Oliver Nelson. I love the way Nelson crafts a solo. There is an incredible logic to the way he develops a solo. Anyone familiar with his "Bues And The Abstract Truth" will recognize the almost stately way that he starts and then develops an idea before there is an "ok, time to cut loose" attitude. Three very different but equally interesting styles:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6N3ttzmzJmg

Thanks for the very nice words, Rok. Will listen to the Mingus cut (it's been a few years) and get back to you.

Here's a link to Mingus' "Hog Calling Blues". BTW, my comment above should, of course, read Kirk WAS not an imposter; he passed in 1977:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv1Yewr6Z5s

Charles1dad, thanks for the recommendation of "Fingerpainting". Listened to it last night and enjoyed it very much. I love the concept of Herbie's music minus piano; a very daring one, IMO. The idea of trying to capture the spirit of a jazz composer's music without using the very instrument that, in many ways, has always defined those compositions takes some huevos. The concept could fall flat on it's face, but not only doesn't it do that, it works very well with only a very occasional "samy" quality. Great vibe throught the record, and very intelligent choice to not do Herbie's most popular tunes (Maiden Voyage, Watermelon Man...). "Chamelon" kills! Payton sounds wonderful; no "but" here.

Good reading where Freddie talks about his chop problems and other aspects of life as a jazz player:

http://www.shout.net/~jmh/articles/freddie01.html

Rok, c'mon now. With all due respect, you have a way of skirting the issues. What on earth does the fact that the discussion, at one point, veered into the area of the influences on jazz other than the African one have to do with anything? How does that lessen the fact that, yes, most of my recommendations are, in fact, rooted in the blues. There is strength in conceding when when one is mistaken. You are mistaken.

Kenny G a one hit wonder? I suggest you get your facts straight. He is the biggest selling instrumental recording artist (?) in modern times with record sales of more than 75 million !!!.

artist

Orpheus10, I loved the Johnny Smith cut. What a beautiful player! Amazingly relaxed, but very deliberate and very soulful with a gorgeous sound. His feel is reminescent of Dexter Gordon's ballad playing; behind the beat but always secure and confident. Stan Getz is brilliant as usual; a great pairing. One of the nicest things that I have heard in a while. Thank you.

Orpheus10, this thread continues to be, without a doubt, one of the most interesting on this forum. Your passion for jazz is palpable, and you and I actually have very similar sensibilities re which performers are truly capable of communicating something to the listener. I am in basic agreement with you about Wynton in that respect, although I share Rok's feelings about Wynton's overall relevance. I am somewhat surprised we have returned to the subject of Wynton and have other thoughts about this which I will contribute when I have a little more time. For now, I would like to address your comments about the "musician's world".

I have found that there is an understandable tendency among non-musicians to romanticize the process of being a musician; I emphasize "process". The idea that in every creative musician there is a force within that is guiding, dictating, and controlling the process required to make music come out of his chosen instrument as if it were all beyond the control of the player is as romantic as one can get; the "Muse". This notion is very far from reality. We have discussed this subject previously so I am surprised that we are here again. Surprised because if we read the biographies of the great players like Bird and Trane we learn that they were incessant practicers ("shedders" as musicians, themselves, call it). They also studied a great deal; recordings, formal harmony studies, or piano wether that was their main instrument or not. I don't know who the jazz musicians you know (knew?) were, and I acknowledge that some players (have to?) devote more time to shedding than others. But, at some point, if not currently, every great player has put in a tremendous amount of practice time. Additionally, one of the things that hour upon hour of practicing teaches a player is how to achieve what previously may have taken two hours, I fifteen minutes. You would be amazed what an experienced player can accomplish in a ten minute "warm-up" before (or during!) a gig.

With all due respect, some of your comments directed at Learsfool and "his world" are not simply inaccurate, but unfair as well. Yes, a classical musician's "world" is different in many respects than a jazz musician's world. But, not nearly as different as some might think in many key respects; not the least of which is what it takes to develop the mechanics of playing an instrument (any instrument in any genre). I would encourage you to consider the fact that while they may be different worlds, they are most definitely part of the same universe; while musicians (all musicians) live in an all-together different universe than non-musicians. Great jazz players are no less mesmerized by the beauty of phrasing, elegance, tone and ultimate control of the instrument that a great classical player offers in a performance, than a classical musician is of the amazing understanding of harmony, musical looseness, and individuality that a great improviser offers. Because they live in the same universe, if not the same world, none of these are mutually exclusive; simply emphasized to different degrees.

Learsfool, your description is excellent; no need for qualifiers. I would contribute to it only by approaching it from a somewhat different angle.

There is no possible way to exaggerate the level of skill possessed by an excellent jazz musician. Their understanding of, and ability to move around within the world of harmony, is simply astounding. As you point out, there exists a fairly well established "repertory" of tunes that working jazz players tap for their performances. This list of "standards" grows over the years with more modern tunes by contemporary/current composers. Learning the melodies of tunes seems like child's-play when you consider what it takes to improvise (spontaneously compose) a credible solo (new composition) within the unique harmonic framework of any given tune.

Consider a typical "standard" jazz tune with a 32 measure, AABA form such as "Cherokee"; a tune that is 32 measures long, with an 8 measure verse (A) which is then repeated (A), followed by another 8 measure section (B) referred to as the "bridge" which harmonically bridges the two A sections to the returning and last (A). This bridge is usually recognized by a seemingly harmonically abrupt and even unrelated harmonic center; but, usually sets-up the return to the harmonic center of the "A" section. Now, consider that each of those 8 measure sections is made up of a sequence of harmonic "changes" (chords). Each of those eight measures will have one, two, three or even more chord changes within that measure. The choices of harmonic changes (chords) that a composer chooses create a "harmonic rhythm" which gives a tune harmonic pulse or momentum; a sense of forward movement. Each of these chords, while related, has it's own "palette" of color choices (note choices) that it offers the improviser as he travels through this sequence of palettes in real time. The improviser then has to choose from each individual palette (chord) and play notes that not only are found in that particular palette, but also relate to the palette before it, the palette that follows it, and most importantly the entire "box" of palettes (AABA/32 measures). The best improvisers can choose colors (notes) that are not found in any given palette (they are outside the harmonic center of that particular harmony) and still make them relate to the overall harmonic scheme. Consider just how little time an improviser has to react to the constantly changing harmony, and still choose notes that are more than simply "correct" notes and actually add musical meaning to the improviser's spontaneous composition.

Musical meaning; THAT is what seperates the "good" improvisers from the greats and what defines a true artist. It's possible to master the mechanics (physical and intellectual) of the process of improvisation to an extent that can be very impressive, but still shortchange the listener with an absence of music. While this can be subjective, the educated listener usually knows it when he hears it (or doesn't). This is the main reason that a more in-depth understanding of the music making process helps to appreciate who the real artists are. A visceral, non-analytic, appreciation of music is great and truly the bottom line; but, understanding the proces better can clear the way for a deeper understanding of the art.

*****These folks are as far away from understanding music theory on your level, as a person can get. But they do indeed get the visceral part. To me it says, HOME.*****

You would be surprised. What I described above is as rudimentary as one can get when one considers just how much there is to learn. The folks you mention would most certainly have this knowledge and more. I think that the point is how little most non-musican music lovers/audiophiles understand, how much there is to learn (if wanted), how much learning can improve appreciation, and that there is often a visceral aversion to learning more.

I hope that this does not offend anyone, but IMO, if a jazz lover doesn't know (for example) that most blues tunes are 12 measures long, I would suggest that the love doesn't go quite deep enough.

Rok, excellent and very honest post! First of all, thank you for your service.

****You get used to blunt, straight talk. No tap dancing or sugar coating. Thin skins don't survive. I have no modesty, and I cannot be offended.****

I respect that; and probably the reason that in spite of the fireworks in this and in other threads we can joke about hog calling.

****how to call in artillery support or how to defend against Chemical, Biological and Nuclear attacks or where to place the Machine Guns or where to dig the Fighting Positions, there is a good chance you would not know. ****

Very true. But, I assure that in the scheme of my world as a working musician it has often felt as if I have had to defend against similar attacks (bad time and intonation. :-)

**** I wonder if that is not a two edged sword. Sure I could have better understanding as to what I am hearing, and what the musicians are doing. But, at the same time if seems as if it would take more to impress me.****

Probably. But, you will be that much more impressed when you are.

****I have at least 10 differnt performances of LvB's 7th. I love them all.****

Do you like some more than others? Can you isolate what it is that you like about the ones that you listen to most?

I understand your concern and it proves my point about the aversion to learning more. You mentioned the Mingus recording. I love that cut! Not sure why you would think that I am less impressed with it than you are, other than the fact that I did a simple analysis of Rahsaan's solo (which is fantastic) and was able to describe some aspects of it. That in no way detracts from my enjoyment of it; in fact, it only increases it. But, it also serves to lay bare the bullshitters who honk and squawk and try to impress with their "individuality" and "energy". That is a good thing, IMO.

Regards.

****BTW, there are much worst places to be musically, than a Baptist church. Some good stuff there.****

GREAT stuff there. That was not the point.

Cheers.

Rok, at first I was confused by your post.

****I feel you and The Frogman might be putting too much emphasis on the name of the tune. I don't think of Vermont at all.****

Huh!? The tune IS about Vermont. You can't remove the lyrics from the equation. A great song is a marriage of melody and lyrics, and the message can be sent by the lyrics, the tune, or both. In Moolight In Vermont, while I don't know what Vermont is supposed to sound like, I think the tune, by itself, conveys a feeling that is similar to (and definitely compliments) the lyrics. It's a beautiful song, and interestingly, has no rhymes.

****You gotta name it something. Something people can easily remember and relate to.****

The name usually relates to the lyrics. Usually, a composer is inspired by an event, person, or place to convey the feeling in song, and the name is part of the lyrics. You may find this interesting, with Herbie Hancock speaking about the creation and naming of his tune "Watermelon Man":

http://bluespianorevealed.com/herbie-hancock-and-the-origin-of-the-watermelon-man/

Orpheus, my next music contribution was going to be Ella doing Billie's Bounce. I completely agree with your comments about the appropriateness of scatting some times and not others, and this relates in key ways to the earlier discussion about Moonlight In Vermont. Ella was not only respectful of the song (as you point out), but was (IMO) the only only singer that could scat a solo that doesn't leave me saying "that was pretty good; for a singer". She could scat a solo very bit as swinging and in control of the MUSICAL vocabulary as a good instrumentalist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cLep2fmY6sw

****And the sax player! Where has this guy been hiding all my life!****

Rok, you need to get out more often :-)

You're just a sucker for a pretty face :-)

Agree about Take 6. Their first album was killer and nothing after was as good; a shame given their amazing talent.

Adding to Learsfool's definition: reverb time is how long it takes for sound to die away after it is produced. Because frequency and how loud the sound was to begin with will affect reverb time, acousticians set "60 db below the loudness level of the original sound" as the measuring point.

Oh, and I forgot, she is also a talented visual artist.

Loved the Gene Ammons cuts. What a distinctive tenor sound: dark, fat, and with just the right amount of nasal edge; and man could he ever play in the pocket! Amazing time feel. Thanks, I have not pulled out any of my Jug records in a while.

Since we are on the subject of tenor players, here's two more of my favorites from that era. Johnny Griffin kills on this record. And checkout Ben Riley on drums; amazing! Actually, great rhythm section.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=relmfu&v=NB4lJyFxDPs

Lorez Alexandria sounds good, but doesn't kill me. A little "pitchy", and she and the rhythm section aren't always locked in. I like her tone; nice voice quality.

Here's a great "jazz singer we never heard of". Amazing talent; she writes most her own material AND writes the string and horn arrangements. Fantastic rhythm section on this record.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U21lJqJAxYs

Acman3, that George Russel cut is amazing! I can't believe that slipped through the cracks for me. What a fantastic and inventive arrangement from one of the most interesting minds in jazz. A lesson in the power of simplicity when you make the right note choices. Truly one of the best things I have heard in a while. Thank you for sharing. Sheila Jordan sounds sublime in "Am I Blue!

You saw Coltrane live!?!? I am jealous beyond words. Liked McCoy; 'though.

Heard the studio version of this on WBGO today and it floored me (even better than this live version). Great band, and had never heard of violinist Zach Brock before. And speaking of McCoy, this excellent young piano player is right out of a McCoy bag.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xyGVtCthtZw