Why don't tenors sound like this anymore?

[mrpeebee]

Beautiful clips of the great Mr. Frank Wess, thanks for posting them Tim. I prefer his sound on the metal Link (in the Gene Harris clip) above the HR piece in the second clip, but Frank Wess sounds great on everything I guess. What a control and smooth technic.

Here is another great tune (a ballad) as played on his metal (Florida?) Link:

[jamminjoe]

I Love that sound and I use it as much as I can.

[mrpeebee]

Thanks for sharing jamminjoe. I see you don't have much posts on this forum, so here is some advice. Clips of SOTW members can be better posted in one of these parts of the forum:

1. By 'Post New Thread' in the "SOTW Member Recordings & Reviews" section:
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/forumdi...gs-amp-Reviews
2. By a post in the "Beginners/Intermediates post your recordings here 2011" thread:
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthr...ings-here-2011

I'm sure your clip will get more attention and reactions in one of those threads than it will get here.

[jakethesax]

WOWWOWWOWWOWWOW!!!!!
I love this thread!!!!!!!

[jakethesax]

All those Texas tenor clips, and only got to p3 so far, AWESOME! (is it worth making the most horn players in the UK don't get past page 3 comment, hmmm that'd be cheap!)

[mrpeebee]

Glad you like it Jake . You will find lots of good 'old school' tenor clips till the end of this thread .

It's a good way to explore 'heavy tenor' jazz history through those clips, even if you don't want to sound like that yourself.

[mrpeebee]

We already had some nice Willis Jackson clips in the beginning of this thread, but I just found this nice ballad of him and wanted to share it here:

[mrpeebee]

Same for this version of 'Bye Bye Blackbird' featuring the great Sonny Stitt and Gene Ammons. Nice to hear their different sound and approach. Don't stop to early, the ending after 8:10 is just fantastic IMO:

[mrpeebee]

And here own of the great Paul Gonsalves and Sonny Stitt:

[BATMAN]

didn't read this whole thread, but read the first few pages. Really great stuff. I'm not really that hip to the Texas Tenors, but I really like Illinois Jacquet and Lockjaw.

Still, for the perfect combination of guts, power, and blues...it's all about Chicago Tenor for me. Gene Ammons, of course, Griff, Clifford Jordan, Red Holloway, and definitely Von Freeman. Not that I personally sound like that (well, Gene Ammons is in there...) but love that robust sound.

I think in general, a lot of Tenor players, especially ones going to school are not exploring enough of the Coleman Hawkins lineage of saxophone playing. It's probably seen as not applicable to "modern jazz". I know personally it was all about Trane's sound for me, until my teacher made me learn Coleman Hawkins, Lucky Thompson, Gene Ammons...stuff like that. Cat's are just exploring one or two fully-formed contemporary saxophone players, and not enough of who those guys listened to.

re: the Texas Tenors, there's this guy Quamon Fowler who definitely has a modern take on that kind of sound. And Kirk Whalum also definitely has that thing going on. James Carter of course (when he wishes)...and probably the only guy I've ever heard who can articulate the way Lockjaw does...

[mrpeebee]

Batman, thanks for your reaction. Indeed those Chicago guys are great, some of them are in this thread .

Regarding the new guys you mentioned: I just checked Quamon Fowler, but I wouldn't classify him as a modern Texas Tenor. Soundwise he doesn't come close in my ears (too small sound), stylistically he comes from starting point Coltrane and later. I checked this clip of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r3fVQwiiWs

Kirk Whalum seems to come from Grover Washington and Kenny G, from what I hear here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwNJFT8Gt8

James Carter is a great player who can do everything on sax. But I would love to hear him on a good Link instead of on that one dimensional piece he is blowing now.

[paulwl]

I think in general, a lot of Tenor players, especially ones going to school are not exploring enough of the Coleman Hawkins lineage of saxophone playing. It's probably seen as not applicable to "modern jazz". I know personally it was all about Trane's sound for me, until my teacher made me learn Coleman Hawkins, Lucky Thompson, Gene Ammons...stuff like that. Cat's are just exploring one or two fully-formed contemporary saxophone players, and not enough of who those guys listened to.

It goes beyond that. Players like Hawkins, Thompson, etc. are no longer thought of as "fully formed." They came too early to have all of the harmonic and improvisational canon in their playing, so they're treated as strictly historical steppingstones. The assumption is that their vocabulary is played out because their theory and harmony was "limited."

A question nobody much wants to address is whether those players' tone, phrasing, and lyricism are adaptable to fully formed improvisational theory, or whether their sound is just going to trap you in a "dead style."

[Grimmell73]

I don't remember who said it any more, but I heard one legend in the field commenting that nowadays, younger players can do everthing technically: scales, triads, diminished and augmented, you name it. "The one thing you can't get them to do," he lamented, "is leave the bone alone."

Technique is no more necessary to music than special effects are necessary to film making. Some films, like "Armageddon," appear to exist only to chain together special effects, which is why "Armageddon" is one of only three films I have ever walked out of and demanded a refund. By contrast, "Before Sunset" doesn't even use the simple cut; it's two people talking for 90 minutes, and it was riveting. The above clips, and this whole style of music, tell stories, which is far more enthralling than special effects. Although I respect Cannonball Adderley's ability to weave his vast technique into a melody, it's the melodic sense, not the technique, that is remarkable. Most players who break into "fully formed" improvisations just sound like they drank too much caffeine. In my opinion.

[BATMAN]

Batman, thanks for your reaction. Indeed those Chicago guys are great, some of them are in this thread .

Regarding the new guys you mentioned: I just checked Quamon Fowler, but I wouldn't classify him as a modern Texas Tenor. Soundwise he doesn't come close in my ears (too small sound), stylistically he comes from starting point Coltrane and later. I checked this clip of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r3fVQwiiWs

Kirk Whalum seems to come from Grover Washington and Kenny G, from what I hear here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwNJFT8Gt8

James Carter is a great player who can do everything on sax. But I would love to hear him on a good Link instead of on that one dimensional piece he is blowing now.

check out THIS clip of Quamon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9mdR0DGEC8 The Texas is in there. Mainly in the low register. Yeah, his sound isn't as wide as, let's say Arnett Cobb, and definitely has some more "modern" influences, but I like it because he doesn't sound like 95% of tenor players I've heard.

Kirk Whalum doesn't really remind me of Kenny G. Maybe if you mean that he plays smooth jazz and he tends to put a lot of reverb on his smooth records, maybe. Grover, I can see. Check him out in "Work to Do" by Rodney Whitaker/Carl Allen. The only record I know of where Kirk plays in a "Jazz" setting. There's some clips on youtube as well of him playing Giant Steps and such. I can't say I'm a giant fan, but he's actually a good saxophone player, with a nice sound (when you remove all the processing).

It goes beyond that. Players like Hawkins, Thompson, etc. are no longer thought of as "fully formed." They came too early to have all of the harmonic and improvisational canon in their playing, so they're treated as strictly historical steppingstones. The assumption is that their vocabulary is played out because their theory and harmony was "limited."

A question nobody much wants to address is whether those players' tone, phrasing, and lyricism are adaptable to fully formed improvisational theory, or whether their sound is just going to trap you in a "dead style."

I agree. Part of it is the whole "scratchy recording" syndrome. Most of it is definitely because people want to get to the fireworks as quickly as possible. Ironically enough, some people (Don Byas comes to mind) played with a virtuosity that rivaled any beboppers of any era...and that could hang today...and though he's not playing giant steps, there's plenty of clever possibilities there.

As for the question of style applied to modern music theory...absolutely it can be done. There are a handful who many of you will recognize (Ron Blake, Branford Marsalis, James Carter, Walter Blanding Jr., Wess Anderson, etc...) and a few more that no one has ever heard of. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's that many. I'm currently living in NYC, and out of the hundreds of saxophone players here, I've not really heard anyone dealing with it. Hell, sometimes I feel like I'm the only tenor player who likes Gene Ammons around here, lol.

An interesting thing to me also is that even if harmonically it's not as advanced, I find a lot of interesting melodic and rhythmic ideas from cats like Lucky Thompson...

[BATMAN]

oh, and I realize this is about Tenor players, but I threw in Wess because he uses a lot fo Johnny Hodges in his playing...in reference to using "old" styles with "modern" harmonic ideas...

[High Fly]

Same for this version of 'Bye Bye Blackbird' featuring the great Sonny Stitt and Gene Ammons. Nice to hear their different sound and approach. Don't stop to early, the ending after 8:10 is just fantastic IMO:

Well the thing in most of these is that the player is respecting the tune itself. And of course the tonal quality is pleasing, it relates to the human voice, and feels like a story being told.

Also, if you listen at ~2:35-2:50 and at 8:50 -9:10 you hear that these guys can tear it up when they want to... but they aren't compelled to because they are there to play a song, not play the saxophone.

On the tone thing- I know a guy that has a great Selmer Ref and unbelievable skills- plays a metal piece of some kind. Every, I mean every person who has heard him asks (quietly), the same thing: "why that tone?, that shrillness? or that color?"...meaning it sounds like a God daxx party favor!? huh? wha? why? its not cool man..its foolish unless your in a 8 piece rocking band or opening Sat Night Live...

While we're all in the agree ment that this stuff is all great, I will say that sometime this can get somewhat too precious sounding, and you want some solid tonal body and color.... but I'll take it anyday over the other end of the spectrum

(If Im repeating earlier thread comments..my apologies)

[DrWill]

Quamon has an instructional vid on expressive playing ...... damn ! ......that's sweet .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksPR...eature=related

[fsaxwas9]

Thought I'd link this clip in this thread also, Illinois Jacquet plays a 10 second break that's simply gorgeous....he says so much in a mere 10 seconds....

Johnny Hartman with Illinois Jacquet If I'm Lucky

Johnny Hartman thread

[paulwl]

I don't remember who said it any more, but I heard one legend in the field commenting that nowadays, younger players can do everthing technically: scales, triads, diminished and augmented, you name it. "The one thing you can't get them to do," he lamented, "is leave the bone alone."

Technique is no more necessary to music than special effects are necessary to film making.

Big differences:
- The drive to more and more technique in film comes from pure commercialism. It is an attempt to wow the audience, and doesn't give a flip about art.
- The drive to more and more technique in jazz comes from pure musicianship. It is an attempt to embrace the teachable tools of the art, and doesn't give a flip about the audience.

BTW, I don't care much for pure musicianship any more than I do pure commercialism. The art is a lot more than what can be done with the teachable tools, or at least it used to be.

[mrpeebee]

It goes beyond that. Players like Hawkins, Thompson, etc. are no longer thought of as "fully formed." They came too early to have all of the harmonic and improvisational canon in their playing, so they're treated as strictly historical steppingstones. The assumption is that their vocabulary is played out because their theory and harmony was "limited."

A question nobody much wants to address is whether those players' tone, phrasing, and lyricism are adaptable to fully formed improvisational theory, or whether their sound is just going to trap you in a "dead style."

I understand your statements Paul, but I think they are mostly the opinion of cats that love technics over sound (mostly young and talented saxophone players). People who think that sound is more or at least equal important to technic (me for instance) also like the old guys (besides the more modern players) and will never classify their playing as "limited" or a "dead style".

I see them as masters of their time and in some parts of their playing (especially in sound, but also in approach) much more developed than most modern players will ever be. Which doesn't mean that I don't like modern players. I like some of them, but mostly not for their sound. People like for instance Bennie Wallace have proven that you can have both in one person, but he is an exception nowadays. Or is he not classified as a modern player ?.

Big differences:
- The drive to more and more technique in film comes from pure commercialism. It is an attempt to wow the audience, and doesn't give a flip about art.
- The drive to more and more technique in jazz comes from pure musicianship. It is an attempt to embrace the teachable tools of the art, and doesn't give a flip about the audience.

BTW, I don't care much for pure musicianship any more than I do pure commercialism. The art is a lot more than what can be done with the teachable tools, or at least it used to be.

I wouldn't relate 'pure muscianship' to only technic. Mabye that's the error in thinking some modern players make.