Higher Notes on Tenor Saxophone

[Box_Sax]

Hey, I'm new to the sax and I have some questions.

 

When I'm playing the lower octave the tone is nice but when I'm playing higher I can keep that same tone. Is this normal?

 

I might a few more questions later

[sunburstbasser]

Yes, this is normal. Playing any wind-powered instrument requires a certain control in upper registers to sound good. This will develop with time, practice, and a good teacher helps a bunch.

[TimOBrien]

If you take your car out on the racetrack and push it past 120mph will it be as comfortable as going down the street at 45mph???

 

No......

[Laurel Moore]

Hello everyone, I've just joined. I'm an artist who now lives in Switzerland

 

I used to play tenor sax with a blue band and sing some twenty years ago. I've just bought a Buescher Aristocrat tenor. The sound it awesome. I've only ever had a Boosey and Hawkes before. The tone is really beautiful, even though it's about 1965, and I treasure it!

 

My high notes are sounding great, but I'm still struggling with those low notes, sounding like a fog-horn still!

 

I have no shame - I've gone right down to a 1 1/2 reed and it's much better for my mouth. Any tips on putting in the reed correctly though? I mean should it exactly match the mouthpiece, over be slightly over or under. I have a selmer d80 mouthpiece.

[outland]

Hello everyone, I've just joined. I'm an artist who now lives in Switzerland I used to play tenor sax with a blue band and sing some twenty years ago. I've just bought a Buescher Aristocrat tenor. The sound it awesome. I've only ever had a Boosey and Hawkes before. The tone is really beautiful, even though it's about 1965, and I treasure it! My high notes are sounding great, but I'm still struggling with those low notes, sounding like a fog-horn still! I have no shame - I've gone right down to a 1 1/2 reed and it's much better for my mouth. Any tips on putting in the reed correctly though? I mean should it exactly match the mouthpiece, over be slightly over or under. I have a selmer d80 mouthpiece.

 

Hello, Switzerland

 

You may have leaks; get the horn to a good repairman to check for them. If it is a bad enough leak problem, it is conceivable that no amount of wind or reed change will help you until the problem is rectified.

 

Three other things:

 

1) Even a subtle bend in the neck can also produce this problem if it at just the wrong juncture. Be careful if this is the case: often, it is just as harmful to the horn to "twist" the crease/bend out, if you can find it. Let a repairman deal with it or, if the neck is judged to be irreparable, attempt to locate a tenor neck from the same vintage and brand (good luck on this!). Do not swap out another brand's neck for the Buescher; in all likelihood, you will introduce intonation hassles that you will not be able to alleviate.

 

2) The mouthpiece itself can be the issue. If the table is not flat, you will never get the low range of your horn working. I once had a professional mouthpiece that, although it sounded really good, had major problems in the low register. I finally had to change mouthpieces. Buy or borrow a different mouthpiece and see what happens.

 

3) Unfortunately, it is possible that the horn itself is to blame. There are some horns that just never are able to play all the way down the full range of the horn, period. It's rare to find these instruments, but they do exist. Again, a good repairman can advise you of this.

 

Finally, I would get another sax player to give you their impression of what's happening.

 

BTW, do remember the value of proper warm-ups and practicing long-tones. With your problem, I'd start from the lowest secure note you can play and work down chromatically, making sure not to use vibrato and taking note of any particularly inconsistent or unfocused notes. Use all alternate fingering variations to really even out the tone. Remember that the saxophone is a cone, hence by its very nature it is somewhat difficult to control the proclivity towards loud volume in the low range. (The flute, for example, has the opposite problem in its low range as it is a cylinder.) It takes hard work to produce an even sound across the entire register. Be very careful of soft reeds, BTW, they tend to be thin sounding and very flat in the upper register. You may lessen your lower register problems, but it is likely that you will introduce other issues that will be more far-reaching. A 1.5 reed is traditionally used for only two reasons: 1) to help beginners whose embouchures are not fully developed and 2) to slowly build up to using professional strength reeds on more open mouthpieces. Very rarely, someone uses a 1.5 or 2 strength reed, but this is usually set off against a mouthpiece with a very large opening. And occasionally, such a player is trying to rebuild from or adjust to a physical problem (such as Mike Brecker using a 2.5 reed with his .115 opening Guardala mouthpiece after his neck surgery).

 

Realize that (depending on the brand of reeds you choose) most of the reeds in a box are usually unusable. The best I've found are Rico Jazz Select (I prefer the "Unfiled" style) and Roberto's. I do find a majority of these are at least usable, although even here, there are a only two or three really great reeds (say averaging out of ten, though RJSU come in boxes of five for tenor) three or four good reeds and the rest do not get used at all. Do not buy reeds one at a time: if someone else has gone through the box before you get to at the store, it is likely that the good reeds have already been culled out. Buy closed boxes and you will be "ahead of the curve", so to speak. Break in reeds by soaking them in water for five minutes, then playing them five minutes the first day. Soak them only two-three minutes the second day and on, playing the reeds for ten minutes the second day, and so on, until you get to 20-25 minutes playing time. Most good reeds will be broken in at that point. Get the entire reed wet, not neglecting the stock where the reed hits the table of the mouthpiece, many leaks occur there. You can help to flatten the backs of reeds by rubbing them lightly on a piece of glass. And do experiment with ligatures. The best I've found is the Francois Louis. It's pricey, but worth every penny. FWIW, I've had very little luck with Rovners: no real projection, tendency to make the reeds feel soft quicker, wear out quickly, hurt intonation on many mouthpieces. Even a good-fitting stock ligature generally works better in my experience. But some disagree with me on the issue of Rovners.

 

And unless you intend to play only "classical" saxophone (an oxymoron, if ever there was one), you may want to consider replacing your mouthpiece with something a bit more robust.

 

Let us know how you do with your problem.

[Lambros]

Outland, excellent points all across the board in your post as it is essentially an issue that most casual players never come to terms with (mouthpieces/ligatures/reeds.)

The player that comes to mind that has the most control with an ultra-light reed setup is Ornette Coleman. It's down right amazing if you ask me, whether you like his style or not.

Laurel Moore, welcome aboard! I recommend that you line up the tip of the reed and the mouthpiece tip as perfectly as you can and that you experiment with the placement of the ligature to find that sweet spot where your notes all across the board 'speak' with clarity coupled with dynamic control. Tune up with every warm up as well. Some of the biggest names in the business side-step these essential elements. That's when you hear the unintentional chirps, squeaks in the upper and mid registers with a lot of background fuzziness on top of the flatulent low tones with no dynamic control.

[outland]

 

Outland, excellent points all across the board in your post as it is essentially an issue that most casual players never come to terms with (mouthpieces/ligatures/reeds.) The player that comes to mind that has the most control with an ultra-light reed setup is Ornette Coleman. It's down right amazing if you ask me, whether you like his style or not. Laurel Moore, welcome aboard! I recommend that you line up the tip of the reed and the mouthpiece tip as perfectly as you can and that you experiment with the placement of the ligature to find that sweet spot where your notes all across the board 'speak' with clarity coupled with dynamic control. Tune up with every warm up as well. Some of the biggest names in the business side-step these essential elements. That's when you hear the unintentional chirps, squeaks in the upper and mid registers with a lot of background fuzziness on top of the flatulent low tones with no dynamic control.

 

 

Thanks, Lambros.

 

What size reed does Ornette use? I probably would have bet it was on the softer end. I enjoy his sound for what he does with it, but wouldn't want it for myself, you know?

 

My idea of the quintessential alto sound may be somewhere between Sanborn and Woods (if you can imagine that). I love the brightness of Sanborn, but also the fatness of what Woods is into. (I don't play much alto myself, but this is what I aspire to when I do).

 

On tenor, I love Brecker, Garbarek, and Trane, pretty much in that order.

 

On soprano, it's Liebman, Shorter, and Brecker, not necessarily in that order.

 

On baritone, Pepper Adams, Bruce Johnstone, Ronnie Cuber, and Nick Brignola, not necessarily in that order (but I don't play baritone anymore).

 

Offered in the spirit of FWIW, and I'm just referring to sound, not general conception broadly considered.

 

Et tu?

[Lambros]

Outland, I understand what you're saying and I have an interesting story about Ornette. He would come over to Rod Baltimore's shop for a setup and to buy reeds 1 and 1.5 strength. Ornette was picky about which reeds worked well or not

The guys there told me he would play a bit and that they were surprised with how much dynamic control he could generate. One thing to hear a player in concert and quite another in an informal setting such as a repair shop.

 

As for me, Ornette is not in my top 5 but he is definitely up there. I'd put up Parker, Trane, Dolphy, Joe Henderson and R.R. Kirk. I dig the guys you mentioned and I'd add a few more: Steve Lacey and David Newman (yeah, I know, not primarily a sop player.) James Spaulding, incredible alto, nobody really talks about him. His playing on Duke Pearson's Blue Note date (Wahoo) is ridiculously fat and cutting at the same time, kind of like what you were getting at if you'd combine Woods and Sanborn but way more adventure in the hard bop side of the spectrum than those 2 gentlemen could handle.

This would be more like Adderly and Dolphy combined. Tenor, too many players to mention but Trane, Henderson and Kirk are my top guys. Gotta give props to Jerome Richardson and Howard Johnson on baritone, too.

[outland]

 

Outland, I understand what you're saying and I have an interesting story about Ornette. He would come over to Rod Baltimore's shop for a setup and to buy reeds 1 and 1.5 strength. Ornette was picky about which reeds worked well or not The guys there told me he would play a bit and that they were surprised with how much dynamic control he could generate. One thing to hear a player in concert and quite another in an informal setting such as a repair shop. As for me, Ornette is not in my top 5 but he is definitely up there. I'd put up Parker, Trane, Dolphy, Joe Henderson and R.R. Kirk. I dig the guys you mentioned and I'd add a few more: Steve Lacey and David Newman (yeah, I know, not primarily a sop player.) James Spaulding, incredible alto, nobody really talks about him. His playing on Duke Pearson's Blue Note date (Wahoo) is ridiculously fat and cutting at the same time, kind of like what you were getting at if you'd combine Woods and Sanborn but way more adventure in the hard bop side of the spectrum than those 2 gentlemen could handle. This would be more like Adderly and Dolphy combined. Tenor, too many players to mention but Trane, Henderson and Kirk are my top guys. Gotta give props to Jerome Richardson and Howard Johnson on baritone, too.

 

 

Amen to all the gentlemen you mentioned; great players all.

 

Billy Harper and George Adams are two men we neglected to mention (and I sense from the other players that you mentioned that you'll agree with my estimation of their fine playing). I know that Adams has passed now, but I haven't heard of Harper for a long time. Both played on Gil Evans' There Comes a Time. I remember being a kid and being astounded by their tones. (Adams also on Mingus Moves.)

[Lambros]

Those are some incredible names, props to Booker Ervin and John Handy while we're at it. I started to seriously listen larger jazz groups a while back and it seems like I've always felt (seems like forever now) that Mingus led the best bands, period.

It's ridiculous that this doesn't even get mentioned here because his brass players were always fantastic, especially the trombones, man. Follow me here: Gil Evans and Oliver Nelson led and assembled great groups of players, but the Mingus bands are just that much more different and special in the interaction of the music making.

 

Brass guys weigh in here...

[sunburstbasser]

I just like hearing a good sax player; don't really know the names of half the ones I listen to.

[Lambros]

Mr. Sunburst, you have a point and I guess it has to do with temperament, whether one is a casual or intense devotee to the music. Personally I like knowing peoples' names and it's far more interesting than talking about spit valves most of the time. But, that's just me I suppose...with all due respect to your moderatorship...

Anyway my previous post was to ask some brass folks here what they felt about the brass sections of the famous bands that I mentioned, in particular, Mingus' great trumpet and trombone players.

[sunburstbasser]

I do agree that talking about musicians is more interesting (but spit valves have more innuendo). My thing is I just can't remember names anymore. Theres too many of them with all those great big bands!

 

Thats kinda what my other post was in reference to; I love hearing these players but I don't know who they are.

[outland]

 

I do agree that talking about musicians is more interesting (but spit valves have more innuendo). My thing is I just can't remember names anymore. Theres too many of them with all those great big bands! Thats kinda what my other post was in reference to; I love hearing these players but I don't know who they are.

 

 

There seem to be less of them with every passing day though, Mr. Basser, sir. And to my ears, the younger guys generally don't have the fire or imagination to keep anyone's interest for very long. I wish I could say otherwise, but jazz education, in its striving to codify a "tradition", seems to be embalming the very thing it wishes to keep alive. It's really very sad. To the point, all of the players we mentioned are currently considered to be "elder statesmen". I'd be hard pressed to mention someone much under the age of about 55 who has added anything of substance to the language.

 

I guess I shouldn't get bent out of shape over it; everything has its day and jazz certainly has had many glorious moments. Still, the demise of an art form is particularly sad when it is hastened by those who profess to love it.

[sunburstbasser]

I sort of agree, sort of disagree. Trumpet-wise, Wayne Bergeron and Roy Hargrove really have set a standard for their stuff. Bergeron is hailed as possibly the BEST lead player ever, and Hargrove is just a flat-out awesome soloist who plays much closer to the old style than the schooled style. Rather than being an imitator, to me he sounds more like he learned from Miles and Diz, and added his own flavor.

 

I feel the same way as you about other newer guys; I really don't care much for the Airmen of Note, for instance, even though they are better in tune and more skilled, as a group, than probably 90% of the classics. They still lack something that Dizzy's band at Newport had, to me.

 

If you want to check out a really hip, newer group, check The Dirty Dozen. More funk with jazz influence, but they have that vibe that so many bands lack. Also very raw, like they learned to play smoking cigars rather than practicing scales or something! Live in New Orleans is fantastic listening.

 

My own theory: We are taught what to play, but not how to play it when it comes to jazz. Lets face it; no matter how much theory you know improv is hard for most people. So, we get taught the mechanics. We have entire schools of fantastic lead and 3rd players and such, but where are the great soloists? Delfayo Marsallis told my director that "People don't swing no more," and that really has some truth as far as schooled players seem to go.

 

Wasn't this about high notes earlier?

 

BTW, I'll be seeing the Benny Goodman orchestra Sunday night. THAT will be good!

[outland]

I sort of agree, sort of disagree. Trumpet-wise, Wayne Bergeron and Roy Hargrove really have set a standard for their stuff. Bergeron is hailed as possibly the BEST lead player ever, and Hargrove is just a flat-out awesome soloist who plays much closer to the old style than the schooled style. Rather than being an imitator, to me he sounds more like he learned from Miles and Diz, and added his own flavor. I feel the same way as you about other newer guys; I really don't care much for the Airmen of Note, for instance, even though they are better in tune and more skilled, as a group, than probably 90% of the classics. They still lack something that Dizzy's band at Newport had, to me. If you want to check out a really hip, newer group, check The Dirty Dozen. More funk with jazz influence, but they have that vibe that so many bands lack. Also very raw, like they learned to play smoking cigars rather than practicing scales or something! Live in New Orleans is fantastic listening. My own theory: We are taught what to play, but not how to play it when it comes to jazz. Lets face it; no matter how much theory you know improv is hard for most people. So, we get taught the mechanics. We have entire schools of fantastic lead and 3rd players and such, but where are the great soloists? Delfayo Marsallis told my director that "People don't swing no more," and that really has some truth as far as schooled players seem to go. Wasn't this about high notes earlier? BTW, I'll be seeing the Benny Goodman orchestra Sunday night. THAT will be good!

 

Hardgrove is probably the best of a very reserved lot. Still, compared to Diz and Miles, well, as you said, he mixed them up "and added his own flavor". In the end, he sounds somewhat derivative. Now don't get me wrong: I enjoy his playing. And I do know that we walk a very fine line between tradition and innovation. But the sense of exploration is not really there, even in Hardgrove's playing (fine as it is). The Dirty Dozen Brass Band is very different, and you're right, they come out playing almost as if they're fresh from a barroom brawl. It's invigorating.

 

Many years ago while on a gig, I remarked to the trumpet player that I felt that "when Miles dies, jazz dies with him". I did not mean that every note from that point on would be absolutely worthless. What I did mean was that he was the last certifiable leader of overwhelming stature. We've had a few of these, and only a few: Miles, Diz, Bird, Trane, Pops, Mingus, Monk, Kenton, Ellington, Evans (both Gil and Bill), and Tristano. These are the musicians who have influenced and inspired younger musicians to be all that they could be, founding schools of playing and/or writing. When I mentioned Miles to my friend on that date, I did not know that I would return home to find out from my wife that Miles had died that very day. The trumpeter called me as soon as he got home to demand how I could have known that Miles was to pass away, and I assured him that I knew no such thing: it was just an observation on the state of the art. Unfortunately, in the intervening years, I've been proven correct a few too many times for my own comfort on this issue.

 

It is interesting that you mention Delfayo's comment about "swing" to your director. I consider the Marsalises (and other "Young Lions" of their ilk) to be a big part of the problem with the state of jazz today. I have yet to hear one of the (younger) ones really cut loose and "swing" in the true sense of the word (and no, I am not referring to the impoverished characture of swing being best represented by "tied-triplet eight notes". That myth should have been buried years ago).

[sunburstbasser]

The Marsallis brothers have their own opinions and beliefs, for sure. I can see where they are coming from even if they don't do a great job of following their own words. I remember telling a freshman last year to just swing, and he said something about the 8th notes and I told him "there's more to it than that."

 

I don't view this era as the twilight of jazz, though. We need a good kick in the butt, like what bebop did years ago when big bands weren't always jazz bands. I can't think of what the next thing will be, I just hope its exciting.

 

All this talk about music (in a high notes thread) makes me wanna go squeak for a bit.

[Lambros]

Wow...now this is more like it! I kind of walk the line between both of your opinions: on the one side, jazz, as we know it from the tradition of Ellington and as it filtered through to Mingus and at the time of his death, I think it truly died. Monk explored his earlier music constantly, reinventing the wheel so to speak and, depending on his personnel, arranged things accordingly. He basically became an arranger and had collaborations with other composer/arrangers to meet that end. It's a bit strange when you think of it but he made it work some how. This part of jazz has more or less survived even though the greater vitality of the music has stagnated spiritually as a result of making jazz an institution. Where musicians once matriculated through Ellington, Monk and Mingus groups, Berklee is sufficient enough now.

 

Looked at realistically, jazz could still be considered a very young musical concept, still not that far removed from its primordial form or one that died prematurely from over-development in its infancy. That may seem paradoxical until you realize that something that feeds voraciously and incessently cannot run out of consumptive sources, not even for a moment. What makes the case of Miles Davis bitterly ironic is that by sheer will of ego he was ok with jazz dying off, albeit, an untimely death. Yet he was not the fountainhead of modern jazz and yet ironically most not familiar with jazz enough to understand its true heirarchy, recognize him over Parker.

Parker didn't survive and Miles himself got really tough and became a survivor so much so, when presented the opportunity he spared no one.

If Trane was a lesser man, he would not have survived Miles.

Instead, Monk became his saving grace and toughened him up enough for Miles in their second go round.

 

Basically what I was getting at before SBB, with Mingus in particular as he understood the tremendous honor and burden of carrying on the Ellingtonian mantle, understood that music survives through the creative act of composition. What made Ellington, Monk and Mingus very special was the fact that they were composing very creatively and the nucleus of their efforts centered around sounds that they knew would alter compostion. Just food for thought friends; sound affects composition and the very act of instantaneous composition (improvisation) cannot be devoid of that principle as well. That is why all 3 of these men essentially demanded that their players be fluent musicians and be their own man when it came time to solo.

I don't know if Marsalis can live up to that regardless of how resourceful and fortunate he is.

If Parker was the fountainhead, and his collaborative efforts with Monk, Gillespie and Mingus created rivulets that fed larger tributaries, who truly followed both paths laid out by Ellington and Parker to their inevitable fulfillment, and what GREAT thing comes next for jazz? Will it be iconoclastic, traditional, or a mix of the 2? What would have happened if Trane survived? Do we collectively keep these waters irrigated and fresh?

I think that is they way it has been done and by its nature IS done with art.

 

Marsalis is laying sole claim to that in almost imperial fashion; it is this cringing affirmation, this egotistical venture that is almost Pauline in scope, provided that you understand what the Road to Damascus really meant, is what we have to ask about the future of jazz.

Will it be collective and all-encompassing in scope again or constrained by those who feel that they are the only rightful heirs to it?

[outland]

The Marsallis brothers have their own opinions and beliefs, for sure. I can see where they are coming from even if they don't do a great job of following their own words. I remember telling a freshman last year to just swing, and he said something about the 8th notes and I told him "there's more to it than that." I don't view this era as the twilight of jazz, though. We need a good kick in the butt, like what bebop did years ago when big bands weren't always jazz bands. I can't think of what the next thing will be, I just hope its exciting. All this talk about music (in a high notes thread) makes me wanna go squeak for a bit.

 

On the "eighth note thing", so to speak, there was a gentleman who wrote a book about jazz in the mid eighties who noted the ever increasing tendency toward an even eighth note (with articulation differentiation) at even moderate swing tempi. He described the reigning approach to eighth note interpretation by professionals at that time as "virtually even". I saw this concept demonstrated digitally by Dr. George Hess at a TI:ME seminar. It was very well-done and certainly proved the point to an entire group of educators: the uneven eighth note in modern swing is dead.

 

I agree thoroughly with your "kick in the butt" comment, but I'm at a loss to see what it will be. Perhaps, electronica will lose its easy-listening fusak patina (at least when it meets jazz) and get back to finding the creative trail that Zawinul and others began.

 

Whatever else occurs, it seems clear to me that those who wish to affect the music positively are going to have to dedicate themselves to idea that the occasional fluffed note may actually be a good thing.

 

FWIW.

[outland]

 

Wow...now this is more like it! I kind of walk the line between both of your opinions: on the one side, jazz, as we know it from the tradition of Ellington and as it filtered through to Mingus and at the time of his death, I think it truly died. Monk explored his earlier music constantly, reinventing the wheel so to speak and, depending on his personnel, arranged things accordingly. He basically became an arranger and had collaborations with other composer/arrangers to meet that end. It's a bit strange when you think of it but he made it work some how. This part of jazz has more or less survived even though the greater vitality of the music has stagnated spiritually as a result of making jazz an institution. Where musicians once matriculated through Ellington, Monk and Mingus groups, Berklee is sufficient enough now. Looked at realistically, jazz could still be considered a very young musical concept, still not that far removed from its primordial form or one that died prematurely from over-development in its infancy. That may seem paradoxical until you realize that something that feeds voraciously and incessently cannot run out of consumptive sources, not even for a moment. What makes the case of Miles Davis bitterly ironic is that by sheer will of ego he was ok with jazz dying off, albeit, an untimely death. Yet he was not the fountainhead of modern jazz and yet ironically most not familiar with jazz enough to understand its true heirarchy, recognize him over Parker. Parker didn't survive and Miles himself got really tough and became a survivor so much so, when presented the opportunity he spared no one. If Trane was a lesser man, he would not have survived Miles. Instead, Monk became his saving grace and toughened him up enough for Miles in their second go round. Basically what I was getting at before SBB, with Mingus in particular as he understood the tremendous honor and burden of carrying on the Ellingtonian mantle, understood that music survives through the creative act of composition. What made Ellington, Monk and Mingus very special was the fact that they were composing very creatively and the nucleus of their efforts centered around sounds that they knew would alter compostion. Just food for thought friends; sound affects composition and the very act of instantaneous composition (improvisation) cannot be devoid of that principle as well. That is why all 3 of these men essentially demanded that their players be fluent musicians and be their own man when it came time to solo. I don't know if Marsalis can live up to that regardless of how resourceful and fortunate he is. If Parker was the fountainhead, and his collaborative efforts with Monk, Gillespie and Mingus created rivulets that fed larger tributaries, who truly followed both paths laid out by Ellington and Parker to their inevitable fulfillment, and what GREAT thing comes next for jazz? Will it be iconoclastic, traditional, or a mix of the 2? What would have happened if Trane survived? Do we collectively keep these waters irrigated and fresh? I think that is they way it has been done and by its nature IS done with art. Marsalis is laying sole claim to that in almost imperial fashion; it is this cringing affirmation, this egotistical venture that is almost Pauline in scope, provided that you understand what the Road to Damascus really meant, is what we have to ask about the future of jazz. Will it be collective and all-encompassing in scope again or constrained by those who feel that they are the only rightful heirs to it?

 

 

Many good points, sir; the study of personality as it pertains to jazz is no easy subject.

 

Your comment about Wynton and a Damascus Road experience is particularly well-taken; the problem here, of course, is that unlike the biblical account of St. Paul, there is no authoritative counterpart in jazz specifically or the arts more generally for what could be termed the equivalent of a divine apostolic commission. Wynton's pretension to the same is just that and only that: a sheer, unmitigated, self-appointed, illusory construction without foundation. He is, in short, a phenomenon of marketing, not music. And jazz has always chafed badly at this sort of approach. She may have a shady past, but the lady does still have some principles.

 

Don't be too hard on Miles; he was not perfect, but there were levels at which he really put his career on the line for his sidemen. He certainly put up longer than most would have with the unprofessionalism of the "D & D" band ("drink and drugs") of which Trane and Philly Joe were members. Remember also that Davis' firing Coltrane in 1957 may have been the wake-up call that Trane needed to really get his life in order and finally quit all the junk. Note as well that Trane had a standing offer to return to the quintet when he had cleaned himself up.

 

What's next? IMHO, it will have to be eclectic. What is lost today in the shallow academic verbiage of the "serious" acoustic front is that jazz has always drawn upon the resources of the streams available for experimentation in the culture. When Miles recorded My Funny Valentine, Stella by Starlight and On Green Dolphin Street, he was recording simple pop tunes of the time period: there is an immediate consistency between his recordings of these tunes and, say, Cyndi Lauper's Time After Time. And jazz has always sought to integrate new technology, such synthesizer, guitar pick-ups, and hi-hat cymbals. The conservatism of the Marsalis school, artificial as it is in its raison d'etre, is actually the aberration in the history of jazz, not the locus classicus (or even the norm) of the art that its advocates pretend it to be. These blokes are just self-deceived; best guess is that they probably read their own press too much.

 

I do not say these things in anger, though it might come across that way. These are strongly-worded assertions, but I do not post these observations in rancor. I do hope, however, that jazz proves me wrong and in the end tosses the very influences that are currently crippling it.

[Lambros]

You're so very right about Miles providing the wake up call that Trane needed.

It was the manner in which he went about it that ultimately proves to me that Coltrane was a pacifist because Miles humiliated him on stage and that is why I used the word survived as I meant it several ways. A much lesser man might have killed him on the spot and thrown his life away.

Monk himself thought that it was outrageous.

 

In comparing Paul to Wynton...I think its appropriate and a bit over the top, too. Remember that Paul (Saul) relished in the act of stoning Christians, as it is well chronicled on the Stoning of Stephen. He then has his vision to make Christ an enterprise thus amazingly transforming into the right hand of the Great Redeemer. Problem is though that Paul superimposes his concept of the premium of sin over Christ's tolerance of sin (sin no more.) And the rest is history...

Wynton basically wanted to be a funk trumpeter and was born into a musical family and his dad had some pull. It is laughable that he really feels that he is the chosen one in my opinion. Whatever he feels his version the premium of sin is, it is certainly being felt in jazz as we know it now.

 

This is, I hope, a rancor-free posting as well...

[outland]

You're so very right about Miles providing the wake up call that Trane needed. It was the manner in which he went about it that ultimately proves to me that Coltrane was a pacifist because Miles humiliated him on stage and that is why I used the word survived as I meant it several ways. A much lesser man might have killed him on the spot and thrown his life away. Monk himself thought that it was outrageous. In comparing Paul to Wynton...I think its appropriate and a bit over the top, too. Remember that Paul (Saul) relished in the act of stoning Christians, as it is well chronicled on the Stoning of Stephen. He then has his vision to make Christ an enterprise thus amazingly transforming into the right hand of the Great Redeemer. Problem is though that Paul superimposes his concept of the premium of sin over Christ's tolerance of sin (sin no more.) And the rest is history... Wynton basically wanted to be a funk trumpeter and was born into a musical family and his dad had some pull. It is laughable that he really feels that he is the chosen one in my opinion. Whatever he feels his version the premium of sin is, it is certainly being felt in jazz as we know it now. This is, I hope, a rancor-free posting as well...

I certainly don't sense any rancor...

 

On Wynton: all agreed, it is clear that Daddy Ellis had more than a bit of a hand in promoting/guiding his sons' careers.

 

On Trane: no disagreement either. Trane's pacificism is probably (after his amazing drive for mastery of the instrument) the single facet of his personality upon which people who knew him most remark. Some like to say that this aspect was thoroughly belied by his music. Interestingly, I do not find this to be the case: even his later work and duets with Rashied Ali seem to speak o this listener of a calm. They are very strong, but peace does not imply weakness at any level. Whether or not he could have taken Miles in a fight is anyone's guess. While Trane was physically a very strong individual, Miles was no average boxer, as you most likely are aware.

 

On the relationship between Paul's and Christ's Gospel, there is perhaps much disagreement with your argument: the internet is a particularly poor medium for theological discourse as nuance is lost or under-appreciated. FWIW, however, "enterprise" is, in any event, not literally or conceptually anywhere near the account of Paul's conversion. He was called to be a missionary, and this he was: even secular historians fully recognize his effectiveness in this area (hence his placement in the various lists of the top ten most influential men of history; at least twice he was listed above Christ Himself). Starting or helping to more fully realize a business venture had nothing to do with Paul's directive or motive. Granted that at many points in history parts of the church has erred grievously in this direction- no argument there!- but the error cannot objectively be laid at Paul's feet. It is clear that the Apostle Paul very probably knew of his demise (directly attributable to his Damascus Road experience and its implications for the rest of his life) from a period in his ministry several years earlier his death finally occurred (Acts 20:22-27). Martyrdom, as Paul suffered at the hands of Nero (in fact, all of the disciples with the exception of John suffered such a death at the hands of many persecutors), is a particularly poor method of reaping the financial benefits of an "enterprise", I think you'll grant.

 

As far as a difference between Paul's and Christ's tolerance of sin or lack thereof, there simply is no substantive difference. Christ was only tolerant of sin as far as one can glean from Matthew chapters 23-25. Paul understood the premium of sin in terms of a fulfilled debt based upon the death and resurrection of Christ, with His righteousness then being imputed to the believer in Christ. This much is very clear from Paul's argument in Romans 1-8. In Galatians, Paul is almost at his wit's end because those to whom he is writing are attempting to achieve justification before God based on upon their own imagined meritorious conduct. He spends much of the book chastising them for this error, urging them to return to his teaching of justification before God by faith in Christ's finished work on the cross alone. Whence, then, is his emphasis on a premium of sin?

 

The answers to questions on the correct conception of the relationship of Paul to Christ have long stood and rarely, if ever, does one hear contemporary questions that are outside of the scope of those raised in the first quarter of the 20th century. Hence, current critique along the lines of postulating a divide between Christ's and Paul's soteriology is generally considered suspect. Four books that dealt with the issues that were in vogue during the 20th century were J.G. Machen's Christianity and Liberalism and The Origin of Paul's Religion and H.N. Ridderbos' Paul and Jesus and Paul: An Outline of his Theology. All these are good places to become facile with the concerns of the religionsgeschichliche interpretation and other schools of thought derivative or conceptually original to Wrede's formulations.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

[Lambros]

Outland, very impressive re: and what I was getting at with Christianity in general, is the Salvationist aspect, which is pure Paul and not Christ. Where did Christ say 'sin all you want and dump it on me?' The Salvationist thing just doesn't agree with me, in effect Pauline Christianity is a balm for every bad conscience in the world and that's what passes for a religious experience of atonement? Please...The premium of sin isn't a phrase I coined but it is one of the many excellent observations I picked up reading G.B. Shaw.

Of course, most of the apostles suffered appallingly excruciating deaths; they were, after all, standard bearers for their faith. That Paul is a genius, no ifs/ands/or buts about it...BTW, Matthew was about as Pre-Paul as you're going to get in the gospels;) The motive was to save a teetering empire running low on moral imperative, as far as I can understand it.

In any event Paul was more Roman than the Romans, more Jewish than the Jews and ultimately, more Christian than Christ himself. Let's face it he completely eclipses Christ in importance.

Again I clarify, and reiterate it's just not for me. Sadly, it leaves one the nagging and rather literal question 'can you be a Christian and reject Paul? I ask this with the outmost respect and seriousness.

[outland]

 

Outland, very impressive re: and what I was getting at with Christianity in general, is the Salvationist aspect, which is pure Paul and not Christ. Where did Christ say 'sin all you want and dump it on me?' The Salvationist thing just doesn't agree with me, in effect Pauline Christianity is a balm for every bad conscience in the world and that's what passes for a religious experience of atonement? Please...The premium of sin isn't a phrase I coined but it is one of the many excellent observations I picked up reading G.B. Shaw. Of course, most of the apostles suffered appallingly excruciating deaths; they were, after all, standard bearers for their faith. That Paul is a genius, no ifs/ands/or buts about it...BTW, Matthew was about as Pre-Paul as you're going to get in the gospels;) The motive was to save a teetering empire running low on moral imperative, as far as I can understand it. In any event Paul was more Roman than the Romans, more Jewish than the Jews and ultimately, more Christian than Christ himself. Let's face it he completely eclipses Christ in importance. Again I clarify, and reiterate it's just not for me. Sadly, it leaves one the nagging and rather literal question 'can you be a Christian and reject Paul? I ask this with the outmost respect and seriousness.

 

Lambros, sorry it took me so long to respond; I had a couple of small pseudo-emergencies to handle this week. I do, BTW, appreciate the tone of your post. I will answer you, I hope, with as much charity. Please understand that all my comments here are given in just such a spirit.

 

Short answer to your question: no, one can't bypass Paul to become a Christian simply because, in cutting out those aspects that you seem to find objectionable, you do, in fact cut out the very heart of what Christ's ministry on earth was about. He (Christ) is, actually, that to which the Old Testament sacrifices pointed. He is the fulfillment of the law's demands which we can never keep perfectly. This is what Paul was getting at (interpreting the event of the cross after the fact to show its significance). Remember that the disciples, when Christ mentioned dying on the cross, couldn't figure out just what He telling them. Peter went so far as to loudly tell his Master that he was in error on this point, that there was no way He was going to be crucified. For his impertinence, Peter was very strongly rebuked as if he was Satan himself speaking ("Get behind me, Satan"). Explaining the theological implication of the cross was a bit beyond what the disciples were going to be able to bear before Golgotha. But, and this should be emphasized, neither did Christ leave his followers with the idea that somehow after His death and resurrection was business to continue on as usual. The primacy of faith in His Person (His work, sacrifice, resurrection) was very much at the center of His teaching.

 

You mention Matthew and it's a good citation. I assume that in context, you may be referring broadly to the Sermon on the Mount with its strong ethical content. The "fly in the ointment", so to speak, for your bringing this up is that nowhere in the New Testament is it more obvious that Christ was highlighting human failures in moral perfection: (Matthew 5:22) But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. And the verses Jimmy Carter made famous, Matthew 5:27-30 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. This is rough stuff. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran minister who gave his life opposing Hitler in WWII, (he was considered so dangerous by the Nazis that, as the British were about liberate the Flossenburg concentration camp, they executed him, rather than give him the chance to share his knowledge with the Allies), said in The Cost of Discipleship that the real difficulty with these verses comes into play at verse 30: Christ clearly wasn't teaching self-mutilation, but if one accepts His words here as "mere hyperbole", one betrays precisely the lax moral attitude that He is condemning. So, who can strive against sin enough to be correctly judged morally incorruptible in the same absolute sense as the Father in heaven? Only One can: Christ Himself. This in a nutshell gives the sense of the goal of Christ's moral teaching; it pointed directly (in terms of human need) to the cross. And this is what took Paul the rest of his life to teach about and fully explain. The soteriological (or "salvationist", as you call it) is not foreign to Christ's message or mission, it is the very warp and woof of the same. We simply have nothing of untainted value to offer in an eternal sense; we simply receive what Christ offers humbly for our salvation, with joy, and with gratitude, seeking to imitate Christ's example, but not as the way of standing right before God: Christ already did that for us. It cannot be added to at all. It is finished. And yes, this totally Pauline. But it is also totally based on Christ's message and work. It is a seamless whole, and this is the beauty of the Gospel. Those touched by it cannot get over it.

 

Again, I thank you for this discussion; your charity and sobriety in this exchange is something for which I am thankful.

[Lambros]

Outland, you do know that I was asking a question to which I pretty much knew what the answer was. In that regard, your answer serves more to explain to me that you are indeed a faithful Pauline Christian, I don't deplore, mock or ridicule your belief in any way, shape or form, it is after all the very essence of this orthodoxy that appeals to many individuals and it is made even better obviously when a genuine collective/altruistic spirit emerges among its faithful practitioners. I would therefore ask you very kindly not to ridicule what I have thought out for myself deeply and soberly. I cannot in good conscience accept that although we crucified Christ on a stick, we somehow managed to grab hold of the better end of it.

But I have to say that any free thinking person (in this case, presumably, a living diety; one who isn't weighed down with an irrational and exaggerated fear of life and death, obviously) would object vehemently to having an Old Testament revivalist movement superimposed on His ideals.

But Christ didn't and, understandably, had to exercise a good deal of patience and tolereance with the more zealous of His disciples. Clearly Matthew, and to a lesser extent, Judas were revivalists. Christ had to draw upon a fairly balanced cross-section of followers that included free thinkers as well as conservatives and ultimately the latter may have won out in His thinking. Diety giving in to peer pressure, possible...?

Self Mutilation and Christ is a rather absurd notion and one that delineates from and diminshes Christ's selflessness in surrendering to a horrendous, state sponsored death. That Christ may have had delusions in His final days would be more telling of the frailty of the human condition than any explanation that Paul could postulate.