Steve Lacy

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Evidence" is based on the chords of "Just you, just me", which title led to "Just Us", which led to "Justice", which led to "Evidence". Can't have Justice without Evidence. Monk would have been a wiz at the FT crossword.

I didn't think very much (despite the hype and anticipation) of that Evan Parker "plays straight" R3 date. Fine for him to do it but it's really not what he's about, as he's often made plain. Off tack slightly, but one of the reasons Steve Lacy left the States is that they kept offering him dates like "Plays a Jazz version of Vivaldi"...which is not what he's about (or anyone else) either.

BN.

[Richard Barrett]

I'm with you Bluesnik on Evan "playing straight". The problem is there's so much pressure on someone like that to do so, that if one does love the music (which he does of course) it's sometimes impossible to say no. I played with him (plus Peter Evans, Peter van Bergen and Michael Vatcher) on a Bimhuis date a couple of years ago where the final act of the evening was the ICP Orchestra, and after much cajoling the ICP horn section got Evan on stage to play "Caravan". (They didn't ask me of course! ) It was OK of course, not embarrassing by any means, but when you spend your whole life not thinking in terms of traditional phrase structures and changes it's very unlikely that you're spontaneously going to have something new to say about them in comparison with people whose activities are more steeped in that kind of thing.

As for Lacy, thanks S_A for all that elucidation. I'll have a listen to that Globe Unity recording if I can.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Yes, from what I've read (and from that partiality) he seems openly at great pains to avoid "the JAZZ tenor tradition" and all that implies, whilst having a great respect for it.

[Ian Thumwood]

I think the point is being missed here I comparing Evan Parker and Steve Lacy in that Parker's mode of approach is not confined by the jazz tradition whereas Lacy's was. I am not a fan of improvised music that shuns it's jazz antecedents but Evan Parker , for me, represents the best case in favour of improvised music than any other musician. I find that his playing is compelling but perhaps there is something about the soprano which is beguiling and makes this far more appealing than the other range of saxophones ? The soprano in jazz is one which has it's origins in jazz and it is probably worthwhile noting that Bechet was probably a convincing improviser at least four years before Armstrong's debut and seven years before Armstrong started to hit his stride in the recording studios at least. Other than Harry Carney and the bandleader Charlie Barnet, the soprano seems to have lost it's influence until salvaged by Steve Lacy before receiving more kudos when John Coltrane employed the instrument. If you want to put things in context, the instrument was largely absent from the Swing era and in be-bop and therefore it is not surprising that a player like Lacy would be attracted to mavericks like Ellington, Nichols. Monk and Taylor.

I was intrigued by Richard's comments about Lacy's playing being detached because my experience is the opposite. I don't know whether it is his tone or the way he constructs his phrases, but I feel that Steve Lacy's approach is totally locked in to the context within which he worked. Solo saxophone can be a hard listen yet I concur with Bruce's observation that Lacy could make this compelling. Seeing that he studied with Lee Konitz, I suppose the lessons from Lennie Tristano would have filtered down to him and therefore you can hear an element of logical "architecture" in his playing as opposed to a conscious stream of ideas. I am not saying either approach his correct but I am arguing that Steve Lacy was a truly great improviser whatever "limitations" you feel the "jazz tradition" might impose on him. His puritanical attitude to jazz certainly has me putting him amongst the top rank of jazz musicians.

[Richard Barrett]

I am arguing that Steve Lacy was a truly great improviser whatever "limitations" you feel the "jazz tradition" might impose on him.

That isn't what I was saying. What I experience as Lacy's limitations have nothing to do with whatever relationship he had with the tradition. The solo set I heard sounded to me like a long sequence of exercises which had more to do with circling rather emptily around permutations than with any sense of "architecture".

[Quarky]

Thanks for introducing me to this great musician, whom I've never 'erd of.

A quick reconoitre through You Tube revealed a wide range of musical styles from straight-ish Gershwin, Peggy's Blue Skylight, track with Ornette Coleman, to Seagulls at Kristiansund. I'm not sure the latter has a great deal to do with the Jazz tradition - but great music!

[Ian Thumwood]

That isn't what I was saying. What I experience as Lacy's limitations have nothing to do with whatever relationship he had with the tradition. The solo set I heard sounded to me like a long sequence of exercises which had more to do with circling rather emptily around permutations than with any sense of "architecture".

I am surprised by that although maybe you went to a gig when he wasn't on form. There is an excellent book by Graham Lock ( I think) where he interviews Lee Konitz about the technique of improvising and how the altoist tackles this. Books about music can tend to be a hit and miss affair but this book really captured my imagination with regard to the discipline of improvising although, for the most part, Konitz is referring to the standard repertoire. Still, his observations about Tristano really hit home for me and if he passed these comments over to Steve Lacy when he was his student, you can see the logic behind Steve Lacy's approach.

The whole aspect of improvising is more interesting if you look from the point of achieving cohesion or some kind of structure. i.e. where the solo builds up to a natural climax or conclusion. Probably more than any other musician in jazz, you get the sense of architecture in Lacy's playing. Maybe only Paul Bley is on the same parallel. I can "follow" what Lacy is doing and there seems to be a logic in how he gets from A to B. I like the way he employs odd intervals but also alludes to notes within the chords which seem to anchor his approach down. There was an interesting comment I read on line last week about the late John Abercrombie which mentioned a solo DVD that the reviewer felt disappointing because he believed JA required another musician to bounce off or to introduce elements within his playing which supported his improvised lines. The point being made was that there are other guitar players who used other devices like walking bass lines, riffs, etc to augment their playing so that is doesn't seem like a soloist missing a rhythm section. I can understand this and feel that Steve Lacy had the capability to tackle this kind of problem that separates musicians who sound good as solo artists and those who are less compelling. It seems off to me that you can admire Evan Parker who is equally interesting playing solo but be disappointed with Steve Lacy - especially as Lacy has that sound which, I would suggest, is warm enough to invite people in to listen to his music where they might otherwise find the approach too much of a challenge.

[Ian Thumwood]

[Ian Thumwood]

Steve Lacy playing Herbie Nichols:-