Although I've heard alot of the material by this group before, I've spent alot of this time this week listening to the recordings of Miles' quintet and have been staggered by the craftsmanship of this ensemble. What struck me was that is seems to be quite straight-forward in many respects yet there is a sense of drama which I think alot of jazz of this era really misses. There are moments where you can see Miles trying to be adventurous with themes like "Ahmed's Blues" or the re-working of "Salt peanuts" which look forward to the next decade. Without doubt, it is the leader who is looking towards the future and Miles' comment about Coltrane's later work being boring seems misjudged as I don't feel that there is anything on the records I've heard to suggest in 1956 that Coltrane would be quite the titanic force that he became. Yes, the approach is muscular and knotty but I don't feel he joins the dots up between his phrases with anywhere near the ability of what he could achieve even on a record like the live recording at Carnegie Hall with Monk. Coltrane was at a very early stage in his development when he played with Miles. For me, the front line is not the pairing of equals as was the case with Wayne Shorter. I'm still ploughing my way through the recordings and will post any later observations but wanted to sound out if anyone else shared my views.
For me, there are two soloists who really stand out. The first of these is the leader who was starting to find his identity and had the ability to play ballads which avoided sentimentality yet was full of poetry in his expression. The other soloist who impresses is Red Garland. I think you could be ultra-critical and pick up things like his left hand accentuating the same beat during his solos on a piece like "four" but what he is doing with his improvised line is so poised that I find it difficult to think of many other modern jazz pianists of this era who are so compelling. Despite this, I think he owes a lot of earlier players like Nat "king Cole and despite the famous quote about him being employed because he sounded like the under-rated Ahmad Jamal, he seems very mainstream these days. If you heard hims perform now, he has the kind of style you would say would fit perfectly with a player like Scot Hamilton. I love Garland's playing yet struggle to think of Miles Davis ever employing a more "conservative" pianist. The lock-hand choruses almost recall people like Milt Buckner but luckily this device is used sparingly and is therefore interesting. Like a lot of harmonically aware pianists of the time, Garland could easily have strayed in to a more cocktail approach and thankfully his always swinging improvised lines prevented this from happening.
The other point is that I was surprised by Coltrane as his playing is exceptionally hard in it's tone, I much prefer his later work and would have to say that I don't find his solos as compelling at either Davis or Garland. As far as the other two musicians are concerned, I like Paul Chamber's playing and the manner in which he works as a team with Garland and Jones. Tha said, there are more drum solos that I recalled and they quickly lose their appeal. On one of the takes of " The Theme" Jones doesn't quite make it at the point at which his solo meets the head. He is much more interesting as a player for the band.
The final issue was the material. I was shocked at just how many standards this group played and also as Miles' enthusiasm for the wiritng of Dave Brubeck. With his enthusiasm for Jamal, Garland and perhaps Brubeck it is interesting to learn something about his taste in pianists in the mid 50's. i.e. He was pretty conservative.
All told, I think this was a great band but very much a sound board for Miles' future development. You can see how his choice of notes started to changed from the more obvious be-bop material. I'm still more impressed by the classic , (seocnd quintet the greatest small group in jazz ever) yet this was a fabulous band even if 60 years later the music does not necessarily come across as being "Modern jazz." Anyone familiar with the kind of jazz put out on a label like Concord would be able to devour this music. In summary, this is great music albeit not quite as "modern" as I recalled it to be. Hugely enjoyable, none the same!!
For me, there are two soloists who really stand out. The first of these is the leader who was starting to find his identity and had the ability to play ballads which avoided sentimentality yet was full of poetry in his expression. The other soloist who impresses is Red Garland. I think you could be ultra-critical and pick up things like his left hand accentuating the same beat during his solos on a piece like "four" but what he is doing with his improvised line is so poised that I find it difficult to think of many other modern jazz pianists of this era who are so compelling. Despite this, I think he owes a lot of earlier players like Nat "king Cole and despite the famous quote about him being employed because he sounded like the under-rated Ahmad Jamal, he seems very mainstream these days. If you heard hims perform now, he has the kind of style you would say would fit perfectly with a player like Scot Hamilton. I love Garland's playing yet struggle to think of Miles Davis ever employing a more "conservative" pianist. The lock-hand choruses almost recall people like Milt Buckner but luckily this device is used sparingly and is therefore interesting. Like a lot of harmonically aware pianists of the time, Garland could easily have strayed in to a more cocktail approach and thankfully his always swinging improvised lines prevented this from happening.
The other point is that I was surprised by Coltrane as his playing is exceptionally hard in it's tone, I much prefer his later work and would have to say that I don't find his solos as compelling at either Davis or Garland. As far as the other two musicians are concerned, I like Paul Chamber's playing and the manner in which he works as a team with Garland and Jones. Tha said, there are more drum solos that I recalled and they quickly lose their appeal. On one of the takes of " The Theme" Jones doesn't quite make it at the point at which his solo meets the head. He is much more interesting as a player for the band.
The final issue was the material. I was shocked at just how many standards this group played and also as Miles' enthusiasm for the wiritng of Dave Brubeck. With his enthusiasm for Jamal, Garland and perhaps Brubeck it is interesting to learn something about his taste in pianists in the mid 50's. i.e. He was pretty conservative.
All told, I think this was a great band but very much a sound board for Miles' future development. You can see how his choice of notes started to changed from the more obvious be-bop material. I'm still more impressed by the classic , (seocnd quintet the greatest small group in jazz ever) yet this was a fabulous band even if 60 years later the music does not necessarily come across as being "Modern jazz." Anyone familiar with the kind of jazz put out on a label like Concord would be able to devour this music. In summary, this is great music albeit not quite as "modern" as I recalled it to be. Hugely enjoyable, none the same!!
, luckily it's here (hopefully):
- especially on "Straight No Chaser" from "Milestones" - which iimss you really ought to have as one of those lynchpins of any collection, Ian! In fact Red picks up on a few aspects of 'Trane's complexity in his preceding tenor solo and very subtly filters them in his own way and temperament into his own nudging solo. (Btw, another matter not related to the context of this discussion, but I never did "get" the conclusion of Red's solo here by his quoting an early solo Miles had made with Bird back in '47 in its entirety - it doesn't fit with the foregoing in any way. I guess it was some kind of private joke between the two).
Comment