On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:30:23 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
on 8/23/02 3:13 PM, Zachary Steiner at zsteiner@butler.edu wrote:
I would like to know some GOOD reasons why Coltrane isn't so hot. I'm genuinely curious. I don't want to hear that he's boring or sounds bad.
My own misgivings about the Impulse period are basically that the range of material is not as particularly wide as I would like. Coltrane seemed intent on finding an area and refining it relentlessly, which I admire, but is not always what makes for satisfying listening. The guy was such a master that I would have liked things more if he had taken the varietal nature of form as strenously as Monk had, which is, for my money, why Monk's stuff has stayed so fresh. As for the free stuff, Trane's records are always hit and miss for me.
The Impulse! period lasted six years. Checking what he did in 1961 next to what he did in 1967, I see significant differences (and most of those who do not like modern jazz see some serious differences). It is ironic that we are expecting old masters to move steadily when most of the alleged avant current players seem to stick to the same kind of music for decades... I mean, a large portion of what is called free improvised music is barely different from what Bailey/Parker/Oxley/etc did more than 30 years ago! And what about the free-jazz revival? Do you see progress? Coltrane was such a master at what he did that I am happy that he took time to linger on that for a while. Yes, you don't need all the Impulse! records from a creative point of view, but from a pleasure point of view, they are worth their price. You seem to imply that he could have spent his energy in a more creative way... He is dead, right? What do we know? If he had moved to Hollywood to write soundtracks, I might have agreed with you. I miss what he could have done if he had not died so young, not what he might have done during his life, for what he did is almost untouchable (IMNSHO). Patrice.