[princeplanet]

If I were to visit earth from outta space in 1960 and I came upon Jazz, there are a few things I'm sure I'd notice when studying it's history. Clifford Brown had advanced what Pops was doing, Wes Montgomery pushed the boundaries to the point where Charlie Christian almost sounds redundant, and a million sax players were still scrambling trying to catch the Bird and all but one was still in his shadow. Yes, I know that Rollins, Stitt, Gordon, Trane, Griffin, McLean etc were by then doing there own little thing, but none really had the invention, the sheer dynamic , melodic and harmonic control of Parker. Nor the supreme confidence or even audacity and wit. None that is, with the exception of Cannonball Adderley, who possessed all these traits and then some. Obviously this is only my subjective opinion.

We all know what happened after 1960 with Cannonball moving into simpler "Soul Jazz" and the emergence of a whole new order in "art" jazz, but that's another discussion. So I put this to you, if Bird was alive in "59, of all the cats around, who would he concede was the new Bop King? You gotta admit, even he would have been floored by the mighty Cannonball in full force....

 

[tflanster]

If I were to visit earth from outta space in 1960 and I came upon Jazz, there are a few things I'm sure I'd notice when studying it's history. Clifford Brown had advanced what Pops was doing, Wes Montgomery pushed the boundaries to the point where Charlie Christian almost sounds redundant, and a million sax players were still scrambling trying to catch the Bird and all but one was still in his shadow. Yes, I know that Rollins, Stitt, Gordon, Trane, Griffin, McLean etc were by then doing there own little thing, but none really had the invention, the sheer dynamic , melodic and harmonic control of Parker. Nor the supreme confidence or even audacity and wit. None that is, with the exception of Cannonball Adderley, who possessed all these traits and then some. Obviously this is only my subjective opinion.

We all know what happened after 1960 with Cannonball moving into simpler "Soul Jazz" and the emergence of a whole new order in "art" jazz, but that's another discussion. So I put this to you, if Bird was alive in "59, of all the cats around, who would he concede was the new Bop King? You gotta admit, even he would have been floored by the mighty Cannonball in full force....

Hmm: Ever heard of Phil Woods?

 

[FawltyTenor]

Hmmm... Rollins and Trane were pretty formiddable talents by then and how about that younger player Ornette Coleman pretty revolutionary. By 1960, Rollins already released Saxophone Colossus, Plays for Bird, Village Vanguard, Way Out West, Newk's Time, some of the Riverside/Contemporary stuff... pretty significant stuff.

Ornette Coleman - he came along with a whole new perspective pretty fully realized by that time as well. Freddie Hubbard was already recording by then too, so many heavy cats to consider...

I get the point of the thread and all that, but trying to rank one player against another... doesn't really work for me. They're all so good. And would Bird really have conceeded his crown...if he was alive maybe he was back to health and tearin' it up.

I think Cannonball was a heavy, heavy cat. Don't get me wrong. He played so fluently, with such an awesome sound, and that articulation, and being able to play so crisply at such ridiculous tempos... a real monster. But, still hard to compare. It's like trying to argue who bested who on Sonny Side Up - Rollins or Stitt. They're both so good, and they each have their moments where you just go.... wow. THAT was heavy.

 

[Agent27]

Hmm: Ever heard of Phil Woods?

After Bird died, a lot of altoists were aspiring to be dubbed the "New Bird". I would like to share with you a quote from Phil about when he and Jackie McClean saw Cannonball for the first time.

"We just sat there (at the Café Bohemia), listened to a couple of tunes, then he (McLean) looked at me and I looked at him and we just said he (Cannonball) was the baddest thing we'd ever heard."

 

[Agent27]

We all know what happened after 1960 with Cannonball moving into simpler "Soul Jazz" and the emergence of a whole new order in "art" jazz, but that's another discussion.

Cannon made a bunch of great albums after 1960. I get what you're saying with the shift in style but that kind of coincided with his move to Capitol Records (and later Fantasy) in 1964. More specifically the turning point seemed to be "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy" which was recorded in 1966. I mean, Cannon didn't even leave Miles to lead his own group again until 1959.

 

[princeplanet]

After Bird died, a lot of altoists were aspiring to be dubbed the "New Bird". I would like to share with you a quote from Phil about when he and Jackie McClean saw Cannonball for the first time.

"We just sat there (at the Café Bohemia), listened to a couple of tunes, then he (McLean) looked at me and I looked at him and we just said he (Cannonball) was the baddest thing we'd ever heard."

And maybe, just maybe, if Parker was there, he would have shared the thought?.....

Sorry if this comes across like "X is better than Y", at their level they are all giants. It's just that I don't think Cannonball gets the respect he deserves these days. Or is it just me? It's like Parker was Bop's pinnacle. Sure Coleman, Dolphy, Trane etc became pinnacles of their own thing, and Griffin, Rollins and Stitt (Eternal Triangle is scary!) were right on the Bird's tail, but Cannonball, in my humble, insignificant opinion, seemed to go beyond what Bird was capable of. There, I said it.

 

[Agent27]

And maybe, just maybe, if Parker was there, he would have shared the thought?.....

Sorry if this comes across like "X is better than Y", at their level they are all giants. It's just that I don't think Cannonball gets the respect he deserves these days. Or is it just me? It's like Parker was Bop's pinnacle. Sure Coleman, Dolphy, Trane etc became pinnacles of their own thing, and Griffin, Rollins and Stitt (Eternal Triangle is scary!) were right on the Bird's tail, but Cannonball, in my humble, insignificant opinion, seemed to go beyond what Bird was capable of. There, I said it.

No, Parker gets a lot of credit, and deservedly so, because he was an innovator. I'm a huge Stitt fan. I think he took what guys like Bird were doing and perfected it. IMHO, Stitt eventually surpassed Bird because he had another 30 years to work at it. But Bird gets the credit because he's pretty much the basis for everything that followed. Stitt, not so much. The innovator gets more credit than the consolidator.

Cannonball is in the same category. I too think that he surpassed Bird. He wasn't nearly the Bird clone a lot of people wrote him off as. His playing evolved along side Bird and by the time he had heard Parker, he was already moving in that direction with his own take. While Stitt kind of perfected on what Bird did (not that he was a clone either), Cannon built on it. But while Cannon had his own thing going on, he wasn't nearly the gamechanger that Parker was.

Still, you'll find a huge number of guys influenced by him and I think most would rank him as the #2 altoist behind Parker in significance.

 

[princeplanet]

No, Parker gets a lot of credit, and deservedly so, because he was an innovator. I'm a huge Stitt fan. I think he took what guys like Bird were doing and perfected it. IMHO, Stitt eventually surpassed Bird because he had another 30 years to work at it. But Bird gets the credit because he's pretty much the basis for everything that followed. Stitt, not so much. The innovator gets more credit than the consolidator.

Cannonball is in the same category. I too think that he surpassed Bird. He wasn't nearly the Bird clone a lot of people wrote him off as. His playing evolved along side Bird and by the time he had heard Parker, he was already moving in that direction with his own take. While Stitt kind of perfected on what Bird did (not that he was a clone either), Cannon built on it. But while Cannon had his own thing going on, he wasn't nearly the gamechanger that Parker was.

Still, you'll find a huge number of guys influenced by him and I think most would rank him as the #2 altoist behind Parker in significance.

Perhaps you're right, but some argue that Parker didn't come from nowhere, after all if you speed up Lester Young, sounds a bit like Parker, no? Was Bird that radical a departure from, say, Don Byas and other earlier cats? Did Cannonball add as much to the ouvre as Bird? No doubt Bird influenced far more players, but maybe because the 60's kinda killed bop and cats were getting hip to Coleman and Dolphy. The hip upcomers were no longer interested in what Cannonball had done by then, it was already old school, along with Parker and the rest of the Boppers.

Was at a party recently where there were a few rock music people. Typically, the only jazz they knew was KOB, which was being played- nothing against that album, mind, anyway a guy declares during one of the solos that "man, that Coltrane really could burn it up!" Then everyone started talking about how great Coltrane was, and then his life, death and drug habits were discussed etc etc.

Funny thing was, the solo that got everyone excited was Cannonballs's....

 

[Wade Cornell]

From a purely subjective point of view I have always preferred Cannonball's playing over anyone else from pre 1970. When I listen to those tracks where Coltrane and Cannonball are together the difference is enormous. Coltrane has his thing where it's all dark and technical. If one resonates with that Coltrane thing then I guess that's your taste. When Cannonball would play, especially if after Coltrane, it's like the windows have been thrown open and suddenly there is light, air and life. I was fortunate (old?) enough to see Cannonball live which was a thrill.

The speed and technical fluency of Bird was remarkable and certainly he deserved his fame. Cannonball was capable of that kind of technique, but I think realized that there is more to making music and playing an instrument than technique and having fast chops. When you listen to Cannonball you hear music. When you listen to Bird or Coltrane you only hear Bird or Coltrane.

 

[princeplanet]

From a purely subjective point of view I have always preferred Cannonball's playing over anyone else from pre 1970. When I listen to those tracks where Coltrane and Cannonball are together the difference is enormous. Coltrane has his thing where it's all dark and technical. If one resonates with that Coltrane thing then I guess that's your taste. When Cannonball would play, especially if after Coltrane, it's like the windows have been thrown open and suddenly there is light, air and life. I was fortunate (old?) enough to see Cannonball live which was a thrill.

The speed and technical fluency of Bird was remarkable and certainly he deserved his fame. Cannonball was capable of that kind of technique, but I think realized that there is more to making music and playing an instrument than technique and having fast chops. When you listen to Cannonball you hear music. When you listen to Bird or Coltrane you only hear Bird or Coltrane.

You got me curious, who do you like post 70's?

 

[Pete Thomas]

but Cannonball, in my humble, insignificant opinion, seemed to go beyond what Bird was capable of.

I think he went beyond what Bird did in many respects, but not what Bird was capable of.

 

[Wade Cornell]

You got me curious, who do you like post 70's?

Once again a very personal opinion based on the quality of his music rather than purely technical ability. Jan Garbarek is for me where sax playing once again moved forward. It's curious that not many have built upon that progress and instead harkens back to the 50s or 60s. Possibly has more to do with institutional codifying of the musical "language" of that time which once again only looks at form rather than substance. There are few other "modern" players I admire although there certainly are lots with excellent technique and facility. I probably get more out of players like guitarist Bill Frisell in terms of musical inspiration than most of today's sax players. Tone concepts have changed, possibly for the better, but most players are primarily just interested in fast technique rather than making great music. Gets very boring very quickly.

Guys like Cannonball stood miles above most and Jan Garbarek still does. Their technical abilities were always in the service of the music rather than the object. Hopefully a new generation of players will figure this out sometime soon. In the meanwhile schools and teachers feed off the notion that anyone can learn to "play jazz by the numbers" and should want to sound like they came out of the 50s or 60s. Too bad cause almost nobody wants to listen to that stuff. Makes sense when you think about it. Who in the 50s and 60s wanted to listen to music from the 1920s? Doesn't mean there weren't great musicians then. Life and art move on. You either move with it or sit diddling in the past by yourself.

 

[piwikiwi]

Once again a very personal opinion based on the quality of his music rather than purely technical ability. Jan Garbarek is for me where sax playing once again moved forward. It's curious that not many have built upon that progress and instead harkens back to the 50s or 60s. Possibly has more to do with institutional codifying of the musical "language" of that time which once again only looks at form rather than substance. There are few other "modern" players I admire although there certainly are lots with excellent technique and facility. I probably get more out of players like guitarist Bill Frisell in terms of musical inspiration than most of today's sax players. Tone concepts have changed, possibly for the better, but most players are primarily just interested in fast technique rather than making great music. Gets very boring very quickly.

Guys like Cannonball stood miles above most and Jan Garbarek still does. Their technical abilities were always in the service of the music rather than the object. Hopefully a new generation of players will figure this out sometime soon. In the meanwhile schools and teachers feed off the notion that anyone can learn to "play jazz by the numbers" and should want to sound like they came out of the 50s or 60s. Too bad cause almost nobody wants to listen to that stuff. Makes sense when you think about it. Who in the 50s and 60s wanted to listen to music from the 1920s? Doesn't mean there weren't great musicians then. Life and art move on. You either move with it or sit diddling in the past by yourself.

Well, I agree with some parts but I disagree what you say about the 50's/60's. I'm 24 and about 90% of my cd collection(300+) is made up of cd's from the 1940's/1950's. I have a couple of cd's from earlier era's and a couple of more modern ones. I always have the feeling that there is something missing from more modern players, a certain spark. I think guys like Brad Mehldau are really great but he takes himself too seriously and I think his music reflects that, it's beautiful but there is no joy in his playing.

Bebop is music that makes me happy. Especially parker, stitt, dexter and cannonball.

 

[saxpiece]

Music only has so many forms that are appealing, and so do all of the arts.

Later Bop players went on the modal thing and then Bossa Nova came along and similar things and players jumped on that.

Playing just Bebop for 40 years doesn't sound very exciting especially after the first 20 years.

When a new form comes along and becomes in then players flock to it because of commercialism but also because they were getting a bit bored going through the same old stuff and the new form is a way to try new things.

I don't see and have not seen many if any new forms dominating in Jazz and Classical for ages and I think it's because they have run out of new appealing forms and when that happens some players look back to some previous form but maybe not audiences.

Everyone gets forgotten to some extent because life moves on.

Bach wasn't that popular in Mozarts day and Vivaldi only came back in in the early 1930s.
Bach's forms had been replaced by Haydyn and Mozarts and others forms.

Schoenberg's 12 tone series was a new form but it was never going to be generally appealing by it's inherent structure.

Now there is Neo Classical, a return to older forms mainly because different forms just run out and the ones that might not have been done are probably not very appealing.

Music and all Arts have limitations just like everything else.

 

[ismail]

I can relate, but the following sentence of yours is very bold and practically impossible to verify:
"..but none really had the invention, the sheer dynamic , melodic and harmonic control of Parker. Nor the supreme confidence or even audacity and wit. None that is, with the exception of Cannonball Adderley, who possessed all these traits and then some."

So, I'd just leave this sentence away. What I am missing is a statement about Cannonball's sound which, to me, is the perfect alto sound, if I had to pick one. In tune (!), enough bottom so it's not as screechy as many other altoists, the edge that would have made him a perfect funk player in later decades, brilliant syncopation and articulation. It sounds so easy, energetic yet controlled. I guess that's why the commercial stuff came easy to him - because he's simply pleasant to listen to, but not in the shallow way that is predominant in SmoJa nowadays. His "Dancing in the Dark" is still one of the most thrilling pieces I have ever heard.

 

[Pete Thomas]

the edge that would have made him a perfect funk player in later decades,

I would correct that: "the edge that made him a perfect funk player"

 

[FawltyTenor]

When you listen to Cannonball you hear music.

Wade - couldn't with you more on this point.

I think Adderly's playing and style connected with just about everyone, whether you're a jazz geek or casual listener. Something to me always seemed so personal about his playing, like his personality came right through. He could really made the horn sing.

Sure, his technique was amazing and execution flawless...but his SOUND and melodic playing was so appealing. He did continue to evolve and change, looking for new ways of expression. Loved that group with Yusef Lateef...

 

[saxpiece]

I had a Miles Davis album with Coltane and Adderley on it, I think it was Kind Of Blue.

Anyway this was before I picked up a sax and was only playing guitar and my impression was that Coltrane impressed me way more than Adderley who sounded like a modal Charlie Parker to me.

I'm not a huge Jazz fan and it was just my uneducated impression at that time as I was going through various Jazz things at that time.

 

[ismail]

I had a Miles Davis album with Coltane and Adderley on it, I think it was Kind Of Blue.

Anyway this was before I picked up a sax and was only playing guitar and my impression was that Coltrane impressed me way more than Adderley who sounded like a modal Charlie Parker to me.

I'm not a huge Jazz fan and it was just my uneducated impression at that time as I was going through various Jazz things at that time.

If it was "Kind of Blue" - I liked Coltrane better, on that, too.
"Somethin' Else" with Cannonball Adderley and Miles Davis (as a "guest") is brilliant, you should try that one.

 

[princeplanet]

It's funny, I don't think either Coltrane or Cannon were at their best on KOB. On Milestones Trane sounds much better to me than he does on KOB, but of course he went on to make GS 2 months after KOB, which is better again. Cannon's Something Else really is something else! The playing on that is just astounding, But I like Cannon's playing on most of his outings, even the great Bossa Nova record he did. Does anyone think that the fact that he was a genial, clean living ex school teacher contribute to the lack of enigma about him? Seems only the heroin users have become the modern day legends. Maybe it's not hip to be into Cannon because he wasn't "cool" enough?