[princeplanet]

On albums like Our Thing and Page One, Henderson's soloing seems to be stretching some hard bop concepts to the point where he blends outside notes into his inside lines in a really cool way.

Does anyone know what his thinking may have been? I'd like to work it out for myself one day, but it may be too difficult for me to extract any pattern to the thinking behind it. Any ideas?

 

[tenorcat]

I feel very fortunate tho have seen Joe many times when he was in the City. I guess it is a legitimate question to wonder what he was thinking. Isn't it all there on the records? I think jazz is a live art form. Recordings are a snap shot in time. So that is what he was thinking right then.

As far as performances go, is it an assumption that he was consciously thinking about composition? Having spent many hours sitting in front of Joe, I'm not sure he was thinking at all. I felt like he was thinking about the tunes, or listening and playing off the rhythm section... maybe just trying to be relaxed enough to physically pull off some of the magic he created. Man, he could play hard in the 70's. I'm sure it was physically and emotionally draining to play sets like that.

I wonder if you do hear patterns, are they some sort of sequences? I don't think I hear him playing so many diatonic sequences, but more 'real' sequences and pentatonic stuff too. I bookmarked this a long time ago;

Joe interview by Mel

 

[princeplanet]

If there are patterns then they are well disguised! Was he into triad pairs? Symmetrical? Quad? Altered pents?

 

[RootyTootoot]

Joe interview by Mel

Thank you. That was great.

 

[dshook]

My teacher spent time studying with Joe and often talks about his approach: mostly diatonic patterns, bop scales, blues scales. The idea is if you can absolutely shred all 12 diatonic keys then you can just work with substitutions to get outside. Joe is mostly inside the harmony but when he steps out it's almost always a straight diatonic sub. I particularly love his blues based stuff too..

 

[tenorcat]

Yeah, isn't that it in a nutshell. Couldn't you say that about anybody. Sounds basically the way I do it too, heh, heh.

It gets sticky when trying to talk about the glue... the stuff that holds the music together.

We can see what he was playing but the mystery is why? We can't know that stuff. When we analyze aren't we trying to find evidence for our suppositions?

I think that all serious musicians about that time were into legit harmony, composition and music. Everybody was looking at Slonimsky and trying to see how to use it in "jazz". It wasn't that long ago, but there was no internet. We were trippin' because LPs were in stereo! If you transcribed all of Joe's recorded work, I bet you could find evidence for every kind of compositional device. Still, it ain't gonna tell you why he felt that way.

Cleverly disguised patterns? Why not that he borrowed, lifted, swiped and sampled all kinds of ideas. He maybe didn't use complete patterns, but just an outline or scrap of the idea. I doubt if he was thinking, "I'm going to cleverly disguise this pattern here on G#Maj.7+11. On top of that, he says that he never wanted to play the same thing twice, so is it that cleverness is not in a disguise, but a system that creates continuously different ideas?

Joe talks about what he listened to growing up, and then the music he absorbed, as he began to play and write. Somewhere in there is clues to the glue.

My impression of the glue he used was something like: How much time do I need to fill with a given tonality, where am I going harmonically and melodically, how much time does the next tonality occupy (yeah, traditional voice leading and all kinds of other stuff he was thinking about too, including what was for dinner and Geez, if i didn't have this horn in my mouth, I'd love a smoke right now... you know... who knows?). Basically, where am I, and where am I going, and for how long.

If the changes are flying by, then you have less time to convince the listener that you are indeed in each tonality, as it resolves to the next. You can establish tonality with very few notes. Sometimes it is only one note. There is no rule that says you need to include every scale note in a key. In fact, many modulations have so many scale notes in common that you could play a line that doesn't allow the listener to hear the chords change under it. No point in that unless it's boredom.

So, I think that the notes on either side of the natural half steps in a diatonic scale are where the power of function is. It is where the tritone interval resides, the most dissonant interval, the one that creates the tension for resolution. If the bass player is playing the bass note, do you need to play it also for the listener to hear the resolution? No it is redundant. So you can leave no doubt in the listener's ear that you are in a key with two or three notes. Seems like it can work even if there is no bass note sounding too.

One could hang all kinds of inside/outside whacked out patterns off of the two notes of the tritone interval in a diatonic scale. As long as you hit the seventh to the third in time, the listener will get his reward of resolution.

I think that is where Joe hung out a lot, right in the cracks there between the natural half steps. That tipping point between consonance and dissonance. That is where the blues is.

 

[dshook]

Tenorcat - cool stuff man, thanks much for the insight!

 

[princeplanet]

Yeah thanks TC. Good to hear the thoughts of other's about the great man. What a musical mind that guy possessed, it's kinda scary! I just don't know how guys can play at such a high level for decades without repeating themselves. I can't do it for 5 minutes!

 

[Black Obelisk]

I hear a concept he uses, sometimes, like more of a shape, than a harmonic pattern. Then he may alter the shape to fit the chords, like change a note or two, but retain the initial shape, so its more about the shape & the force of playing it, than really the harmonic aspect.
Especially when he does the repeat figure thing.

Sometimes you can play "wrong" notes, but the way you play them, they sound right. (sometimes not, depends on the player)

 

[tenorcat]

Shapes sound like a good way to describe his sounds. I'd buy that, and changing notes but retaining the part of the initial shape like a kind of pedal point. I choose to hear scraps of sequences in his playing too.

I heard something someone did, and then I started to hear it in everybody else's playing to some degree too. There are ways to play 'circular' lines: like using a four note motif and playing it off the circle of fourths. The lines have so much forward momentum that where every you stop... there you are... whether it lands in time like a V-l cadence or not. The lines sound like they spiral around and around, so that each four note package takes you into a different key, you hear the line resolving... might not resolve 'correctly' but the listener hears resolution anyway because of the forward impetus. It ain't a wrong note until you can't resolve it any more... or something like that.

Joe's Quote: " I developed the ability to start anywhere in the bar and it lent to a whole new attitude of constant variation. I would start with the first bar, not starting it on one but starting it on the 'and' of four or the 'and' of three, with a series of sixteenth notes with several triplets. I would let the first four bars take care of themselves until we got to the fifth bar, and start that at a certain point of the rhythmic structure of the bar. Then I'd start something in the seventh bar. What I was developing was a sense of not falling into that habit of playing the same things all the time."

You know I like to tell stories. One night I went to listen to my oldest friend in the world play in a sleazy biker bar with his blues trio. On the break, we were standing in the back alley talking about string gauges and how you have to play the guitar and then play the amps too. I said, "I hear you do this thing where you play what I would call circular licks. You play the same notes around and around, but start on the second note, then the third note... or the last note. He created resolution to each chord of the blues using rhythmic resolution... but also he would change a note in the pattern, so that he was hitting the blues changes, but basically used a collection of 'shapes' and started where ever he needed in the pattern to make it come out rhythmically right.

He, said, "Really?? Wow man that's deep. You heard that? I never thought of that. What a great idea!" He goes, "All I think about is tone and phrasing. There are no wrong notes I can't make sound right."

Bill died on me a while back at 57. A smoking player who lived the blues life style, toiling in obscurity knowing that it was killing him, but he was happy playing guitar all day long, every day, and night if he could. I keep chopping away at learning all kinds of patterns, substitutes and stuff... remembering that in the end, it's all about tone and phrasing.

 

[FawltyTenor]

I think there was a lot of "logic" in Joe Henderson's improvising. Things like melodic sequencing and theme and variations type stuff. In those respects, you could compare his approach to Sonny Rollins.

But, Joe was such a deep player. Seems like his playing sort of sums up everything up to that point and beyond. Bebop lines, horizontal, vertical, pentatonic based lines, blues, altissimo, trills, effects. Anything and everything you could do with a saxophone.

And I agree that there's a lot of contour or shape to his playing simlar to Wayne Shorter. But, with Joe it's like there are just layers and layers of thoughtful construction to his improv. So often Joe could take a simple idea and make so much out of it...for me, he's one of the greatest and most inspirational players.

 

[princeplanet]

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ng links given to me in another forum. Enjoy!

 

[whaler]

I can hear that Joe copped a lot of stuff from Stan Getz. The two of them probably had the best time feels that I've ever heard.
It always amazed me that always had such a distinct personality and was a virtuoso in every sense of the word.

 

[dshook]

Damn, Whaler...great clip, Joe was so heavy. Thanks man.

 

[princeplanet]

So, being a guitarist, I'm very interested to hear opinions about the early to mid 60's period in regard to (in particular) Shorter, Coltrane and Henderson. Does Coltrane get remembered more than the others because he was the originator for certain stylings the others were influenced by? Or was he also (in your own opinion) the superior exponent? Personally, I prefer all 6 Blue Note Shorters and all 5 JH Blue Notes to anything Coltrane did in the same period. How about you guys?

 

[davetjazz]

The older Joe got the more I dig em. He has that "twinkle in the eye" in his playing. I dunno how to describe it.

If there was no Trane, I can't imagine how Shorter and Henderson would have sounded. Trane introduced so much material for all players, he was like a factory. Just like Louis, Lester, Hawk, and Bird. Stuff that became damn near a requirement for getting around your horn; especially regarding harmonic inventions. IMO I'd say why guys prefer Henderson to Trane at times is that Henderson was more obvious in his roots but played all that slick-updated language. Henderson reminds me as the rhythmic extension going back through Bird, Lester and Louis, which had a stronger rhythmic root in their conception. Like what they call *landing on your feet*

 

[tenorcat]

Really, Joe at the end was heart breaking to watch but man, he summoned all the power he could muster to speak his version of the truth. His music seemed so distilled, all meat no fat, totally on purpose, no wasted thought or energy.

I dunno we used to sit around listening to all these records when I was coming up, and have endless conversations about who had the chop, and who could blow who off. Soo seventh grade. I wonder what someone who actually knew Joe or played with him readding this stuff would think of these conversations?

You should read Eric Nisenson's Book Ascension-John Coltrane and his Quest. I resisted his conclusion for a long time, but I think that the last few years have shown him to be not so far off. Let's see If I can say it quick; Trane took the music to the boundaries of melody, harmony and rhythm. Nobody, not even McCoy, Elvin, Chick, Herbie or even Joe or Wayne got there and they, are still alive, along with a ton of other guys that can play too. You know the list, Sonny, Brecker, Leibman, ect. I think he lumped Miles and all the guys playing fusion then too in there. Why haven't they been able to propel the music forward?

I know, it upset me too at first. But I lived at least fifteen years of my life, where I never went out to hear music, I didn't know any musicians or even anybody that knew who any of these guys were. I listened to all the Impulse stuff... well like at least fifty Coltrane records I had, so from all periods. I had about 2000 vinyl discs in the '80's, Rock, Fusion, basic Bach, Beethoven, Brhams, Hyden, Mozart... but Blue Note, Prestige, CTI and Fantasy like mad. All the people I came into contact with thought music was either rock or country.

When I started playing again and began to go out, talk with fans and musicians who were all still into jazz, I was flat blown away that there were all these people who were rabid Coltrane fans. Maybe they didn't even know that much about other artists or the history, they were into Coltrane for some reason or other. Lots of young musicians hear about Trane and listen to it, then hear something in it. I thought for a long time that i was the only person left in the world that would rather listen to Johnny Hartman and Trane play Lush Life that Led Zepplin. I mean Wise One, Cresent, Blue Trane... all this stuff every day over and over, to the point now where I almost can't even listen to Trane, it's just too heavy. They play enough on the radio that I get warm fuzzies when I'm driving down the street and Mr.PC or Giant Steps or Dear Lord comes over the radio... over the freakin' air waves!

I got to see Wayne in a small club then Weather Report in various incarnations. I saw Joe sit in one Wednesday night in a small club on Fillmore Street circa '74. That was pretty mind bending. As soon as I could get into clubs, about the end of '70 or so, I tried to see every jazz artist that came to the Bay Area. Lots of tenor players. I never got to see Coltrane and really until recently when I found all these YouTube videos of live film clips, never really thought twice about the fact that I was only informed by recordings.

When I saw Hendrix, and Cream... or Miles, Dexter, Dizzy, Art Blakey, Oscar, McCoy, Chick, Herbie... you know all this stuff that is completely off the radar of mainstream culture... I could feel the energy. Anybody could if you had a pulse. You are in the same space with them... you get it!

I went to see McCoy and Michael Brecker at the old Yoshi's before they went into the studio for the Infinity CD. I got there an hour and fifteen minutes early so i could reserve table #17 in the middle of the balcony!. There is this guy already standing in line with a book, coffee and a snack. Man, I thought I was hard core. He is reading Eric Nisenson's book Open Sky about Sonny Rollins, that I just finished. He tells me that he is about 11 years older than me and went to medical school in New York. He got so into jazz that he had a hard time getting through school because of that. He never played an instrument.

I ask him if he ever saw Trane. He rolls his eyes back and takes a deep breath. He remembered in detail every gig he went to. He was there in the week they did the Live at the Village Vanguard sessions. At one point I blurted out... dude I hate you! I mean I have been buying tickets and standing in line for a long time and I would trade seeing all that stuff for one night at the Village Vanguard... you know see Trane coming out of the kitchen or men's room after a drum solo, fully engulfed in flames!!

Still, in the larger scheme of things, we are so in the minority, that we even know about this stuff to talk about it. Seems ironic, but music is a powerful thing. Here is landing on your feet:

 

[RootyTootoot]

Magnificent. Never seen that one before.

This is a really good thread. Sincerely, thanks to all for their insights. Great stuff.

Just on a somewhat more superficial level, that clip reminded me about an aspect of Joe's playing that I always notice in video clips. He seems so relaxed in his hands, his finger technique is really exemplary I think. I always feel like that very fluid, relaxed feel in his fingers must be part of the reason he can play runs and rhythms the way he does.

 

[evan1]

Joe's Quote: " I developed the ability to start anywhere in the bar and it lent to a whole new attitude of constant variation. I would start with the first bar, not starting it on one but starting it on the 'and' of four or the 'and' of three, with a series of sixteenth notes with several triplets. I would let the first four bars take care of themselves until we got to the fifth bar, and start that at a certain point of the rhythmic structure of the bar. Then I'd start something in the seventh bar. What I was developing was a sense of not falling into that habit of playing the same things all the time."

Man thats a great quote by Joe. The more i listen to this man, the more I hear his influence on the 3rd and 4th generation of Tenor Saxophonists. In my mind, Joe's influence can be clealry heard in teh playing of MB.

 

[tenorcat]

Worth eleven minutes of my life...