Jazz for aficionados

Nothing wrong with wanting the music we choose to listen to to appeal to our particular ears and sensibilities right away. On the other hand, it is a fact that for many listeners being open to letting the music challenge those sensibities can yield big rewards; or, at least, make for one-time interesting listening. Consider this: "Hudson" was created by musicians who are giants in modern music; especially DeJohnette who has musical cred about as good as anyone. Personally, I would be inclined to first say to myself something like: "I don’t quite get it yet, but these are artists with a tremendous amount of musical integrity so let me try and find out what I might be missing". Doesn’t work all the time and certainly not for everyone.

I find "Hudson" to be highly original and very interesting. As has been pointed out some of it is not easy listening. The musical concept may not appeal to some, but I don’t see how the superb quality of the playing can be denied. DeJohnette is always amazing and I love the practically melodic quality of his playing. I have always been a fan of Scofield and he sounds inspired on this record always surprising with where he takes he solos. The record shouldn’t be judged only from the posted clip with its shades of Miles’ "Bitches Brew". In fact I think that cut serves as a good "intro" to the rest of the record which contains some fascinating and unusual takes on these Woodstock-generation anthems. For instance:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bna2WHqU81A

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UI5wBgjTq84

Dave, I revisited "Stepping Out". Revisited because I actually have that record and to give you an idea of how much I like Diana Krall, I had forgotten the title of it and almost that I had it at all. It wasn’t until you later mentioned that it was her first that I realized that it was the one Krall record that I have. I think you’re right...this is probably her best. Still... I wasn’t going to respond further so as not to get into "Krall bashing", but heard this on WBGO today and it made me think about the Krall record again; and, to ask myself, again, why anyone would want to listen to Krall when one can listen to something like this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HMsEX-Zuk

Or:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZq9mocJkDQ

Or:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MnUqorTHj74

Those are beautiful alternatives to Ms. Krall, frogman. Thanks.

Dave

Frogman, thank you for putting everything into a new and fresh perspective. I'll listen to "Hudson" again and write a new post after I've put on another hat, the one I wore when "Fusion" was popular.

Thanks for the post; especially Carmen McRae, Nancy Wilson and Sarah Vaughan; my collection is loaded with those artists.

F-man, I agree with you yet again...at least your comments about the quality of the musicians who recorded Hudson and the (advisability?) of "assuming merit". I’ll likely go back and give that one another go. ON THE OTHER HAND...the influence of John Medeski lies heavily on this work. While I greatly admire his talents and have listened to a good few of his other recordings (in MMW) and own Shack Man and Combustication, more often than not, as I’ve tried to follow him in other albums of his/theirs I just don’t enjoy going where he takes the music. A bit of dissonance can be a useful thing...kinda like a strong spice in a recipe. But at some point, you just gotta call "ugly" for what it is. Well, I do, anyway. I always appreciate your analysis and the insights you provide. Your comments about Hudson no exception. Time is short (and getting shorter!), though. There’s many others I’d rather spend it with (e.g., Bill Connors...interesting career path)....though I do find myself going back from time to time and knocking on that Medeski door to see if anything has changed.

Hey O - So long as you are vertical, there’s always time to "get right". It’ll give you hope for the future.