The Coltranes - Alice or John ?

Unsure whether they're both a bit overrated. Is it just me, or did Pharoah Sanders actually have the edge over 'Trane in the later years? Seems to me that 'Trane never quite broke his old bounds; even in hardcore sessions like "Live in Japan" or "Live in Seattle," you still sense him thinking, "What would Red Garland have played behind this in 1956?" Never could quite let go. Then again, he was experimenting with the lyricon at the time of his death. Fantasy: Miles' "Bitches' Brew" with both Coltrane and Dolphy in the line-up, had they lived.

John, the easy anwser, because I know his music much better (some of which is up there with my favourite music). To be fair I've just been introduced to Alice and what I've heard is pretty amazing at times, (as far out as 4 Hero).

It has to be JC all the way for me, and not just for the later free stuff - 'Alabama' is one of the most moving tunes ever composed/recorded, and the early sixties Coltrane/Tyner/Garrison/Jones quartet are pretty hard to beat in terms of 'modern' jazz. AC has her moments too, and it's good to see her and Betty Davis getting some props and finally escaping from the shadows of their famous partners. The JC disc 'Live at the Village Vanguard Again!' featuring Alice AND Pharoah Sanders on tenor and flute might just be the best of all poss worlds (apart from the bass solo!)

Once upon a time, I used to think that Cowboy Junkies' 'Sun Comes Up, It's Tuesday Morning' said 'Anyways, I'd rather listen to coal trains...'. I think that would have been a more interesting line than 'Anyways, I'd rather listen to Coltrane...'.

im increasingly worried that p-fox is making more and more sense to me this week ?

Why worry?

I don't think it's right to think that Trane never "broke his old bounds." That seems to me to assume that free jazz was all about getting as skronky as possible, leaving anything formerly associated with any previous jazz behind. That's simply not the case. It's something you can listen for in free jazz, but in actuality free jazz is a much more complicated thing, with all kinds of connections to the jazz tradition (or traditions, don't mean to imply that there's one monolithic Tradition).

As for the side-taking: John, no question, if only because I've barely heard any of Alice's own music. I've heard her with John's later groups, and enjoyed her (her solo on the first track to Stellar Regions is beautiful, and though I miss McCoy Tyner, what Alice did on those albums seems to fit in a lot better than McCoy would have by then). I suspect I would still pick John even if I'd heard lots of solo Alice, though.

John, of course. But hey Josh, I think you would love Journey in Satchidananda. It's like late period Trane, with the bells and percussion, but with more Eastern elements, including harp. Very unique and listenable. No way would you dislike it.

Also for anyone looking for a good introduction, Impulse! last year released an Alice Coltrane compilation which was mid-price everywhere for some reason, i think it's called 'Astral Meditations'. Loved most of it.

I can't believe this question even exists. John was a God. Of course, I'm a horn player, so I have to say that, but doesn't Alice strike you as a hanger-on of Yoko proportions?

Hmmmm: "Hanger-on of Yoko proportions" = more talented than husband, sacrificed her rep/career for his sales. Everyone knows this, rock being a distinctly less sexist milieu than jazz.

John Coltrane is EASILY the most overrated jazzer ever, and I don't care if Philip Larkin did say so first: his (obviously phenomenal) sax technique domesticated and validated Free for everyone that was scared of the implications of Ornette's kid-lib play (anyone can do it) on one wing, and Cecil's and Sun Ra's gamesmanship-pranksmanship on the other (yes, if it IS a joke, it's a joke YOU don't get, yez ofay mofo hoho). JC was (1) a patently nice man, and very generous to other musicians (2) a man with a past in "proper" jazz (hard bop; Miles): easy then to convert the music into a mere radical sociology, and to listen as a species of preening. He was good, but was he better than Dolphy, say? Don Cherry?

Alice: because this way you have to listen with yr ears, not yr eyes over yr shoulder...

"because this way you have to listen with yr ears, not yr eyes over yr shoulder"

What does this mean, exactly?

Eyes over shoulder = fear of history's judgment breathing down yr neck, distorting yr sense of yr own.

Jazz as the thing itself, good or bad, not the (a) Voice of the Historically Oppressed Like it or Not, complete with (b) those trainspotter twerps who already KNOW THIS STUFF INSIDE OUT WATCHING FER YR EVERY MISSTEP and wopping you over the head with how Oppressive you're being for (actually) preferring Dave Brubeck. Say.

That isn't "exactly", Josh, but I usually aren't.

Eyes over shoulder = fear of history's judgment breathing down yr neck, distorting yr sense of yr own.

Jazz as the thing itself, good or bad, not the (a) Voice of the Historically Oppressed Like it or Not, complete with (b) those trainspotter twerps who already KNOW THIS STUFF INSIDE OUT WATCHING FER YR EVERY MISSTEP and wopping you over the head with how Oppressive you're being for (actually) preferring Dave Brubeck. Say.

That isn't "exactly", Josh, but I usually aren't.

[No one's been doing anything like this here, mind, so far: but it's the biggest worst bugaboo in jazz discussion generally: current Dr Evil this-wise = Marsalis/Crouch, obviously. I the White Oppressor cuz I prefer Cecil to Wynton.]

Oh, sorry. It said it hadn't, first time.

Well, Mark, at least we agree on something, namely Wynton. I prefer Cecil too. But as for John's free jazz, I suggest you read the article in Zorn's "Arcana" book about how he actually theorized his way to free jazz using ideas about chromaticism that borrow heavily from 20th century classical stuff.

As for Coltrane being highly overrated, I think that's pretty nuts. I wouldn't say that he has contributed more to the music than Cecil or Ornette, because they're so fundamentally different, but Coltrane had three things that so rarely come together in a musician: seemingly limitless chops, excellent communication with his fellow players, style, grace, and a mind open enough to accept just about anything. The fact that Coltrane moved steadily away from inside playing instead of just opening the floodgates may have been the reason he was more widely accepted, but that doesn't detract from the music itself. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

You said he was a God: erm, isn't that overrating him just a twitch?

(Even Beyoncé is only a goddess... )

But yes, I do think being stuck at the TOP-TOP-TOP has stopped people listening to him well. He's not flawless: he's more interesting than that. But — unlike the way Cherry is listened to, say — Coltrane seems to get indulged for every single error of judgment.

(You're quite right abt Free Jazz vs Ascension: the latter was just a better band, all in sync with the, um, Concept. Tho in his defence Ornette had the title foisted on him by Atlantic — he always hated it, hence Harmolodics, a little down the line.)

Oh, it wasn't you, and it wasn't here!! Oh well, er, whatever...

No, really - his wife worshipped him as a Hindu god, or something like that (I've never seen a good source on the details).

Also, of course, there's the Church of John Saint Will-I- Am Coltrane, not deity status but still.

Also, Mark, I think this over-your-shoulder business is a bit of a red herring, if only because you don't have to bow to received opinion on Coltrane's music. If you don't like the critical fervor surrounding Coltrane, that's one reason to prefer Alice's music (or anyone else's), but there mere fact that there is a critical fervor doesn't stop one from appreciating Coltrane's music for what it actuall is. I haven't found all that much of a problem with people telling me what to think.

Now, Mike Osborne - there was a sax player. Hope he's OK.