Saturday, August 3, 2019

Bill Holman - "Working Methods, Personal Views and Influences" - from the Bill Dobbins Interview

© Copyright ® Steven Cerra, copyright protected; all rights reserved.


The following interview on Bill Holman’s “Working Methods, Personal Views and Influences” is from composer-arranger Bill Dobbins’ fine book Conversations with Bill Holman: Thoughts and Recollections of a Jazz Master. 

Conversations with Bill Holman: Thoughts and Recollections of a Jazz Master is available through online sellers.

This excerpt from Bill Dobbins insightful interview offers details about how, from very humble beginnings, Bill Holman acquired the techniques, learned experiences and personal revelations and resources that helped develop him into one of the premier Big Band Jazz composer - arrangers.

“B.D. Could you talk about the roots of your musical language and some of the ways in which you have developed it through the years?

B. H. Well, I haven't had much musical education, so I just started writing what I heard from records and the radio. I didn't have much of a clue as to how other guys did what they did. I just heard, for example, that there was a difference between Fletcher Henderson and Eddie Sauter. But it was simply there to behold. I had no idea what Eddie Sauter was doing that was different from Fletcher Henderson, but I could hear that it came out differently. So I just copied what I heard as well as I could. Triar's another thing. I was never able to copy anything very well. I'd hear something I liked and say, "Oh! I'm going to do that." And it always came out different.

Both (Laugh.)

B. H. A lot of people call that originality. It could also be called a lack of chops. 

Both (Laugh.)

B. H. I remember I had heard a piece that Manny Albam had written for Charlie Barnet's bebop band that featured tenor lead: four saxes with tenor on top. It really intrigued me, so I tried to do that. But it just never happened.
Four Brothers seemed pretty logical and made sense to me because it was just the sax section with close harmony. No surprises there. But the form of that piece is perfect. [Jimmy] Giuffre packed all that stuff into three minutes. Everybody got a chance to play, the band got a chance to cook, and he got a chance to lay out that melody. It's really a good example of form.

Talking about form, when I was studying with Russ [Garcia], I took a chart in that I thought was pretty good; and he said, "You've got enough material for ten charts here." My idea of a jazz chart was that you just start "blowing", and you blow and you blow and you blow. You don't repeat anything. I thought that was the way jazz solos were constructed at the time. I didn't realize that good jazz solos had form, too. So, I was just writing a stream of consciousness thing, and he tried his best to convince me that this was not hip. In other words, that I should pick out things, use them again, alter them a little, and do all the things that writers normally do, and that I know now. I wasn't quite buying it.

Both (Laugh.)

B. H. But somewhere along the line something clicked, and now form is one of my big concerns. Because if you don't have a convincing form, you're going to lose the audience; and if you lose the audience, what are you doing?

B. D. Sure. And I guess form relates, in a less technical sense, to the basic idea of storytelling, right? 

B.H. Yeah.

B. D. If you're telling a story in a verbal language, you don't want to lose people with unnecessary details or by suddenly introducing a character that has no background in the story unless you intend to weave that character into the rest of the story. 

B. H. Right. It's the same thing. I got the idea after a while. My Theme and Variations #2, for example, the form of that is good. I remember that there's a definite relationship between the introductory part and the out chorus. 

B. D. Yeah, that's very clear. 

B. H. And the whole idea of it was to build off of that original phrase.

B. D. Well, one of the things I like about all three of your theme and variations pieces is that they're entirely composed, and don't depend on improvised solos for their development. [Reference to Theme and Variations #3 was jointly commissioned in 2008 by Roland Paolucci and the Famous Jazz Orchestra (directed by Vaughn Wiester)].

B.H. Yeah.

B. D. And, as I got to know Ellington's music better, that was one of the things I appreciated more and more about Duke, too. He had the ability to write pieces in which the only improvising was the way the musicians interpreted the written solo lines he wrote especially for them. But, of course, he could also do what jazz writers normally do, which is to open things up for soloists to improvise. So I like to use those pieces of yours, and a few by Ellington and other favorite jazz composers of mine, to show my students different ways of creating solid pieces by simply developing a couple of thematic ideas in a creative and compelling manner without resorting to improvised solos as we are used to hearing in jazz pieces. 

B.H. Uh Huh.

B.D. Coming back to your comments about your lack of formal music education, I think that some of the most creative people have been, for the most part, self-educated. I think it's a mistake to assume that the only education or learning that has value is what you get in a school. Gil Evans is another jazz writer who was basically self-taught. But he took advantage of a lot of the resources that are available to the general public, such as the public library's collection of recordings and scores.

Of course, Ellington and a lot of the other great jazz writers were also basically self-taught. But all of you, I think, got to the point fairly quickly where you were not just hearing things in a passive way. You notice things about a particular piece of music that you like, and that information goes into the mental file cabinet for further consideration. Then, it comes out later exactly as you intend or, as you described earlier, altered through your own perception as a personal interpretation of that earlier influence.

B.H. Yeah.

B.D. And, I think that some of the personal aspects of music can be lost if formal teaching becomes too standardized. The important thing is to present things in a manner that can be useful for someone who wants to create in a way that is connected to a tradition, but is also done in a personal way.

B. H. I shouldn't really say that I'm not educated. I'm not well-educated. I did study for that one year with Russ [Garcia], and I learned some valuable things from him. He tried to show me the biggest thing of all, which I ended up learning through the years, which was about form. But I was thinking in terms of education today, where kids have access to scores by many different writers and they know this guy's voicings and that guy's. 

B. D. I see what you mean.

B. H. I think I would have been tempted to use them all. And I may have come out with a more polished product, but it might have come too easily. I think my way is to struggle along. You know, the first things I wrote for Kenton were all four-part block harmony; and, because of the size of the band, I guess, they sounded very impressive. Basie was using the same kind of harmony, yet the two things didn't sound at all alike.

B. D. Sure. But that's also the personality of the band, right? 

B.H. Yeah.

B. D. Because I found it interesting that a lot of people thought that all those Ellington records that were arranged by Billy Byers and other writers were actually arranged by Ellington or Strayhorn. Of course, the band sounded the same, because Duke hired the musicians whose sound he wanted to be a part of the band's sound. 

Both (Laugh.)

B. D. So, one way of listening to a record is to hear the sound of the band, the swing conception and the conception of the rhythm section, the various uses of vibrato, expressive devices and dynamics, and so on. And then, another way is to hear that, but to also hear what the musical content is, the technical content or the story. 

B.H. Yeah. Anyway, I just struggled along with my primitive harmony for years, and gradually did this and did that, and enlarged the scope, and arrived where I am now. When I'm with a bunch of well-schooled musicians, then I feel unschooled, because they're often talking about things I don't know anything about. We may be thinking about the same things, but just in different terms. But when I say I'm not schooled, I'm afraid I'm slighting Russ, because there was that one year. And I did learn something. It's just that, I think back on his book, about how to use maracas and things like that. (Laughs.) But that book has been a mass seller. It's been all over the world and translated into different languages, and it's still selling. The last arranging book I had before that, they dealt with writing for three saxophones. (Laughs.)

B. D. Wow. Speaking about schooling, I've heard great music by writers who had a lot of schooling and by those who had little or none. In terms of jazz, I'm unschooled, because the university I went to didn't want to have anything to do with jazz. But that didn't keep me from trying to figure out the music on my own. So having been schooled in classical music but unschooled in jazz, I can see advantages and disadvantages in both situations.

Some of the most valuable learning I've experienced has been out of school, especially listening to recordings of music I was really passionate about, and trying to figure out what was going on there. 

B. H. Uh huh.

B. D. Then I would try to find ways of using those things that sounded a little different from the source they came from. In terms of melody, for example, the basic melodic vocabulary of jazz is relatively simple. You can find recorded examples of dozens of writers or improvisers using the same basic licks. [A "lick" is a short melodic phrase or motif that has long been in the common practice playing and writing of jazz musicians. A high percentage of jazz licks go all the way back to Louis Armstrong and his contemporaries, and can even be found in the music of J.S. Bach and his contemporaries (with less syncopated rhythms).]

But it's how and where they use them, and how they develop them in a particular musical context, and what kind of story they can tell with them that makes their music sound different. 

B.H. Yeah,

B.D. Just as one example I can remember that, before they had the Ellington Archive in the Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institution, I occasionally took on the daunting task of trying to transcribe one of my favorite Ellington pieces. Later on, it was inspiring and humbling to have access to the original scores ten years or so after the fact. I photocopied many of the complete C score sheets in Ellington's hand, took them home, and discovered what I had managed to hear accurately and what I had misheard or missed entirely. That also relates to my own experience as a writer of hit and miss experiments, trying to get as close as I can to things that will communicate clearly to an audience. 

B. H. Well, I'm too lazy to do that. 

Both (Laugh)

B.H. I think that's one of my big problems; that, and the fact that I never thought of getting a mentor. I think a mentor could have helped me a lot, not only teaching me a lot about the business, but also teaching me how to make music. I'm so reticent that I don't make friends too easily unless people seek me out. So I've got a bunch of really aggressive friends. 

Both (Laugh.)

B.H. So I think, "How did I wind up with all these people?" But they came to me. 

Both (Laugh.)

B. D. Well, the interesting thing about all the books and scores that are so readily available today is that, in a way, its connected to the mass production and all pervasiveness of music. Just as you find a lot of young people with four thousand pieces on their I-Pod, but most of it's going in one ear and out the other, you could have hundreds of books and scores that just sit on the book shelves or stacked on top of the piano. What seems to be a difference maker is being a proactive type of person who, if they're really after something, won't sit around waiting for someone else to motivate them or give them some ready-made answers.

In a way, I feel like I really profited from being in college during the '60s, which was a time when jazz was still either discouraged or forbidden in most conservatories and music departments. So, along with a bunch of students that started at Kent State about the same year, I was involved in putting together the first ongoing big band there in opposition to most of the music faculty and the director of the music department. I think I probably went through a lot of the same experiences you did as far as jazz goes, just trying to figure it out for myself most of the time.

I remember that, when we finally were playing well enough that we decided to invite a guest soloist to play, the first person we invited was Clark Terry. Being around somebody like Clark, when we were all in our late teens and early twenties and really green in terms of the music, was like manna from heaven.

B. H. That sure was a great choice for that period in your life. Because Clark was so outgoing and forthcoming with all he knew and could do.

B. D. Yeah, Clark is a really special musician and human being. And throughout the lives of the many guys in that band who are still making music professionally, whenever any of us have made contact with Clark, he has always been enthusiastically supportive and encouraging. We had a very limited budget for the band and, when we invited Clark back for the next year, he said, "I'd love to come back again, but next time you have to let me bring Joe Williams along with me." 

B.H. (Laughs.)

B. D. When I told him we would love to but we just didn't have a big enough budget for both of them, he just laughed and said, "Look, just pay me half of what you did this time and I'll get Joe to come, too." 

B.H. Wow!

B. D. Yeah. So, when Joe came with Clark the next year, that was just after he had recorded an album with the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Jazz Orchestra; and he sent us about half a dozen of those great charts that Thad and Brookmeyer wrote for those dates. Man, the guys in the band were as happy as if we'd just won the lottery. 

B. H. I guess. Well, as I was saying, I needed somebody to tell me what being a musician is all about, your relationship with the music, how important the music is to you, and how you should approach it and think of it. I was just a dumb kid that learned to play the saxophone and saw some people in the movies that were playing saxophone. So I wanted to do that. 

B.D. Yeah.

B.H. I had no idea about the value of music or the kind of people that made music, or anything besides just playing the horn. 

B.D. Wow.

B. H. So, I could have used some advice in that end. You know, the more I get into it, the more seriously I take it.

B. D. Well, if everybody that started out the way you did had come as far as you have, it would surely be a much richer world. 

B.H. Maybe.

B.D. No maybe about it. Getting back to our discussion about your working methods, could you talk a little about the origins of the arrangements for Prez Conference, the group that played all the saxophone harmonizations of Lester Young solos?

B. H. Well, it was [tenor saxophonist] Dave Pell's brainchild, you know. He was going to do what Supersax did. But, of course, he didn't realize that the tenor is much lower than the alto. So how are you going to put three other saxes underneath the tenor lead? I had to work around that, and there's some finagling, going to unison or thirds occasionally and then back to the four parts. But he dug up a lot of Prez solos and I found a few. And we did several albums, or at least two. I think Joe Williams was on the last one. Did he sing on the whole album?

B.D. No, some of the tunes had instrumental soloists. And there was another album that featured [Harry] "Sweets" Edison.

B. H. Yeah. Anyway, that was it. And we found some songs that Joe could sing that had Prez solos in them, and we did those along with the strictly instrumental tunes. I tend to think of it as a poor relation to Supersax. 

B.D. Why is that?

B.H. I don't know. Because it wasn't first, I guess. 

Both (Laugh.)

B.D. I think of it as just another side of the music. Because Parker's style was so rich, chromatic and chord based, while Prez played in a rhythmically simpler and more melodically basic style.

B. H. Well, it was ideal for me, because it's mostly pretty easy to harmonize. And I had been familiar with some of those things almost since childhood. And the ones I hadn't heard before I could relate to just as well. So it was fun for me but, as you may have gathered, Dave was not one of my favorites. He's Carl Saunders' uncle. 

B.D. Really?

B. H. Yeah. (Laughs.) So every time Carl mentions Uncle Dave, he looks at me to see if I'm wincing.

B.D. What are some of the different ways in which an arrangement or composition has begun for you? How do the first ideas come up? Could you give some examples in relation to specific pieces?

B.H. This sounds like when the kids ask, "How do you get started?" 

B.D. Exactly.

B.H. Well, you've already heard my routine on that. You just sit there. 

Both (Laugh.)

B.H. Sometimes I just start writing nonsense on a staff. Sometimes I'll write curves, with no pitches, and then try to fill them in and see what that suggests. Mostly it has to do with getting the bare germ of an idea, and then making music out of it. 

B.D. Sure.

B. H. Bill Cunliffe took my place up at Port Townsend a couple of weeks ago. I was supposed to do a class up there. Nancy got sick and I couldn't go. So I said, "They'll probably ask you how you get started." And I said, "Incidentally, how do you get started?" And he mentioned that he had taken the first three notes from some classical record that he liked. So he took those three notes and started with that. And pretty soon he had fleshed out a whole phrase. 

B.D. Yeah.

B.H. I had never thought of that before.

B.D. So you don't usually start from an idea that's already in your head. You usually start from a more abstract point and then let things gradually become more concrete. 

B.H. Yeah. Although, sometimes it's some abstract method that's been put in my head by hearing about someone else doing it. 

B.D. Uh Huh.

B. H. You never know where those things are coming from. 

B.D. Yeah.

B. H. Or sometimes I sit at the piano and noodle until I happen to hit on something that I like. Then I go back and say, "Well, if I use those two notes and then this one instead, it might make something." By this time I may be so into the mood of the piece, that I can just continue from those three notes. What I really like is when I'm doing something else, and something just pops into my head. I remember I had that experience with a piece on the Basie album. There's one tune that just goes... (sings a syncopated four-bar phrase). I made a blues out of that. 

B. D. Oh, yeah. That one's called Ticker.

B. H. Yeah. It's just a scale up and down. I was riding in the car when that came to me, and I liked it. I thought to myself, "It's absurdly simple, but I'm going to use it because I like it."

B.D. Sure, why not. Some of the main ideas of some great pieces are absurdly simple, if you just take the germ idea. I remember one of the sketches on Saturday Night Live during the classic years in the '80s when John Belushi was one of the stars. Belushi is in costume as Beethoven, sitting at the keyboard of an early piano of that period. He's searching for an idea, and he plays... (Sings "dum...dum...dum...DUM!", the opening four notes of the Fifth Symphony, with short silences between each note.) Then he scowls and shakes his head from side to side as if to say, "No, no, no. That could never work."

Both (Laugh.)

B. D. That's just too simple! One of the things I try to convince my students of is that there's really no such thing as an idea that's too simple.

B.H. Yeah. When Nancy was in the hospital, they had a machine that was pumping her I.V. fluid. And when it ran out or malfunctioned in some way, there was a sound that went, (Sings a five note phrase) "do re sol, do re... do re sol, do re." And I thought, "That's got to be usable somehow." And I'm still determined I'm going to make a piece out of that. (Laughs.)

B. D. That's great. Anything is possible. Any idea can be used. It all depends on what you do with it. I remember hearing you talk about your arrangement of St. Thomas, Sonny’s Rollins tune. You mentioned that you had already worked out a fairly elaborate contrapuntal line to go with the melody. But then at one point you noticed a simple fanfare idea that had been going on in your head, and you just threw out the intricate counterpoint and the fanfare became one of the main ideas of the arrangement. 

B. H. Yeah, I had devised some really clever counterpoint to the melody. I was imagining the chord progression going along as I was writing it, but imagining the chord progression was generating this other thing in my head. (Sings the fanfare motive from St. Thomas.) I finally realized that, and tossed out all that other stuff I had written. I always thought of that as a big triumph; that I was able to recognize what was happening and that I had the nerve to throw out my hard work. (Laughs.)

B. D. Yeah, what a revelation. I think Stravinsky said something to the effect that, if you want to be a writer, it's important to write something every day, even if what is written ends up in the wastebasket. It's all part of the process. 

B.H. Uh Huh.

B. D. I guess it's just like practicing an instrument. Someone who's really on their game in relation to practicing an instrument feels the difference after missing just a day or two.

B. H. Yeah, I sure do. If I go for a couple of weeks and then sit down to write, it's like I'd never done it before. How do you do this? (Laughs.)

B.D. That experience with St. Thomas had a lot to do with the simple act of paying attention. I try to remind my students and myself that one of the most important life skills is learning to pay attention. And paying attention is the easiest thing in the world to do, except that I usually forget to do it. But when I do remember, I'm often amazed at what I become aware of. It can be really valuable. 

B.H. Well, if you did it all the time you'd probably be insufferable. 

Both (Laugh.)”









Thursday, August 1, 2019

Erroll Garner on Verve Jazz Masters

© Copyright ® Steven Cerra, copyright protected; all rights reserved.


“What amazed the world most about Garner was that his virtuosity was achieved without any of the customary foundations upon which trained musicians normally build masterpieces. He took no lessons. He read no music. He improvised everything. Presumably he knew nothing about harmony his ear didn't tell him through instinct. He was a natural genius, it was said, as if that was better than being an unnatural genius.” 
- John McDonough, 1993


“Garner was self-taught - who could have instructed him in this crazy-quilt style? - and unable to read music. This did little to deter him from a career in music. After all, "nobody can hear you read," he was quick to explain. For his hands, Garner need make no apologies. They were said to span a thirteenth - stunning given his diminutive stature — and he could sign autographs with either the left or the right. Such ambidexterity also showed at the keyboard. ...


In fact, it is difficult to pigeonhole Garner as a member of any school. His style was deeply personal, sometimes cranky, never pedestrian. He fought against the constraints of the instrument: at times making the piano sound like a guitar, with his trademark four-to-a-bar strumming chords, or like a drum, employing offbeat "bombs" in the manner of an Art Blakey, or even like a harp, unleashing Lisztian arpeggios accompanied by a counterpoint of grunts and groans from above. ...


His introductions were pieces in themselves, likely to veer off in any number of directions before honing in on the song in question. His technique was formidable, but so unorthodox that few noticed how difficult his music actually was to perform. His dynamic range was unsurpassed, and nothing delighted him more than moving Irom a whisper to a roar—-then back to a whisper, just as impressive was his sense of time. In Zeno's paradox, Garner could just as well have been the tortoise as mighty Achilles, given how skillfully he could lag several paces behind the beat with a lazy, catch-as-catch-can swing, or charge ahead with all caution thrown to the wind …


And few pianists knew better than Garner how to keep their ten fingers gainfully employed. He is said to be responsible for over one thousand recordings on around seventy labels. Given this massive discography, Garner's consistency, enthusiasm, and freshness of approach are especially impressive ...”
- Ted Gioia, The History of Jazz


I can never get enough of the music of pianist Erroll Garner, or “takes” [explanations] on his music, especially when these annotations are written by someone the likes of the esteemed Jazz critic and author John McDonough as is the case with the following piece. 


John’s essay forms the insert notes to Erroll Garner Verve Jazz Masters 7 [314 518 197-2], 15 tracks of solo piano and bass-drums-conga recordings that were recorded in 1954 and 1955 and issued on CD in 1994. 


Of all the pieces on Erroll Garner that I’ve read - and believe me when I tell you that I’ve read many - John’s piece on what makes Erroll Garner distinctive is one of the most informed and insightful ever written. 


“When Erroll Garner died early in 1977 at the age of 53, the British music magazine Jazz Journal noted what Art Tatum once had told Oscar Peterson. Tatum no doubt expected Peterson to succeed him as the reigning virtuoso of jazz piano. But after hearing Garner one night during a New York visit, according to the magazine, the Old Lion took his cub aside and warned him: "Beware of the little man." I don't know, of course, if that story is true. It does have the faint aroma of legend about it. But if it isn't true, it ought to be.


In the postwar jazz world, as the big bands faded and bebop invited all but the hep to get lost, four young pianists emerged who would prove capable of drawing relatively large audiences to mainstream jazz through the lean years ahead. Peterson was one. Dave Brubeck and George Shearing were two others. But the first to make the big breakthrough was unquestionably Erroll Garner, "the little man". By the late Fifties any one of these men probably commanded a larger general audience and concert fee than Red Garland, Bud Powell, Horace Silver, and pre-Columbian Monk put together.
What they had, in a word, was a very conspicuous virtuosity. Each could do things on the piano that seemed dazzlingly impossible. Whether the listener was a jazz fan or not was unimportant. People came to witness and wonder at the sheer skill they wielded. Many, I suspect, admired them more as athletes than musicians. And to be sure, their mastery of the keyboard was no less a feat of athletics than Michael Jordan's rule of the basketball court. Sheer skill at the highest level is indeed a thing of beauty.


And Erroll Garner had an immense skill. Tatum's warning was not ill-considered. But others had skill, too. What amazed the world most about Garner was that his virtuosity was achieved without any of the customary foundations upon which trained musicians normally build masterpieces. He took no lessons. He read no music. He improvised everything. Presumably he knew nothing about harmony his ear didn't tell him through instinct. He was a natural genius, it was said, as if that was better than being an unnatural genius. There was hardly an album note or a magazine profile written about him that did not remind us of this. Thus Garner came to personify one of the great popular myths pervading jazz: that notion that holds all formal training and musical literacy to be corrupting. Garner was the ultimate musical original. Yet surely the most polished.


He came upon his polish in Pittsburgh, where he was born in June 1923. One of his classmates. Dodo Marmarosa, also would become a noted if more conventional musician. In his teens Garner turned pro working as a soloist in clubs and with various regional bands. In an interview he once recalled playing the William Penn Hotel with the Baron Elliott (Garner called him incorrectly, "the Blue baron"), a white "sweet" band of the Thirties with a young Billy May then as lead trumpet. In an interview May recently said, "all of the musicians in Pittsburgh would go hear him in little joints around Pittsburgh. He had a children's piano book with real big notes. I remember. 
And after playing some fantastic solo in a set, he'd come off the stand with this book and ask us what the names of the lines and the spaces were." He took his leave of Pittsburgh in 1944. went to New York, and never looked back. He quickly made his mark, first subbing for Art Tatum. then working with bassist Slam Stewart. The first down beat issue of 1945 called Garner "sensational". When he finally formed his own trio and began recording prolifically, he found his niche for life playing variations on the better pop standards and adding to that repertoire with original pieces. One such original, "Misty", became an American popular standard itself when Johnny Burke added words and Johnny Mathis sang them in 1959.


The word formula is not often looked upon with favor in jazz commentary. Neither, I suppose, is the word device. But Garner's formula and devices were unmistakably his, and therefore, honorable emblems of his uniqueness. All important jazz musicians inevitably have certain fixed characteristics that govern their approach to performing. Improvisation to the musician is what handwriting is to the rest of us — always different, yet always the same. The musician who takes pride in being free of any formulas is almost certainly, if not a forger, more a craftsman than an artist.


Garner's style was extremely sophisticated but accessible; original, yet seemingly simple — he was an innovator. Among the boldest of Garner's trademarks was his penchant for orderly rubato and his use of chunky, locked-hands chords often full of unexpected dissonances. He would work these and other signature marks into a structural pattern that became unquestionably formulaic over the years. Heaping often convoluted never predictable introductions with barely a hint of what was to come created a kind of perverse suspense (Smooth One). Then he would pop the tension and drop softly into a first chorus of light-handed thirds or fifths, spurred by his propeller of a left hand (7/11 Jump). First chorus done, he might fly into a break followed by a gentle but fiercely swinging improvisation of single eighth notes that would start softly and begin to build (I've Got to Be a Rug Cutter). He had a grasp of pacing equal to that of a dramatist and knew how to build toward a climax. The pattern is equally apparent at more moderate tempos, as in "Don't Be That Way" and I've Got the World on a String.


The element of surprise was always there, however, and it was informed by a depth of knowledge that knew the difference between what was appropriate and what was merely cute. Note how he interpolates "Seven Come Eleven" so fittingly into Don't Be That Way, both pieces associated with Benny Goodman. The sheer size, scope, and heft of his improvisations achieved a special gee whiz quality in light of his lack of credentials.


Another thing that astounded (and thoroughly pleased) cost-conscious producers was his monumental productivity. The two sessions represented here are cases in point. Garner spun out twenty four perfect trio pieces on July 27, 1954. And the following March he logged another twenty solo takes in one session. In these days when some groups routinely take a year to lay down an album's worth of material, performers such as Garner remind us that art and efficiency can be allies.


I don’t know if these Ruthian feats stand in any record books. (Actually, Tatum once recorded thirty five issued takes in a single session.) But stamina, while admirable, is not what Garner's greatness is made of. The point is that Garner had the remarkable power to enter each performance with a vision of what he wanted to do and was prepared to stand and deliver without pretense or self doubt. He also had in the piano a uniquely self-sufficient tool of expression that bestowed upon its masters an unfettered sovereignty in the studio. Vision, autonomy, and technique combined in Garner as in few others.


There are still many Garners to choose from. He could be an unrepentant balladeer one moment (Misty) and a real burner another. This anthology focuses on the jazz man. with a brief but ineluctable bow to the gilded romanticism of "Misty". Consider the driving (All of a Sudden) My Heart Sings. It is direct and unencumbered in its swing and lean and unsentimental in its approach to the tune. His blues were more sophisticated than earthy. He even managed to incorporate a few nearly atonal bars in Part-time Blues.


So here is Erroll Garner in the middle Fifties, at the peak of his form, as he had broken through to a mass audience — unusual for a jazz musician with any integrity. And Garner had integrity.”


John McDonough June 1993
John McDonough writes for down beat and The Wall Street Journal.