Incredibly, you can listen to many of them at this archive at the University of Idaho: https://www.lib.uidaho.edu/digital/blindfold/ Amongst so many things, it's interesting to hear Miles before he lost his voice.
Wow, listening to the tape gives a different impression than reading the edited product, based on the one I just heard. Johnny Mandel sounds so nervous, not merely unsure of his identifications of players but unsure of himself! No one ever came off that way in the published Blindfold Tests.
Yes, thank you so much. No slight to Ethan, but sometimes the comments are as rewarding as the post that generated them. Most days I read the Krugman and Iverson posts, but I seldom feel compelled to read the former's comments. With the latter, I don't dare or I might miss a piece of gold like this.
As interesting as it is to read Oscar Peterson dunking on Ramsey Lewis, it's so affirming to read, for example, Stanley Turrentine on Ben Webster or Joe Williams on Blossom Dearie - the respect and love within the fraternity.
This is amazing. Thank you Ethan. It’s about time Down Beat pulled the trigger on their archive. Frank told me it’s digitized. It’s just a matter of getting it on the platform and monetized.
I was able to look up what the interviewer played Zoot Sims in the Internet Archive's digitized copy of The Encyclopedia of Jazz in the Seventies - the bottom of page 27 identifies the piece as "Pharoah Sanders. Aum (from Tauhid, Impulse). Sanders, tenor saxophone, composer." Link here:
Great post, and thanks for linking to your own blindfold test -- reminding me of your affection for Geri Allen and Paul Bley. Side note: I had no idea Downbeat was in the habit -- back in the 60's -- of playing very "out" music (e.g., Braxton, Ayler, Dewey Redman, Cecil) for very traditional players (e.g., Ray Bryant) to comment on, to very predictable effect ("Take it off!"). Seems like a waste.
I'm not sure I agree. This was a big schism, and the blindfold test is where it can be seen more clearly than in most places. If you read the history books Cecil Taylor can be treated like an inevitable God. I like Cecil, but it is part of the picture that Ray Bryant and Les McCann had no problem criticizing Cecil in print (as seen above).
You're absolutely right -- the historical record (and scholarship) is enhanced by seeing the real-time critiques by musicians who hated the avant-garde. But I can't help thinking that Downbeat was eliciting these predictably strong reactions to give voice to the editors' own disapproval.
Speaking of strong reactions: Bill Crow once shared the story of when he was in Tokyo the same time as Miles was there [probably July 1964]. Bill and Frank Isola and Tony Williams and Wynton Kelly [in Japan w/his trio] went to eat sushi. The waiters asked "do you want to hear Cecil Taylor or Benny Goodman," and Tony said Cecil. As they were eating and listening, Tony mentioned that Cecil was mugged and his right hand was broken. Wynton said "They should’ve broken both."
I find myself wondering what some of these folks might have said if, instead of playing for them firebrands like Braxton or Dewey Redman, they had played for them respected members of the earlier generation who had kept up with the times: mid 60s Miles, Coltrane, Jackie McLean, Yusef Lateef, etc.
well, I have been criticized on social media for my comments about Charles Mingus in my blindfold test. If you aren't used to being controversial this can be difficult to manage emotionally
I wonder if people are more worried now about career implications in a way that was different in the days when big name jazz musicians had more job security. Kenton wasn't going to miss any gigs if he put down Oliver Nelson. But nowadays ripping into one of your peers is probably not a good idea if you are still hustling gigs and might end up playing alongside them or even hired by them one day.
I tend to view The Blindfold Test as a cynical attempt to sell magazines. Stir the pot, bait musicians into talking stink about one another. How is the music actually served by it?
For sure it can be petty. But it can also be a window into the aesthetic claims staked out by the artist. I like this but not this. That is useful I think.
What I find particularly striking is the way opinions of worthlessness at the time change into great appreciation as the decades go by. The comment about Monk sets the stage for that. Carl Woideck's anthology, "The Charlie Parker Companion," provides many a vivid example.
The artist breaks the mold of convention not for the sake of change, but to manifest a more personal vision of beauty. This might create new conventions followed by others, and then later breaking through those new ones themselves. Listeners there for the first change are privileged observers and might realize it then or only later.
Miles Davis's response to a listener at a concert who said he was listening to the nonet recordings and how much he liked them: "You should have dug them back then!"
It's interesting that Mulligan is more worried about offending Ernie Royal than Thelonious Monk! But then if, as he implies, he thinks Monk is trying to be funny, maybe he it wouldn't occur to him that he said anything offensive. If that's the mindset he brought to their record together it's no wonder it didn't turn out that great.
Incredibly, you can listen to many of them at this archive at the University of Idaho: https://www.lib.uidaho.edu/digital/blindfold/ Amongst so many things, it's interesting to hear Miles before he lost his voice.
thanks for the link, Lee!
Wow, listening to the tape gives a different impression than reading the edited product, based on the one I just heard. Johnny Mandel sounds so nervous, not merely unsure of his identifications of players but unsure of himself! No one ever came off that way in the published Blindfold Tests.
Thanks for the link. Where's the Miles Davis Blindfold Test?
Hmm. They must have deleted that one for legal reasons. Too bad. Miles was also very warm and cordial with Leonard, belying his later image.
Yes, thank you so much. No slight to Ethan, but sometimes the comments are as rewarding as the post that generated them. Most days I read the Krugman and Iverson posts, but I seldom feel compelled to read the former's comments. With the latter, I don't dare or I might miss a piece of gold like this.
As interesting as it is to read Oscar Peterson dunking on Ramsey Lewis, it's so affirming to read, for example, Stanley Turrentine on Ben Webster or Joe Williams on Blossom Dearie - the respect and love within the fraternity.
Yes absolutely!
This is amazing. Thank you Ethan. It’s about time Down Beat pulled the trigger on their archive. Frank told me it’s digitized. It’s just a matter of getting it on the platform and monetized.
Thanks for this great post!
I was able to look up what the interviewer played Zoot Sims in the Internet Archive's digitized copy of The Encyclopedia of Jazz in the Seventies - the bottom of page 27 identifies the piece as "Pharoah Sanders. Aum (from Tauhid, Impulse). Sanders, tenor saxophone, composer." Link here:
https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofja00feath
Also, there's a photo of the full April 6, 1967 Booker Ervin blindfold test on the Destinations Unknown blog:
https://destinationsunknownjazz.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/blindfold-test-booker-ervin-1967/
thanks so much! Great
Great post!!!
Great post, and thanks for linking to your own blindfold test -- reminding me of your affection for Geri Allen and Paul Bley. Side note: I had no idea Downbeat was in the habit -- back in the 60's -- of playing very "out" music (e.g., Braxton, Ayler, Dewey Redman, Cecil) for very traditional players (e.g., Ray Bryant) to comment on, to very predictable effect ("Take it off!"). Seems like a waste.
I'm not sure I agree. This was a big schism, and the blindfold test is where it can be seen more clearly than in most places. If you read the history books Cecil Taylor can be treated like an inevitable God. I like Cecil, but it is part of the picture that Ray Bryant and Les McCann had no problem criticizing Cecil in print (as seen above).
You're absolutely right -- the historical record (and scholarship) is enhanced by seeing the real-time critiques by musicians who hated the avant-garde. But I can't help thinking that Downbeat was eliciting these predictably strong reactions to give voice to the editors' own disapproval.
Speaking of strong reactions: Bill Crow once shared the story of when he was in Tokyo the same time as Miles was there [probably July 1964]. Bill and Frank Isola and Tony Williams and Wynton Kelly [in Japan w/his trio] went to eat sushi. The waiters asked "do you want to hear Cecil Taylor or Benny Goodman," and Tony said Cecil. As they were eating and listening, Tony mentioned that Cecil was mugged and his right hand was broken. Wynton said "They should’ve broken both."
Haha 🤣
I find myself wondering what some of these folks might have said if, instead of playing for them firebrands like Braxton or Dewey Redman, they had played for them respected members of the earlier generation who had kept up with the times: mid 60s Miles, Coltrane, Jackie McLean, Yusef Lateef, etc.
I wonder why people are more likely to pull their punches nowadays?
well, I have been criticized on social media for my comments about Charles Mingus in my blindfold test. If you aren't used to being controversial this can be difficult to manage emotionally
I wonder if people are more worried now about career implications in a way that was different in the days when big name jazz musicians had more job security. Kenton wasn't going to miss any gigs if he put down Oliver Nelson. But nowadays ripping into one of your peers is probably not a good idea if you are still hustling gigs and might end up playing alongside them or even hired by them one day.
Certainly. A couple of people who have been publicly critical of me are naturally struck off my “will hire someday” list lol
The only way to be safe is to only criticize fellow piano players, who won't hire you for a gig anyways!
I tend to view The Blindfold Test as a cynical attempt to sell magazines. Stir the pot, bait musicians into talking stink about one another. How is the music actually served by it?
For sure it can be petty. But it can also be a window into the aesthetic claims staked out by the artist. I like this but not this. That is useful I think.
What I find particularly striking is the way opinions of worthlessness at the time change into great appreciation as the decades go by. The comment about Monk sets the stage for that. Carl Woideck's anthology, "The Charlie Parker Companion," provides many a vivid example.
The artist breaks the mold of convention not for the sake of change, but to manifest a more personal vision of beauty. This might create new conventions followed by others, and then later breaking through those new ones themselves. Listeners there for the first change are privileged observers and might realize it then or only later.
Miles Davis's response to a listener at a concert who said he was listening to the nonet recordings and how much he liked them: "You should have dug them back then!"
I wonder what Mulligan meant by "I don't recommend that anybody buys jazz records anyway."
He's probably just disenchanted with the scene. Too bad for him, because in retrospect 1960 was a GREAT time to be buying new jazz records!
It's interesting that Mulligan is more worried about offending Ernie Royal than Thelonious Monk! But then if, as he implies, he thinks Monk is trying to be funny, maybe he it wouldn't occur to him that he said anything offensive. If that's the mindset he brought to their record together it's no wonder it didn't turn out that great.
(Also I hope somebody someday says about me that they are a fan, "within reason." Actually that would probably be my wife.)
five chuckles, not five stars