| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Coltrane article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure about the relevance of what John Densmore has to say about Coltrane's mouthpiece choice ("Instruments" section). Mouthpiece material would not have as much effect on tone as the inner dimensions of the mouthpiece (e.g. chamber size; baffle or lack thereof etc.). This is according to Larry Teal who literally wrote a book on playing the saxophone. (Teal, Larry (1963). The Art of Saxophone Playing. Miami: Summy-Birchard. p. 17. ISBN 0-87487-057-7. "A preference as to material used is up to the individual, and the advantages of each are a matter of controversy. Mouthpieces of various materials with the same dimensions, including the chamber and outside measurements as well as the facing, play very nearly the same.") Now, generally, metal mouthpieces are associated with (for example) high baffles, but as I recall Coltrane switched to an Otto Link, not a Dukoff. And I'm not sure about metal supplanting plastic mouthpieces; pretty sure (though I don't have a source handy) that metal mouthpieces precede plastic ones (but it's entirely possible that Coltrane switched from a Brilhart, for example, to a metal piece). In any case, the traditional material was/is ebonite (vulcanized rubber). Ben Ratliff mentions Coltrane having both dental issues and a damaged mouthpiece in the early 1960s (link). In any case I'm sure there's something more definitive about this that what Densmore suggests (maybe Lewis Porter's book but I don't currently have access to it). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Densmore's statement is inaccurate in a number of respects. First of all, most black mouthpieces are hard rubber (like a tire), not plastic. Few manufacturers (basically, just Brilhart, as mentioned above) made what were considered professional mouthpieces out of plastic. The rest were made out of hard rubber. Saxophone manufacturers would sometimes include a plastic mouthpiece with a saxophone, but these were considered student pieces.
Secondly, metal mouthpieces from very early on were considered the "professional" line, both by the manufacturers and by players. Hard rubber, although preferred by many today, was considered a budget line. [1]
Lastly, the proof is in the pudding - Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, and many other early saxophonists preferred metal mouthpieces for at least stretches of their careers. Lester is widely pictured playing an Otto Link Tone Master (from the '30's). Coleman Hawkins had a Hawkins Special model made by Otto Link (I believe a sub-model of the "Four Star" model).[2]
What Coltrane did impact was desired sound (of course), and was generally loud as hell from all accounts. He had a custom baffle inserted into his Otto Link Tone Master (a model that is notoriously quiet, due to a lack of baffle and huge chamber), which supposedly helped him project. He apparently did play hard reeds, and you can hear it. There is a myth that Frank Wells opened his Tone Master up to a 7, which at the time was considered huge (now it is the average tenor tip opening) - it goes as far to say that Frank Wells (Chicago) would open facings by slamming the mouthpiece against a table's edge, and then finish the facing by hand (same goes with closing the piece), and apparently he did just that with Trane's piece. This is a story handed down orally, so I cannot corroborate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straubo (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article claims that Moment's Notice and Lazy Bird are the first recorded instances of Trane's compositions that feature the concept of "Coltrane Changes", which is, as I understand the theory behind it, thoroughly incorrect. These tunes, while they are chromatic, do not feature the cyclical major thirds movement that characterizes the Coltrane cycle, and is seen evidently in tunes like Countdown or Giant Steps, or even lesser tunes like Satellite and 26-2. The Coltrane cycle is specifically defined by cycling through keys related by precisely a major third, creating an augmented triad when the root of the key centers are stacked. This major third relationship is critical for Trane's thinking at this period, referring the the trinity in terms of the divine concepts he was interested in, etc etc.
If we look at Lazy Bird, we see that while chromaticism abounds, we are hard pressed to find cycles related by a major third. The closest we will find is in the A sections, where the first bar's "| A-7 D7 | " can be related to bar 3 -5's |F-7 | Bb7 |Ebmaj7 |, with a quick ii-V back to Gmaj. While this is a maj 3rd movement, it is not a complete cycle in the sense of the cycles we see in tunes like Giant Steps or Satellite.
Moment's notice is even a harder case to make as an instance of the cycle. There are indeed keys of the moment related by major thirds: bar 1 is a ii-V in D major, which we can contrast against bar 4's ii-V in Gb major. Bar 5 and 8 are a ii-V in C major (I'm assuming major here, as there are no written alterations on the ii-V that would indicate a minor key until the band actually plays a Cmin in bar 9) which would contrast with the Ab major in bar 11. It is much more accurate to characterize this ii-V's as chromatic approach in most scenarios in Moment's Notice, and not the cyclical patterns found later in Giant Steps.
The only song pre-Coltrane that I am aware of that feature this kind of major thirds cycle pre-Coltrane is Rodgers and Hart's Have You Met Miss Jones, which features *almost* this cyclical modulation on the bridge of the piece:
|Bbmaj7 |Ab-7 Db7 |Gbmaj7 |E-7 A7|Dmaj7 |Ab-7 Db7|Gmaj7 |G-7 C7|
Had R/H modulated to Bb major in bars 6 & 7 of this bridge of this piece, it would be identical to the sort of cycle Coltrane made famous on his Giant Steps recordings.
I would urge the editors of this article to update the section『1955–1957: Miles and Monk period』to correct this inaccuracy and prevent confusion over what this cycle actually is.
For sources, I am referring to personal copies of the Hal Leonard Real Book, as well as personal transcriptions of these pieces. I am happy to find available sources to cite to back up my claims further.
Avansuetendael (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC) A.J. VanSuetendael, 11/27/19[reply]
Is 17 records out of 27 for Impulse! really selective? What's the criteria? I noticed because of that perennial bugbear: "It's missing my favorite" (Live at the Half Note in my case). Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IN "1959-1961: Period with Atlantic Records" it says "The album's title track is generally considered to have one of the most difficult chord progressions of any widely played jazz composition," with the source being Eric Nisenson's book "Ascension: John Coltrane and His Quest". Eric Nisenson has no background as a music theorist that I can find and the chord progression itself is not even near the most difficult on the album which features multiple standards and as such I think it should be removed and wanted other opinions. Alexalex65 19:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
