You are quick to correct people when they call Ideal Bread a “tribute band.”  You insist that it is a “repertory band.”  What’s the difference between these?

It’s quite simple:  To me, “tribute band” specifically connotes Steve Lacy the individual, whereas “repertory band” more clearly refers to Steve Lacy’s art, his compositions.

But can you really separate the two?  The artist from the art?

Well, I just did…

I mean, isn’t that separation illusory?

Probably, but it’s a very useful illusion.  You see Steve Lacy the man, the human, is certainly a fascinating topic.  But in many ways, it’s a topic better suited to lingual exploration.  His art however seems much more susceptible to a musical investigation.  There are also the practical considerations:  if our art is about Steve Lacy the person, then it most certainly needs to research the soprano saxophone and that’s a topic I’m simply not interested in.

What, you don’t like the soprano?

To listen to?  Love it.  To play?  Absolutely zero interest.  There’s also the fact that from a content-perspective his art is a far richer source than his life.

So are you saying his life isn’t interesting?

Not at all, but there is a limit to what one can say about his life.  And no matter what stories you tell and discover, it doesn’t get you any closer to answering questions about his mysterious works of art.

That sounds like two different responses.

It is.  And by the first, I mean that one can play his music in a nearly infinite number of ways and it’s still recognizably Steve Lacy art.  But the life?  There are a fairly finite number of facts you can report on.  But beyond that, it becomes conjecture or outright fiction.

And your second response?  What “questions” are you referring to?

Fairly simple ones:  Why am I attracted to this piece (or not)?  Why does this piece repeat so much?  Why would someone with such a fantastic ear for harmony restrict himself to such a harmonically static palette?

I thought you said you weren’t interested in Steve Lacy the person?

Disregarding your clear disinterest in what I’ve already said, I will say this:  1.  Steve Lacy was a very good piano player and had a very good ear.  2.  It is fair then to assume he had a very good ear for harmony.  3.  He wrote music that seemed to have a restricted/flat harmonic palette.  Therefore, by implication:  4.  Steve must have heard a lot of rich harmonic implications in what seemed to be simple (almost mundane).

I still don’t get it…

Look!  It’s simple!  There must be some kind of deeper harmonic meaning in what outwardly sounds like such limited material!

Oh.  Well why didn’t you just say so in plain English?  No need to get huffy…

…

The following three tunes are from the Thelonious Monk Quintet’s appearance at the Quaker City Jazz Festival held in Philadelphia on August 26, 1960.

The personnel on the three tunese are:

Steve Lacy: soprano saxophone

Charlie Rouse: tenor saxophone

Thelonious Monk: piano and compositions

John Ore: bass

Roy Haynes: drums

Mitch Miller: announcer

The tunes are:

1.  Evidence

2.  Straight, No Chaser

3.  (end of Straight, No Chaser) Rhythm-a-ning

This is a recording from the CBS radio broadcast.  I would like to thank Charlie Kohlhase for giving me this recording.  Pitch correction was done with the Amazing-Slow-Downer.

This was recorded 10 weeks into what would be Lacy’s nearly four-month stay in Thelonious Monk’s working band.

This entry was posted on Friday, May 21st, 2010.