Jazz Professional               

The Interviews

STAN KENTON (6)

The Classic Interview

Had he lived till February 19, 1988 Stan Kenton would have been seventy-six—and he would certainly have been leading an exciting band of fine, young musicians, as he did for nearly forty years. Those bands contained a succession of major jazz names, whose stays with him were positive milestones in their careers.

In representing Stan in this series, I had to decide which of my various conversations with him conveyed most about this deeply dedicated and much- loved man. I settled for extracts from two lengthy interviews that took place nine years apart. The first, in November 1963, was at the time of the mellophonium band, and sums up his general philosophies. These are amplified in the second, which includes my questions, as of February 1972.

One year later, in a Nottingham concert, the band surprised him with a well-rehearsed Bill Holman chart on "Happy Birthday To You", preserved on a Creative World LP. This was a musical instance of the fact that Stan Kenton was not only tall in stature but tall in the esteem of his players. Les Tomkins in 1988

This is my most important band ever. I say that because I think this band plays a more mature form of music than we have ever played before. By that I mean a broader scope of music expression. We still play the strong rhythmic things and some of the more complex compositions. But the band also can create lovely ballad moods that are complementary to the jazz things. That we've never been able to do before.

Adding the mellophoniums not only gave us a fresh brass sound with an identity of its own - it also changed the function of the other sections. It gave a whole new writing approach. We now had four distinct colours to work with. For instance, the saxophone section started taking on a new aspect, rather than writing it the same way we did before. It freed the section to do other things.

When we started using the two bass trombones, then had one of them doubling on tuba, then added the bass saxophone - and we were using two baritone saxophones in the section - I know that most musicians around said the band was going to be too sluggish, that it would be bottom heavy. But I'm sure that if you spoke with the writers you'd find that this is not true at all. I've always been one to stress the bottom of an orchestra. I love to hear that great foundation, because when you have that you can build anything you wish in top structure.

Was some of the Progressive Jazz of the 'forties pretentious? Perhaps. That's why I feel that the band's music today is more honest. As I said, more mature. There were times when we were guilty of too much striving for effect..

Any experimentalist can be labelled pretentious, because the music is strange. No one - I don't care how great a talent he is - is absolutely sure that his music, if it's experimental, has validity.

It's magnificent the way time will judge this, I say this because in some of our music - and I won't start naming writers- we have played music that I believed in at the time. But I have found that after a few years went by, even with the constant plugging of this particular music, the public did not care for it. So I must assume that there was nothing there, that it had pretence. No matter whether it's a very complex piece or something simple, in the final analysis the people are the ones who label it good or bad.

Again, it has been said that the 1956 band was the one that swung most. That's wrong. This band today swings just as much.

I don't know what it is with people - they somehow want to label one band against another. Maybe they're sentimentalists and start thinking about soloists of a particular period. There are many things that influence their opinion.

I have not been always obsessed with swing, because I don't think that swing as important as it is - is necessarily the number one requisite of a great band. Many things - the composition, the orchestration - have to enter into presenting a good brand of music. For people to simply say that a thing must swing all the time before it's good- that's nonsense.

Rhythm is something that has a great deal more to it than just whether it is swinging or not. It has to do with the articulation of a melody, the division of the beats, time - all sorts of things that aren't held down to a swing alone. I prefer not to singleout sidemen. There might be someone reading that would say: "How about soandso? Didn't he think anything of him?" There have been many, many great musicians come and go through the organisation. I'm very proud of them and of a lot of things they've done after they left the band. But I don't ever try to pick out an allstar group.

People look at the band and say: "You have a lot of youngsters." It was recently that we finally averaged the ages out to find out how old the fellows really were. We discovered that the band's average age is 24.6 years old. But when I look back at other bands- at Ray Wetzel, Conte Candoli, Buddy Childers, Maynard Ferguson - the average was about the same with those bands too.

Important There are a couple of different reasons. One big problem we have is that we're on the road so much it's almost like being in the Service. And if a fellow is married and has children he's not as free to travel as he otherwise might be. There usually comes a time when the wife approaches the husband and says: "Are you married to Stan Kenton or to me? Are we going to have a life together, or are you going to stay with Stan?" And, of course, the musician usually has to leave to settle down, and that leaves a chair open for a younger man. I think it works out very well that way.

The important arrangers? First of all, Pete Rugolo was with us in the 'forties for about seven years. He was very important. So has Gene Roland been, off and on throughout the years. And we must also point to Johnny Richards, who's done a great deal of the work. And Bill Holman. Recently Lennie Niehaus has done a lot. I guess the rest you can attribute to myself.

There are some new fellows in the band, notably Dee Barton, who are starting to write, but very little has been recorded yet. However, they have something to say - and in the future you'll hear about them.

I am playing more piano now. The last time we were in Great Britain we had a guitar player in the rhythm section. When he decided he had to leave because of certain problems he had with his family at home, I didn't hire another guitar. It had gotten to where I wouldn't touch the piano for long periods at a time.
When we have a guitar he usually plays the same things that I play, or functions in the same way.

A lot of people think that the reason we haven't rehired a guitar is that I don't like the instrument. It's not that at all - it's just that I felt that I should play more. We still use the piano more or less as colour. It's not really a very important part of the Kenton sound.

I don't write at all when we're on the road, because it's somehow just impossible. But when this tour is over with I'll be returning home and I hope to get into a lot of writing in the next three or four months. We haven't added a great deal of material in recent months because we have such an abundance in the library - and also when I get home I want to establish a new rhythmic direction in the band's music.

I don't believe much in correspondence arranging. I think a fellow has to be around the band constantly, or off and on for long periods, to know the band's capabilities and what we're trying to do. I discourage people sending music to us. I believe a composer should rehearse his own music, and have a chance to get what he wants out of the band. I'm always there with him, helping him to get it. And despite some setbacks, I'm not disillusioned in any way. Maybe simple in mind somehow. I still believe in my band and its music.

Copyright © 1988 Les Tomkins. All Rights Reserved