*that* is the issue I think people have: Trane was using an instrument primarily thought of as a melody-instrument (=the saxophone) and he was essentially playing chords on it (=something generally thought of as harmony/background). Granted, the saxophone doesn't have the same ability as a , say, guitar to *hold* the notes and make them harmonize with eachother but still, dude was arpeggiating chords when he played like that, in much the same way as. say, the Animals were on "House of the rising sun", just MUCH faster not to mention more complex chords.

Actually, I think he explicitly stated that he was inspired by the harp (another instrument trhat has the ability to hold the notes unlike a sax) when hr started to play like that.

The thing is that he mixed it with more melodic playing along scales in a generally static tonal center (the last year saw a change; he became more "difficult" tonally).

Either way, I always felt that people's (=the detractors) main issue with Trane was that they couldn't follow the melody but he was, as early as with Monk, playing stuff that wasn't even *meant* to be melodic in the first place. As far as *I* hear it, when he was playing like *that*, he was playing along with both the rhythmic foundation of Elvin Jones and the harmony of the other two;sitting around waiting for a catchy phrase is kind of missing the point:it's the *sound* as in chords/rhythm and by extension the resulting melody contained in all (as opposed to something played on top of a harmony/rhythm-group) that mattered.

That being said, he ALWAYS juxtaposed that style with more melodic phrases in his solo-career so I never saw it as him abandoning melody; just thinking three-dimensionally.

If you think about it, that challenge of the conventional role of the instruments (=a saxophone can become a harmonic device, a drum can play melody, a piano-HI CECIL!-can be a drum-set) was one of the core ideals of 60's jazz...

I think I lost your point somewhere, I need to go back, LOL!