Serious and Genuine Thoughts on Cecil Taylor
Amos Omondi
not entirely without talent: to run a sufficiently good con requires
some native talent. Second, there is no doubt that Taylor can play
good jazz, perhaps even great jazz (who knows?) --- just listen to JAZZ
ADVANCE. Indeed, I have no doubt that Taylor could have made a real
name for himself in jazz had he stuck to it. Remember that a truly
great con artist is always sufficiently good that he or she could have
done just as well in the more honest trade. Which brings us to your
Good Question: why does a man endowed with enough talent choose to run
a scam, especially in an area where the pickings are not especialy
rich? (By the way, your argument is flawed: to do what Mr. G, Ms.
Spears, etc. do actually requires a great deal of talent and of a sort
that Taylor may not have; there is no guarantee that Taylor or any
other musician would necessarily enjoy such success if they went that
way.)
There are two possible answers to your Good Question. The first is
that perhaps that is the only area where his con can work. Certainly,
there is no guarantee that he could be a sort of Piano-G; and I won't
even try to imagine Taylor wiggling it, after the fashion of Ms.
Spears. And "avant-garde jazz" is the perhaps the only place where
nonsense and mindless noise can be passed of as "difficult and
challenging" music. Fans of Mr. G and Ms. Spears would have even more
unkind words than mine for Taylor's activities. The second possible
answer is, paradoxically, a question that I shall leave you to ponder
about: why would a meek-and-mild man with a nice little wife, two kids,
a dog, and a station-wagon --- the kind of man who always has his
account books in order and helps little old ladies cross the street ---
why would such a man suddenly take an axe and mow down his co-workers?
Or take to a life in dens of iniquity. Or something.
So, there we have it: Taylor is a talented man who has chosen to run a
con. (This, at least, is better that the others avant-garde types who
are little more than just fakes and charlatans.) The question, now,
is: where do we go from here? It is pointless to keep beating up those
who point out that the man is a scam artist. That only breeds ill
will. As I see it, there are two useful courses of action that we can
take. One is urge Taylor to go back to playing jazz and to follow the
sort of example that people like Wynton Marsalis have set. He would no
doubt be successful and gets as much respect as he seeks from
the "difficult and challenging music". The other is that we should all
urge him to either give up music or get his and his fans to stop
associating what he does with jazz. To continue doing so does a great
deal of harm to the reputation of jazz and does little to win any sort
of understanding from jazz fans. I'm sure that such sugestions would
work if they were carried through with the same energy that we have
seen applied to the Burns documentary. But, please, let it be
understood that the world will no longer be fooled; nor will jazz fans
quietly sit by and watch jazz brought into disrepute.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
crib
equation. actually, it's quite intelligent. i agree with a lot of your
reasoning, amos.
the one place where you and i disagree is a premise that you slip into the end
of your message, without explanation: that associating avant-garde* with jazz
does 'great harm' to jazz's reputation.
i've had the opportunity to meet a lot of non-jazz fans on a musical basis, and
i can tell you that in my experience, not only do non-jazz fans (the only
people to whom jazz's "reputation" really can be hurt, i think, and seemingly
the people you refer to when you suggest that jazz fans will prevent jazz's
being "brought into disrepute") not have 'negative' associations regarding
jazz, they don't have the slightest clue who "cecil taylor" is.
most people don't listen to jazz not because they dislike it, but because they
consider it uninteresting. it's like classical: they won't say they "dislike"
it, only that they don't find it as enjoyable as the sing-able pop tunes on the
radio. they feel an obligation to expose their kids to "cultural experiences,"
and jazz -- along with classical, opera, theatre, museums, etc. -- fits the
bill; but they don't think of it as a "leisure activity."
there are those who do think negatively of jazz, and even those who think that
it's "idiotic noise." however, you're off-base blaming taylor for this; the two
names i've most often heard from people citing invoking this description are
john coltrane and miles davis.
so, my rebuttal:
1.) i disagree with your premise that avant-garde's association with jazz is
damaging jazz.
2.) even if i agreed with that premise, i would not agree that cecil taylor,
above others, deserves blame and condemnation for it.
crib
* i'm using "avant-garde," where you used "taylor," because i'm assuming that
you have the same sort of view toward charles gayle, or david s. ware, or evan
parker. please correct me if i'm wrong; and if i'm not, i'd be curious to hear
why you've singled out taylor, who is hardly the most high-profile of these
artists today.
Faizal Ali
"Amos Omondi" <asa...@ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message
news:964prl$15r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Friends, please follow the remarks carefully. First, Cecil Taylor is
> not entirely without talent: to run a sufficiently good con requires
> some native talent. Second, there is no doubt that Taylor can play
> good jazz, perhaps even great jazz (who knows?) --- just listen to JAZZ
> ADVANCE. Indeed, I have no doubt that Taylor could have made a real
> name for himself in jazz had he stuck to it.
Cecil Taylor HAS made a real name for himself in jazz. For evidence, look
no further than the Ken Burns Jazz series. Even though they had omit any
number of crucial figures in the music's history, they felt compelled to
include a lengthy segment on Cecil Taylor. And even though it included
several criticisms of his music, no one argued that it was not part of the
jazz tradition. The very fact that Taylor was included in the series
demonstrates that even your heroes, Ken Burns and Wynton Marsalis, disagree
with your assertion that Cecil's music is not jazz.
Amos Omondi
Of course, there are perfectly good reasons to include something on
Taylor -- as a warning about how a person can go wrong. I too would
have done that. So the mere fact that he was included is not a stamp
of approval. If they said good things about him, then it it is
outrageous that they have been attacked for supposedly doing a hatchet
job on him. But if they did a "hatchet job" on him, then we jazz fans
thoroughly approve.
Anatole40
<snip>
First of all, thank you for the long post...really. Expounding at length on
one's opinions, instead of repeatedly posting one-sentence jabs, is not the
work of a troll (so let's all retire that term, eh?).
Where the disagreement lies, however, is not simply on the matter of whether or
not we all like Taylor's work. No one can reasonably take offense if you say
you find Taylor's later music to be not to your taste. Look, Amos: you know
as well as I do that jazz has been in constant flux since its inception. The
changes in the music come from the musicians; boundaries are stretched and new
directions are explored through their initiative alone. And no, I'm not a fan
of every tributary the music has taken over the years. But unlike you, I don't
attempt to decree what the boundaries are. Forgive me if this sounds
new-agey/touchy-feely, but jazz music is what it is. Worrying that one style
will somehow threaten the sanctity of another, earlier style to which it may or
may not bear any obvious resemblance is pointless. There's room for everyone
here.
For example: I love Gato Barbieri's early work. His albums on Flying Dutchman
and Impulse are favorites. I don't care for the more commercial records he did
later in the 1970s, but do I claim that they're not jazz? Do I pitch a fit
when I see them cluttering up used bins in record shops worldwide, alarmed that
they will give jazz a bad name? No. They're jazz records. (Just bad ones,
IMO).
What it comes down to for me is this: how can someone who is a
historically-informed fan of a music that is always changing deny that it still
changing today?
James
jaimesol
to it. Avoiding his music is very easy because it is never broadcast.
I don't understand the accusations of his "con". It's not like he's raking
it in!
"Amos Omondi" <asa...@ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message
news:964prl$15r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
salad
wrote:
<Lots of stuff>
These may be "serious and genuine thoughts" but they certainly aren't
terribly interesting. They kind of remind me of things people wrote
when painting and sculpture moved from the representational realm into
abstraction.
Or perhaps more like: "Kandinsky?!? Yuck! My niece coulda painted
that and she's three!"
Doug McKay
Kandinsky! Oh man, I love his stuff.
Doug McKay
Nils
>
> Kandinsky! Oh man, I love his stuff.
it's worth considering kandinsky within a jazz
context: highly improvisational, and linked to
music. he gave different colors higher meanings.
it's really pretty cool stuff, i'd have to agree.
Top_Catt
Kandinsky's aesthetic theories *are* highly applicable to jazz
paticularly his notion of "inner necessity" as the underlying reason
for artistic expression. If you already enjoy his painting, I'd suggest
you read "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" (Dover). It's reasonably
short (57 pages), and not a difficult read at all, due to a good
translation. After that, you might want to go on to "Point and Line to
Plane," which deals more with the specifics of his visual language.
T.C.
Amos Omondi
Well, they are interesting enough to get your attention. By the way,
the argument you use, as well as the similar one that says "bebop was
at first rejected but look now", isn't always applicable and may, in
fact, be taken to be part of the con. I'll say it again: the fact that
something was initially rejected and misunderstood doesn't mean that
everything that is reject is necessarily misunderstood. How long did
it take for bebop to be accepted? How long has Taylor been at his
stuff? No, no, no, sir; we have Taylor completely figured out.
Amos Omondi
"jaimesol" <solj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The solution for those who object to Cecil's music is simple: don't
listen
> to it. Avoiding his music is very easy because it is never broadcast.
I think you miss our point: the basic reason for objecting to Taylor is
not that his "music" is evil or whatever; it is that it pollutes jazz.
If there were no association with jazz, we would not care one jot about
Taylor and his misdeeds.
Anatole40
context: highly improvisational, and linked to
music. he gave different colors higher meanings.
it's really pretty cool stuff, i'd have to agree.>>
There's a concert coming up in Minneapolis: AACM pianist/composer Carei
Thomas, Feb 17th, at the Weisman Museum at the U of M -- a tribute to
Kandinsky, in an environment of his paintings. Should be good...
zeno
paintings were not called finished until all the structural elements
were in place. And his structure not only had all the aspects of more
classical paintings but he added additional dimensions of color to that
structure. How would you delineate the analogy to free jazz regarding
structure?
Zeno
zeno
Amos Omondi wrote:
Do you consider what Taylor plays to be random? How do you figure the way
he arrives at what he actually plays? Do you think he would still be a con
if he was not part of jazz but part of say "classical" avante garde music.
Did you ever try listening to Taylor while on acid? Did you ever hear
Ornette on violin? Did you ever hear Miles on Ornette's violining.
Maybe Taylor is not so much a con as himself being the victim of a con. The
con which made him think that because atonal music was all the rage in the
classical world that he would then be doing something significant if he did
a improvised version of atonal music. The reason I mention "random" is
because of John Cage who was considered part of the classical avante garde.
Which side of "random" would you place Cecil Taylor?
Zeno
Doug McKay
Kandinsky's art, and backtrack to the main site for a goldmine of other jpgs
of paintings by artists of all eras.
Doug McKay
Amos Omondi
zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Do you consider what Taylor plays to be random? How do you figure the
> way he arrives at what he actually plays?
Yes. He just goes out there and mashes the piano.
Do you think he would still be a con
> if he was not part of jazz but part of say "classical" avante
> garde music.
I don't know much about classical music; so I can't say. But perhaps
*that* is where he belongs?
> Did you ever try listening to Taylor while on acid?
No. Is that what he meant by the audience having to prepare just like
he does?
> Did you ever hear
> Ornette on violin?
No.
> Maybe Taylor is not so much a con as himself being the victim
> of a con.
You may well have a point there. But this far in the game, is it not
fair to ask, then, if he has since actively bought into the con.
JC Martin
> In article <3A8766CE...@sonic.net>,
> zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > Do you consider what Taylor plays to be random? How do you figure the
> > way he arrives at what he actually plays?
>
> Yes. He just goes out there and mashes the piano.
This statement (among so many others) thoroughly demonstrates your ignorance
Amos.
-JC
JC Martin
You're wasting your breath.
-JC
Anatole40 <anat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010211122602...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> James, when has Amos ever gotten into a meaningful discussion about jazz?
Every time he avoids you, JC.
Ulf
Amos Omondi
> ----------
> From: JC Martin[SMTP:subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net]
> Reply To: JC Martin
> Posted At: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:53 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: Serious and Genuine Thoughts on Cecil Taylor
> Subject: Re: Serious and Genuine Thoughts on Cecil Taylor
SJC
>Date: 2/11/01 9:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010211122602...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
As Louis Armstrong (whose songs along with those of another legend Bing Crosby
I have spnet several days downloading) quoth: "IF we HAVE to tell you, you'll
NEVER know!"(second caps mine)
Steve Carras
"We have an audience. Work with me."-Julia Stiles
SJC
>From: "Ulf Åbjörnsson" aabj...@algonet.se
>Date: 2/12/01 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <969m8o$p2o$1...@cubacola.tninet.se>
When Andy starts.:)
Simon Weil
>Kandinsky may have used a kind of improvisation but in the end the
>paintings were not called finished until all the structural elements
>were in place. And his structure not only had all the aspects of more
>classical paintings but he added additional dimensions of color to that
>structure. How would you delineate the analogy to free jazz regarding
>structure?
Kandinsky's paintings all retained some element of figuration (people etc)
until 1913 - though those elements became more and more submerged. The
paintings worked from these basic figurative elements, rather as a jazz player
might work from a chord sequence, 4/4 rhythm or whatever. Eventually the
submersion process Kandinsky was involved with disappeared the figurative
elements entirely - just as, eventually, jazz threw out all those classic
elements of jazz form. It is true that later Kandinsky does sometimes include
figurative elements, but the basic structuring of the picture revolves around
a balancing of abstract forms and colours from ca 1914 on. The Bauhaus pictures
(from the 1920s and early 30s) are like that and cooler. The pictures from
1910-13 are hotter, expressionist and somewhat figurative (include The Blue
Rider pictures).
After 1933 his style changes once more. I don't like it that much.
Simon Weil
zeno
Simon Weil wrote:
Kandinsky might have given up 'the figure' but he never gave up the structural
elements. I do not say that 'figure' as you use the term is the same as structure
as I use the term. For me it is more like Kandinsky gave up stating the "tune" but
he maintained the chord structure. That is why I question the analogy to "free"
jazz. Bebop (solos) gave up the tune and utililized the chord structure (more
abstractly). It is more like the "free" jazz player kept the paint, brushes, and
canvas which is not the same as saying they kept the structure. Free jazz is more
like the renowned scribbles of Cy Twombly et al than the pristine structures of
Kandinsky (early or late).
Zeno
zeno
Amos Omondi wrote:
> In article <3A8766CE...@sonic.net>,
> zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > Do you consider what Taylor plays to be random? How do you figure the
> > way he arrives at what he actually plays?
>
> Yes. He just goes out there and mashes the piano.
>
How do you explain, at least during his Candid period that alternate takes
of the same tunes are almost identical except for small nuances here and
there. (I learned this from listening to the Mosaic set "the complete
candid recordings of....".
Zeno
Marc Sabatella
> Kandinsky might have given up 'the figure' but he never gave up the
structural
> elements. I do not say that 'figure' as you use the term is the same as
structure
> as I use the term. For me it is more like Kandinsky gave up stating the
"tune" but
> he maintained the chord structure.
You are assuming chord progressions are the only possible structural
elements. Most "free jazz", even when abandoning predetermined chord
progressions, maintains some structural elements - often ones that are at
least as obvious as those Kandinsky used at his most abstract. I think this
analogy is very apt.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
zeno
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Kandinsky might have given up 'the figure' but he never gave up the
> structural
> > elements. I do not say that 'figure' as you use the term is the same as
> structure
> > as I use the term. For me it is more like Kandinsky gave up stating the
> "tune" but
> > he maintained the chord structure.
>
> You are assuming chord progressions are the only possible structural
> elements. Most "free jazz", even when abandoning predetermined chord
> progressions, maintains some structural elements - often ones that are at
> least as obvious as those Kandinsky used at his most abstract. I think this
> analogy is very apt.
>
Terminology in this context is not precise enough so I won't argue, however I
think there are later and looser painters that make better analogies to some
free jazz I've heard. Kandinsky seems to me more like tight classical
compositions with every element perfectly in place however arrived at.
Kandinsky utilized what he called the "inductive" as well as the "deductive".
Free jazz eliminates the deductive part, IMO.
Zeno
Diagonal Flying
mentions he referred to three types of "approach" in his paintings:
Impressions
Improvisations
Compositions
Bayle
element is time.
In most painting, while the discovery may evolve (eye scan patterns, etc)
the work is always there before you (except maybe Chinese or Japanese
scrolls, which is what makes them so special).
An Aside: In this regard the Confucian emphasis on music and the fact that
Chinese writing (calligraphy) and painting are so intertwined is
interesting. When we look at a Chinese character, there is all sorts of
temporal information needed to write the character that you don't see
unless you know how to write Chinese. The temporal nature of the brush
strokes is probably much more apparent to a Chinese viewer that to a
non-native.
With music on the other hand the listener is attempting to understand the
work as it unfolds before his ears. The reliance on the listener's
attention and memory would seem to me much more important. Also very
important are the signposts provided within the music to allow the listener
to retain what has gone before. And there is also a contract between the
composer and the listener, which sets up the expectations which make it
possible to process the information into memory.
I guess my point and question is this. When formal elements are
manipulated in a painting, it makes the interpretation harder. When formal
elements are manipulated in music, it may make the perception of the work
very difficult if not impossible. What are the implications of this for
Jazz?
Marc Sabatella <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in article
<wUoi6.2279$RG5.8...@news.uswest.net>...
zeno
Bayle wrote:
> It would seem to me that when comparing works of painting and music the key
> element is time.
>
Never more than in a traditional sand painting....here today, gone tomorrow.
>
> In most painting, while the discovery may evolve (eye scan patterns, etc)
> the work is always there before you (except maybe Chinese or Japanese
> scrolls, which is what makes them so special).
Are you talking about the experience of the scroll unfolding as opposed to
just hanging open somewhere?
>
> An Aside: In this regard the Confucian emphasis on music and the fact that
> Chinese writing (calligraphy) and painting are so intertwined is
> interesting. When we look at a Chinese character, there is all sorts of
> temporal information needed to write the character that you don't see
> unless you know how to write Chinese. The temporal nature of the brush
> strokes is probably much more apparent to a Chinese viewer that to a
> non-native.
>
I have often enjoyed the spontaneous jestures contained in old Chinese
calligraphy and paintings (often seen together in the same work) with the same
eyes that enjoy Abstract Expressionist painitng. I do not really understand
the calligraphy, although I have often tried to see the inherent pictographic
aspects as postulated by Fenalosa or the dialectic synthesis analogized by
Eisenstein in his treatise on "intellectual montage".
>
> With music on the other hand the listener is attempting to understand the
> work as it unfolds before his ears. The reliance on the listener's
> attention and memory would seem to me much more important. Also very
> important are the signposts provided within the music to allow the listener
> to retain what has gone before. And there is also a contract between the
> composer and the listener, which sets up the expectations which make it
> possible to process the information into memory.
>
There is also the analogy to cinema. These same thoughts arise in a discussion
which tries to embrace both a traditional narrative approach with the more
abstract and experimental films which sometimes totally abandoned the
cognitive for the experiential.
>
> I guess my point and question is this. When formal elements are
> manipulated in a painting, it makes the interpretation harder. When formal
> elements are manipulated in music, it may make the perception of the work
> very difficult if not impossible. What are the implications of this for
> Jazz?
>
If one's perceptions and/or awarness are tuned into those formal aspects to
begin with, then one is more likely to appreciate (dig) when those formal
elements are being manipulated with creative insight. I think there is a very
basic difference between music and painting that we first need to address and
that is the fact that painting starts out (historically) to be
representational of the concrete world (or the world of concrete in some
cases) whereas music in a very basic sense is more "abstract" to begin with.
In the history of painting, after many years of compositional evolution (
illusion of spatial depth through perspective, value contrasts, warm/cool
modulation, 5-tonal layers, cubism, etc.) the jump to abstraction could be
rationalized by recognizing that this same structural evolution was largely
intact. Music on the other hand, being essentially abstract by its nature {eg.
it mostly refers to itself rather than being a literal symbolical language for
the concrete world} came to set up certain emotional expectations arising
purely from its formal elements. When those formal elements were radically
manipulated (atonality, random operations, etc. in relatively more recent
times) the violation of these emotional expectations was met with great
resistence. What you seem to be suggesting is that this resistence is
somehow stronger in the area of music than in the area of painting (visual
art). I am not so sure that this isn't partly a cultural phenomenon. If more
soda pop was sold with avante garde jingles maybe things would be different.
Cecil Taylor for the Gap, etc. Abstract art to a large extent has familiar
aspects because of the incorporation into the decorative arts. Now truly
radical conceptual art is sometimes shocking, but lately it seems that radical
manipulation of the very formal elements in the traditions of visual art has
become largely entertaining to the art audience, eg. the galllery and museum
prevalence of neo-conceptualism these last 20 years or so.
Bringing it back down to earth for a moment: for me one of the most basic
analogies between visual art and auditory art is "figure" and "ground". This
has come from years and years of translating rhythmic patterns into matchbook
cover notation. Compare rumba clave with son clave for a moment:
XOOXOOOXOOXOXOOO
compared to
XOOXOOXOOOXOXOOO
X's are figures (notes), O's are rest beats. Note the world of rhythmic
difference from the very slight change in the ground. This is true as a
truism in painting as well: "A small change in the ground results in a large
change in the figure" .
Zeno
Richard Whitehouse
>> You are assuming chord progressions are the only possible structural
>> elements. Most "free jazz", even when abandoning predetermined chord
>> progressions, maintains some structural elements - often ones that are at
>> least as obvious as those Kandinsky used at his most abstract. I think this
>> analogy is very apt.
Ok, this is interesting. If you take away chord structure, melody,
and time signature, what structural elements have you got left?
zeno
Richard Whitehouse wrote:
That is why I was saying the analogy for me works better between "free jazz" and
the paintings of someone like Cy Twombly who appears to most viewers as inspired
scribbling. Maybe not so inspired. Anyway, he is famous and sells for megabucks eg.
he has an audience.
Zeno
zeno
Subject:
Zeno captures the ZEITGEIST
Date:
Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:44:45 -0600
From:
"JazzBuffalo" <jazzb...@nospam.com>
Newsgroups:
rec.music.afro-latin
It is the mid 1950s
In cosmic time
just seconds after the Big Bang
that brought Afro-Cuban Jazz into creation
The Afro-Cuban Jazz universe is rapidly expanding
and immediately it begins to cool
Afro-Cool
Zeno, the Redwoods Recluse,
captures the ZEITGEIST:
http://jazzbuffalo.com/Afro_Cool.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/latinjazz/files/Whippet.mp3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/latinjazz/files/Whippet_lo_fi.mp3
zeno
free jazz recording:
http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/twombly2.htm
Bayle
zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in article <3A8AD9E2...@sonic.net>...
> > In most painting, while the discovery may evolve (eye scan patterns,
etc)
> > the work is always there before you (except maybe Chinese or Japanese
> > scrolls, which is what makes them so special).
>
> Are you talking about the experience of the scroll unfolding as opposed
to
> just hanging open somewhere?
>
Yes, thinking mostly of Chinese landscape scrolls, as they would be
traditionally viewed, i.e. unrolled, showing new info and hiding old, under
the control of the viewer. The Japanese had narrative scrolls where there
was a more explicit story, often from literature.
> I have often enjoyed the spontaneous jestures contained in old Chinese
> calligraphy and paintings (often seen together in the same work) with the
same
> eyes that enjoy Abstract Expressionist painitng. I do not really
understand
> the calligraphy, although I have often tried to see the inherent
pictographic
> aspects as postulated by Fenalosa or the dialectic synthesis analogized
by
> Eisenstein in his treatise on "intellectual montage".
Not familiar with Fenalosa, but there is certainly cinematic elements at
work here. And cinema has both senses to work with.
> There is also the analogy to cinema. These same thoughts arise in a
discussion
> which tries to embrace both a traditional narrative approach with the
more
> abstract and experimental films which sometimes totally abandoned the
> cognitive for the experiential.
>
I agree. But I wonder if art shouldn't be more (in the sense of different
from) than just experiential.
> If one's perceptions and/or awarness are tuned into those formal aspects
to
> begin with, then one is more likely to appreciate (dig) when those formal
> elements are being manipulated with creative insight.
I agree here which is why the height of Chinese art, the concentration on
the brush and it's manipulation, is something that every literate Chinese
would have a basic experience and understanding of. Although only the
literati, those who studied, would be able to pick up the historical
references, say a tree in the style of Ni Tsan, in a painting by another
artist.
>I think there is a very
> basic difference between music and painting that we first need to address
and
> that is the fact that painting starts out (historically) to be
> representational of the concrete world (or the world of concrete in some
> cases) whereas music in a very basic sense is more "abstract" to begin
with.
[snip]
> the jump to abstraction could be
> rationalized by recognizing that this same structural evolution was
largely
> intact.
I agree but I think you underestimate the difficulty and permanence of the
jump.
> What you seem to be suggesting is that this resistence is
> somehow stronger in the area of music than in the area of painting
(visual
> art). I am not so sure that this isn't partly a cultural phenomenon.
Yes, and I think that there may be psychological limits, in the sense of
the hard wiring of the human cognitive system.
I agree that there must be cultural influences. But that can't account for
everything. The kind of things I'm suggesting are say the "seven plus or
minus three rule" : things are more easily remembered when organized or
chunked in this way. Or the tricks that seem to appear in poems in oral
cultures to help the poets remember them.
The claim is that a segment of music is either easier or harder to remember
based on certain properties that can be manipulated in music as in a list
of letters, words or sentences. And that these properties contribute to
the perceived organization of the composition.
> Abstract art to a large extent has familiar
> aspects because of the incorporation into the decorative arts.
I agree
>the galllery and museum
> prevalence of neo-conceptualism these last 20 years or so.
I've been a little out of the loop on this. Can you give me an example of
neo-conceptualism and its difference from plain vanilla conceptual art?
>This is true as a
> truism in painting as well: "A small change in the ground results in a
large
> change in the figure" .
Hmmm. I see your point in music, at least in the nature of the rhythmic
background. Not sure I get it in relation to painting unless you are
talking about illusion-like phenomena where certain figures shift entirely.
(like the vase two faces example)
Vincent Kargatis / Anne Larson
"Richard Whitehouse" <richard_w...@cbc.ca> wrote in message
news:96elke$qu1$1...@news.passport.ca...
> Ok, this is interesting. If you take away chord structure, melody,
> and time signature, what structural elements have you got left?
It appears that your imagination is failing you, if you can't imagine
musical structure outside those three things, but I'll give you a single
(amusing example) - I'm sure you can think of many more if you try.
A group out of the Bay Area called Pluto did a funny piece called "The
Pledge", where, you might guess, everyone had to play the Pledge of
Allegiance together - no chords, melody, or time signature (beyond the
spontaneous one that arises whenever people say the Pledge together :).
Note choices, etc, were totally up to the individual, of course. But the
structure was so apparent that I bet almost anyone listening would be able
to tell you what it was.
Of course, there are a nigh-infinite number of other examples, but that
one's amusing and sufficient, I think.
vince
Simon Weil
> >> You are assuming chord progressions are the only possible structural
> >> elements. Most "free jazz", even when abandoning predetermined chord
> >> progressions, maintains some structural elements - often ones that are at
> >> least as obvious as those Kandinsky used at his most abstract. I think
>this
> >> analogy is very apt.
>
>Ok, this is interesting. If you take away chord structure, melody,
>and time signature, what structural elements have you got left?
>
example of some structural possibilities, here's a passage from David Such's
book _Avant Garde Jazz Musicians_:
<<On his _Free Jazz_ recording (1960) Coleman adapted [his] approach to a
collectively improvised format. the results were startling. In the liner notes
to this recording, Coleman explains how random chaos in this approach is
avoided and a sense of order and direction mainatined. he mentions that the
idea:
"was for us to play together, all at the same time, without getting in each
other's way, and also to have enough room for each player to ad lib alone - and
to follow this idea for the duartion of the album. when the soloist played
something that suggested a musical idea or direction to me, I played that
behind him in my style. he continued his own way in his solo, of course."
Trumpet player Freddie Hubbard, who participated as a sideman on Coleman's
_Free Jazz_, suggests that "sound", "feeling" and "certain rhythmic patterns"
were the only devices the performers used to organize collective improvisation.
He recounts:
"[When Coleman] called me to do the session, I told him "Man, I can't realy get
into that bag, so I rather you get someone else." "No man, we need your
strength," 'cause Don Cherry didn't play that (strong). I didn't want to make
it at first, but it was a challenge. We rehearsed twice and the music was
really interesting, 'cause that was the first time I has played songs without
chord changes. we got it together on sound, it was based on sound and feeling,
certain rhythmic patterns we would hit at the same time. I would say that was
the most challenging date I ever made in my life. You would have to create
ideas that you never created before...If after Eric Dolphy soloed, if I were to
come in playing like I was with Art Blakey, I would sound kind of out of
context. All of a sudden, I had to come up with some new shit and I had a
headache for about two weeks trying to figure this stuff out. It came off
pretty good but I still felt I was kind of out of context on that date.">>
Such p53-4
Other structural possibilities are given.
Simon Weil
Walter Davis
Well, most 'free jazz' doesn't dispense with those
things. That's among the reasons why 'free jazz' is a
poor term for the music.
Now, the various forms of avant-garde jazz dispense with
at least one of the traditional jazz variants of the
above, but a 13/7 time signature is still a time
signature.
But there are other ways of organizing -- pulse, waves,
etc. -- that aren't exactly standard musical terms, and
some jazz musicians (e.g. Cecil Taylor) will take
advantage of those.
Similarly, even when relatively 'unstructured', a given
performance generally has an internal consistency or
logic to it.
Very litte avant-garde jazz is 'random' (I'd actually
say none of it, though some may have random components
to it), therefore it's all structured in some sense.
What one musician plays may be based purely on whatever
another musician just finished playing, but there's a
motivic form of organization.
Here's an example. Recently we hosted the German saxist
Frank Gratkowski for a few days, and in addition to some
fine solo sets, he performed a set with the Mirco-East
Collective, a 20-piece improvising ensemble. I got to
sit in on their very brief rehearsal (you try scheduling
20 people with day jobs for a rehearsal :-).
They practiced one piece which went like this.
Part 1) Frank would play. When he bobbed his head up,
this was a signal to the orchestra. Each player in the
orchestra could choose between playing one short, loud
note; or they could play one softer sustained note.
Gratkowski would solo over the sustained note until his
next head bob, at which point the musicians got to
choose again. An individual musician couldn't play
consecutive sustained notes and I think they had to
change notes each time too. The 'bobs' could come at
whatever time interval Gratkowski wanted (sometimes very
short intervals between bobs, sometimes longer). In
theory, the musicians are 'free' to play anything they
want, but in practice each musician plays something that
'makes sense' given what's been played.
Part 2) Basically a repeat of Step 1, except now instead
of Gratkoswki 'directing', the orchestra was split into
two, each with its own leader. The two leaders did not
bob at the same time of course.
Part 3) A further repeat, with the orchestra now split
into 4 sections.
Now this is a structured, organized performance. There
are clearly identifiable 'movements' of the
'composition', there are clearly identifiable sections
of the orchestra, each of those sections is clearly
organized and working together. It doesn't have a time
signature, a set melody, or set chords. Even its
structure (i.e. the ebb and flow of the 'bobs') is
decided on the spot. This is about as random or
uncontrolled as you could think of. But from the
perspective of both listeners and musicians, it's
clearly a structured piece.
Now, there's no way to recreate this performance. But
of course, that's part of the beauty of 'free jazz.'
Whether any of this relates to Kandinsky I can't say.
Dennis J. Kosterman
>Amos Omondi wrote:
... not to mention that, in his later music, you can hear him re-state
and develop themes if you're listening closely. He also sometimes
"mashes the piano", but that's definitely not all he does.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Marc Sabatella
> > Ok, this is interesting. If you take away chord structure, melody,
> > and time signature, what structural elements have you got left?
First - who said anything about eliminating melody or time time signature?
Very little of what is termed "free jazz" eliminates melody. The vast
majority of it has composed melody that is used as a basis for the
improvisation, just as in more traditional forms of jazz. And even in those
freely improvised pieces that include no composed melody whatsoever, there
is still virtually always melody being improvised, except perhaps in the
cases of percussion improvisations (and then, even that is debatable in many
cases).
As for time signature, this is very preserved as well. Virtuall all of
Orntee Coleman's music can be heard as 4/4, and the same is true of most
late Coltrane, to name just the most obvious examples. And then in some
music that eliminates time signatures, there is often still the notion of a
steady pulse. Even large stretches of Cecil Taylor's music has this,
although he also engages in rubato passages (which I define in this context
a pulse that is not steady) as well as some completely pulse-less passages.
Other structural elements that can be preserved when you remove chord
progressions include the notion of the head-solos-head form, the idea of a
solo instrument over accompaniment provided by a rhythm section,
call-and-response patterns, tension and release dynamics such as building
intensity towards a climax, etc.
And then, there are other structuring devices that can be invented to take
the place of the chord progression, such as Vincent's "Pledge" example,
various cell notations, shape notations. There are many possible structures
on which one can base an improvisation, besides the chord progression.
Really, most of what makes music interesting is not details of time
signature and chord progressions - otherwise, we'd all be talking about how
exciting today's pop music is, or Kenny G, or whatever other tonal music you
happen to want to criticize. After all, it has those elements, doesn't it?
But it lacks something else, we might agree. What makes music interesting
are other structural elements that are often harder to pin a name on.
Of course, most of these are subjective, and I fully expect people to
respond, "but I don't hear any of those elements in free jazz". At least, I
hope they respond so subjectively, and realize that if they are unabel to
recognize these elements, it says much more as about them as listeners than
it does the music. As someone who often creates music in this style, I know
for an absolute *fact* that they can be present, and as a listener, I know I
hear them a lot. Note that many do not see the structural elements in
Kandinsky, but the fact that some (such as Zeno) do suggests that it is at
least plausible that they are there.
> That is why I was saying the analogy for me works better between "free
jazz" and
> the paintings of someone like Cy Twombly who appears to most viewers as
inspired
> scribbling. Maybe not so inspired. Anyway, he is famous and sells for
megabucks
This is an obvious difference, then, between Twomblky and most free jazz :-)
In any case, if you can name *no* strucural elements that are preserved in
his art, then obviously it has very little connection with the vast majoirty
of free jazz, which includes the structuring devices I have described above.
Tom Walls
says...
Hold everything. You just described an event that likely had all three. The
fact that they weren't predetermined doesn't eliminate them as strucural
elements. No melody, no harmony, and no rhythm = no music.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
____________________________________________________________________
the rmb troll faq is at http://liquid2k.net/rmbtroll. spread the word!
Vincent Kargatis / Anne Larson
"Tom Walls" <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:96h26d$kg3$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <98218644...@athnrd02.forthnet.gr>, lar...@ath.forthnet.gr
> says...
> >
> >"Richard Whitehouse" <richard_w...@cbc.ca> wrote in message
> >news:96elke$qu1$1...@news.passport.ca...
> >> Ok, this is interesting. If you take away chord structure, melody,
> >> and time signature, what structural elements have you got left?
> >
> >Pledge", where, you might guess, everyone had to play the Pledge of
> >Allegiance together - no chords, melody, or time signature (beyond the
> >spontaneous one that arises whenever people say the Pledge together :).
> >Note choices, etc, were totally up to the individual, of course. But the
> >structure was so apparent that I bet almost anyone listening would be
able
> >to tell you what it was.
>
The
> fact that they weren't predetermined doesn't eliminate them as strucural
> elements. No melody, no harmony, and no rhythm = no music.
I disagree. There's no discernable intended chord structure, the melody, if
you care to call it one, is spontaneous, unique, and unintended (as far as I
can tell) and there certainly is no 'time signature'. Seek it out
(http://www.rastascan.com/catalog/brd010.html) and let us know your analysis
of those three things. :) I'm not sure why you imply I shouldn't take his
statement literally, and instead substitute your more general "harmony" and
"rhythm" terms. But even then I disagree, though then it's simply a
question of one's definition of music. I side somewhere between Cage's
"organized sound" and "ear of the behearer", myself. Ymmv, of course.
v
Nils
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, this is interesting. If you take away chord structure, melody,
> > > and time signature, what structural elements have you got left?
>
> First - who said anything about eliminating melody or time time signature?
> Very little of what is termed "free jazz" eliminates melody. The vast
> majority of it has composed melody that is used as a basis for the
> improvisation, just as in more traditional forms of jazz. And even in those
> freely improvised pieces that include no composed melody whatsoever, there
> is still virtually always melody being improvised, except perhaps in the
> cases of percussion improvisations (and then, even that is debatable in many
> cases).
the late work by the classic coltrane quartet is a
great example of simple themes expanding to fill
space. (eg. ALS, sun ship) the structural
elements often consist of a theme of a few simple
notes, around which the improvisation develops.
more recent coltrane-inspired material also uses
this idea for improvisation. the charles gayle
record 'touchin on trane' takes simple themes and
states them directly before following a sort of
natural evolution thereafter. the recent eneidi/
parker/robinson disc 'cherry box' on eremite is
another fine example of this type of approach.
if you go looking for chord progressions, or even
some kind of fixed meter, you'll end up dry. the
advantage of leaving so much wide-open space is
that the performers can bring their own personal
vision to the music, as far as the ideas which
naturally flow from melodic simplicity. (and
'color drummers' of the post-ali, post-murray
school offer a degree of sophistication in their
approach which defies timekeeping in the pursuit
of higher-order structures and thematic evolution.)
n
Walter Davis
wonderful Phil Kline performance. In part 1, he took 12
cheap, small boomboxes with short tape loops inside. He
went to boombox1, hit record and sung into its cheapo
mike "Woman, you need me" is pseudo-Robert Plant
falsetto. He let that play as he went to bb2 and
repeated the process. (Except of course bb2 picks up
bb1 playing as well). On down the line for all 12, then
repeat. I couldn't possibly describe what it sounded
like or why it worked, but it was a pretty incredible,
and structured piece of music. And you'd be amazed how
loud 12 boomboxes can get even in a loud rock club.
The second piece was similar, except I think this was 22
boomboxes, filled with some longer taped bit and handed
out to members of the audience, who then wandered around
the club and outside. Since of course we couldn't all
press the play buttons at the exact same time and each
of the decks ran at slightly different speeds, the music
quickly gets 'out of synch'. Moreover, with us
wandering around, each person in the audience is getting
a different mix. Now that effect is pretty random
(though I suppose technically recreatable), but you
still experienced these waves of music, as if there were
22 bands playing the same tune, with some slightly
behind the beat, some slightly ahead, which gives you a
sort of repeating crescendo effect, if that makes sense.
I realize that pieces like this sound stupid when
written down. And, of course, "anybody could do that."
But the result really was quite musical, engaging, and
dare I say thrilling.
Tom Walls
says...
Not really that curious.
I'm not sure why you imply I shouldn't take his
>statement literally, and instead substitute your more general "harmony" and
>"rhythm" terms.
I thought that was what he was getting at, but I could be wrong.
But even then I disagree, though then it's simply a
>question of one's definition of music. I side somewhere between Cage's
>"organized sound" and "ear of the behearer", myself. Ymmv, of course.
>
>v
Let me get this straight. I thought that your statement implied that harmony,
melody, and meter only exist as structural elements when they are
predetermined. But that was not your intent. Or was it? [head tilted askew,
eyebrow raised]
Vincent Kargatis / Anne Larson
> >> In article <98218644...@athnrd02.forthnet.gr>,
lar...@ath.forthnet.gr
> >> says...
> >> >A group out of the Bay Area called Pluto did a funny piece called "The
> >> >Pledge", where, you might guess, everyone had to play the Pledge of
> >> >Allegiance together - no chords, melody, or time signature (beyond the
> >> >spontaneous one that arises whenever people say the Pledge together
:).
> Let me get this straight. I thought that your statement implied that
harmony,
> melody, and meter only exist as structural elements when they are
> predetermined. But that was not your intent. Or was it? [head tilted
askew,
> eyebrow raised]
That wasn't my intent, no. They could certainly be identified as coming
from non-predetermined sources - spontaneous ones, for example (two
musicians spontaneously deciding to complement each other, or something).
But that identification has to come from somewhere, perhaps through intent,
or recognition. But it's not necessary to have either of those, regarding
specific identifications like melody or harmony. Unless you use fairly
useless definitions of such, like "any temporal sequence of tones" and "any
simultaneous collection of tones", respectively. That kind of definition
wouldn't reveal any recognizable structure to anyone, I'd warrant. And I
would have to be convinced that *random* occurences of melody and harmony as
defined by the listener revealed anything about structural elements in the
piece. Again, I stand by my statement (based, perhaps, on an imperfect
memory) that no identifiable chord structure, melody (as the term means to
me), or time signature is present in Pluto's "The Pledge", which happens to
have readily identifiable structure. Anyone else who's heard it care to
weigh in? :)
I, and others in the thread, are simply trying to point out that structural
elements exist outside the purview of Richard Whitehouse's original
statement.
vince
Marc Sabatella
> >> Ok, this is interesting. If you take away chord structure, melody,
> >> and time signature, what structural elements have you got left?
> >A group out of the Bay Area called Pluto did a funny piece called "The
> >Pledge", where, you might guess, everyone had to play the Pledge of
> >Allegiance together - no chords, melody, or time signature (beyond the
> >spontaneous one that arises whenever people say the Pledge together :).
> Hold everything. You just described an event that likely had all three.
The
> fact that they weren't predetermined doesn't eliminate them as strucural
> elements.
I don't see this as likely at all. It probably had melody (albiet, as you
observe, not a predetermined one), but music improvised in this fashion is
not likely to have any "chord" structure" at all. The mere fact more than
one different pitch might happen to be sounding at once is not the same as a
chord structure, which is something considerably more specific. Chords
progressions don't have to be predetermined to count, but unless you go out
of your way to create a chord structure during free improvisation, there
generally will not be one. Similarly, while the piece as described
undoubtedly had a "rhythm", in the sense that any event that take place over
time can be considered to form a rhythm, that is not at all the same as a
"time signature", which implies a much more specific sense of order.
Not that any of this is actually all that relevant - no one with even a
passing familiarity with the range "free jazz" would claim that most of it
is without melody or time signature; that was a red herring.
Tom Walls
says...
Agreed. I had interpretted R. Whitehouse's words more broadly. I thought he
was referring to melody, harmony, and rhythm which IMHO is the whole ball of
wax. After reading Vincent's reply and seeing Richard agree with a troll on
the nature of free jazz, I think I was probably wrong.
Richard Whitehouse
>> tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu wrote:
>> >Not that any of this is actually all that relevant - no one with even a
>> >passing familiarity with the range "free jazz" would claim that most of it
>> >is without melody or time signature; that was a red herring.
>> >--------------
>> >Marc Sabatella
>> >ma...@outsideshore.com
>>
>> Agreed. I had interpretted R. Whitehouse's words more broadly. I thought
>> he
>> was referring to melody, harmony, and rhythm which IMHO is the whole ball of
>> wax. After reading Vincent's reply and seeing Richard agree with a troll on
>> the nature of free jazz, I think I was probably wrong.
So, you're saying that free jazz actually does have time signatures?
I suppose you could say that there are various degrees of "freeness".
For instance, you could have time signature and chord structure, but
the soloist plays free. Or, you could have time signature, but the
the chord structure and soloists are free. Or, the whole thing could
be free - no time signature, no chord structure, free blowing.
Can a pulse be considered a time signature? Is it actually 1/1?
Maybe.
Just because a peice has a 'head' at the beginning that everyone plays
together, I dont' think you can really say that the entire peice has
melody. We're talking jazz music here, so there's going to be
soloing. I think I'm referring more to the soloing than the 'head'.
I think that what I was trying to ask the proponents of free jazz, and
it was a serious question, was: if you remove time signature, chord
structure, and melody, what structural elements are left? Meaning,
I'd like to hear from the free jazz proponents how they view the
structural components of the music - what are they doing?
Yes, I agreed with Terry, I suppose that was a troll, but it could
also be considered an opinion. I have an opinion on free jazz, and on
Braxton in particular, but that doesn't stop me from keeping an open
mind. I'm interested to try to understand what motivates the free
jazz proponents, even if I don't like the result, or agree with the
approach.
Tom Walls
>
>
>So, you're saying that free jazz actually does have time signatures?
>I suppose you could say that there are various degrees of "freeness".
> For instance, you could have time signature and chord structure, but
>the soloist plays free. Or, you could have time signature, but the
>the chord structure and soloists are free. Or, the whole thing could
>be free - no time signature, no chord structure, free blowing.
>
It's a mistake to think that the rubric "free jazz" applies to a single
approach to jazz. As an earlier poster pointed out, it would be much more
accurate to say that "free" implies freedom from conventional harmony. So if
you investigate "free jazz" thoroughly, you'll find wholly improvised music,
notated music, conventional rhythms, arhythmic music, tonality, atonality,
etc.
snip
>
>Yes, I agreed with Terry, I suppose that was a troll, but it could
>also be considered an opinion. I have an opinion on free jazz, and on
>Braxton in particular, but that doesn't stop me from keeping an open
>mind. I'm interested to try to understand what motivates the free
>jazz proponents, even if I don't like the result, or agree with the
>approach.
>
You obviously have an opinion of some music you heard that you identify as
"free", but it seems as though you aren't very familiar with the scope of the
music. I venture to say that most musicians who play free music also play
conventional music. Their motivation is simply the desire to pursue a goal
that happens to fall outside of a conventional framework.
Richard Whitehouse
http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/twombly2.htm
which is an article about an expressionist painting.
To someone who's not into painting, this is an extremely funny web
page. The painting in question looks to me, an admitted outsider to
the painting world, like scribbles, like the work of a 3-year old.
Then you have this highly erudite, learned dissertation on all the
nuances and and intricacies of this painting. The writer is very
earnest and takes a very serious tone.
Looked at from that perspective, it's highly amusing. I urge you to
visit this page, and be either absorbed by the intellectual
discussion, or amused by the whole scene.
Tom W. Ferguson
> visit this page, and be either absorbed by the intellectual
> discussion, or amused by the whole scene.
Thank you, Richard. Made my day so far.
Marc Sabatella
> So, you're saying that free jazz actually does have time signatures?
Much of it, yes.
> I suppose you could say that there are various degrees of "freeness".
Absolutely. Freedom implies freedom from some particular restraint; all
jazz ("free" or otherwise) can be seen as matter of what restraints you
choose to abide by and which you choose to free yourself from.
> Or, the whole thing could
> be free - no time signature, no chord structure, free blowing.
Except that, as I mentioned, there are plenty of other structures you may
well still be following.
> Can a pulse be considered a time signature? Is it actually 1/1?
> Maybe.
If there is an identifiable steady tempo, then one can definitely think of
it in terms of time signature, although it might be one that changes every
"measure". This is definitely an example of someone freeing themself from
one type of restraint but choosing to obey another.
> Just because a peice has a 'head' at the beginning that everyone plays
> together, I dont' think you can really say that the entire peice has
> melody.
Why not? Is improvised melody not nonetheless melody? Or was Louis
Armtrong's introduction to "West End Blues" not melodic? Coleman Hawkins'
take on "Body And Soul"? Miles Davis' solo on "So What"? I'm afraid I
don't understand the distinction you are making here. How can those be
considered to have melody yet Ornette Coleman's improvisation on "Lonely
Woman" not?
> I think that what I was trying to ask the proponents of free jazz, and
> it was a serious question, was: if you remove time signature, chord
> structure, and melody, what structural elements are left?
And I believe I gave you several answers to that, with the understanding
that no one has ever advocated removing melody. Notions of soloing over
accompaniment, dialog between musicians, tension and release structures.
Jeff Beer
>Richard Whitehouse <richard_w...@cbc.ca>:
> > Can a pulse be considered a time signature? Is it actually 1/1?
> > Maybe.
I have always known this as meterless pulse. There are other forms of music
where you have this, there is an instrumental form in North Indian music
which has this after the alap and before the drummer comes in. I have heard
gong ensembles in Borneo with this too. Maybe Timor or other of the
eastward islands in the Indonesian archipelago too but I cannot remember.
Since there are events which definitely bring things to a one, you might
consider that as meter, and when the number of beats change every "measure",
they sometimes call that additive rhythms.
Ornette and Blackwell often had things which is like this, especially with
Blackwell's "parade" groove and Charlie Haden doing pedals with rhythmic
patterns. One thing for certain, they do not have the meter structure
planned in advance. The reason they do not is because they are improvisers
and this is something that can be improvised. As an improviser, you always
are adjusting. Harmonically, Ornette's music has been called a constant
modulation, and rhythmically, it follows the same logic. If you want
something in the way of an Xs-and-Os-play-by-play, if it sounds turned
around momentarily, they can play something which gets it un-turnedaround
and completes a cadence. Or they can keep going with the turnaround feel if
they think it sounds cool. If they are each playing something with a
different groupings, they can stay home with that and wait for it to resolve
and then they can go to the next thing. They are familiar enough with their
elements that they know how it turns out.
Other times you could have an elastic pulse which changes tempo. You might
put Coltrane's duets with Rashied Ali in this group, although I have heard
from a reliable source Coltrane and Ali always considered themselves to be
"playing time" when they did those.
There are cases where the big units are regular, but in between them you
have the elasticity that I was referring to.
Jeff
Top Catt
jb...@interracess.com says...
>
[snipped for brevity]
>
> Other times you could have an elastic pulse which changes tempo. You might
> put Coltrane's duets with Rashied Ali in this group, although I have heard
> from a reliable source Coltrane and Ali always considered themselves to be
> "playing time" when they did those.
> There are cases where the big units are regular, but in between them you
> have the elasticity that I was referring to.
>
> Jeff
>
Interesting subject; it's kind of related (at least in my mind),
to the question of whether free jazz can ever be said to swing.
The Coltrane-Ali duets, and a lot of Cecil Taylor's post-1960
recordings are good cases in point. While this music may not
"swing" in the same sense as a hard-charging number by the Basie
band, there's a tremendous feeling of what might be called
"forward momentum."
I once snuck a peek at a Taylor score, between sets at a club
(the music had been left on the music stands). I discovered that
he only notates the pitches; none of the notes had flags on them,
and there was no indication of a time signature. So, the Unit
material is purely melodic, and the musicians are given a great
deal of latitude as to how they play the themes. At least that's
how it appeared to me; I'm only a so-so reader and I didn't have
time to look at the music in any real detail. But I believe we're
talking "pulse" here, a pulse that's learned from a lot of
playing with Cecil (who's known for staging marathon rehearsals).
T.C.
leedavid1449
>
> Why not? Is improvised melody not nonetheless melody? Or was Louis
> Armtrong's introduction to "West End Blues" not melodic? Coleman Hawkins'
> take on "Body And Soul"? Miles Davis' solo on "So What"? I'm afraid I
> don't understand the distinction you are making here. How can those be
> considered to have melody yet Ornette Coleman's improvisation on "Lonely
> Woman" not?
>
melody in it's simplest form can be defined like this:
A rhythmically organized sequence of single tones so related to one another as to make up a particular phrase or idea.
Structure with respect to the arrangement of single notes in succession.
The leading part or the air in a harmonic composition.
perhaps the confusion arises because of this definition of melody:
A pleasing succession or arrangement of sounds.
technically melody is simply a succession of single notes. If
they are pleasing, fine. It is when the notes are arranged in an
unconventional manner or to deliberately cause dissonance, that people
object and say "well that was not melodic at all! It was just a bunch
of notes played at random!"
marcp
zeno
context see this painting in terms of some kind of signifigance in
relation to the rest of art history, and as such definitely enjoy it and
invest in it in order to possess it. The artist likewise, I suspect,
takes himself seriously somehow, that is he has worked out some art
philisophical meaning for himself that keeps him engaged in this
particular line of creation. I suspect that some people would see a
kind of paralell to jazz they naively hear as a bunch of worthless
noise, eg. scribbles. Maybe Twombly is doing some kind of "free"
painting, although that is not a term that is normally used in the realm
of painting.
Zeno
zeno
"Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote:
Anyone who has ever touched a piano keyboard knows that although the concept
of doing some kind of random mashing of the keys might be possible in one's
imagination, the actuality is that ,in the end, the fingers have to commit to
striking notes and in that last instant, in a sense, there must be a kind of
intention in order to strike the note so that it rings out. You cannot really
do a run without hitting individual notes somewhere in the mashing and this,
alas, suggests a kind of intentionality. The piano is digital, you either hit
the note or you don't.
Think of the many known maestros who have quoted a Tayloresque passage, I
believe, they had to learn it ,more or less. the same way they had to learn
anything else they finger, otherwise it would not sound exactly right , it
might, for example, sound too harmonic or too diatonic or something. I was
listening to some Chucho Valdes on the radio and I heard him incorporate a
Tayloresque passage and started to think about someone like him, with proven
"inside" capabilities, learning this. I really do not think it is a matter of
him saying to himself "now I wlll just mash the keyboard randomly without any
intention". If nothing else, he, with all his known "inside" chops would ,at
least ,have to consciously play something intentionally avoiding all the
things he knows that do not sound like Taylor.
Lord knows, in my natural laziness, that I wish it were so that a concept of
randomly mashing the keyboard could lead to manifesting something of any
interest on the piano, It just ain't in the cards. Cecil practiced many
intense years perfecting his technique of getting the piano to sound like he
is randomly mashing the keys. The cat has Chops up the wazoo. This is the
ironic modernist twist to this whole thing. Cecil committed his whole life to
mastering a technique that would embrace the wide world of randomness, but in
the end it takes a ton of chops.
One might ask: why do this? I think it has something to do with the fierce
'tradition of the new' which motivates the creative artist, especially ones
who exists in a culture largely deprived of a preserved ancient folkloric
tradition. There is something in the American socio-economic-political fabric
which seems to resist the settling in of a mainstream commonality regarding a
specific national music and dance tradition. Always the cutting edge. The
belief, however possibly deluded, that the avante garde is 'what's happening'.
Cecil wanted to be able to invent musical configurations directly from the
most all-inclusive set of possibilities, and as such, one has to prepare
oneself for hearing things drawn from that context. One does not expect the
sound and/or visual patterns in nature (a running stream, the shape of clouds,
etc.) to meet with one's own mental limitations of previously comprehended
patterns, so why would you expect a creator like Cecil to fit your
preconceived structures and patterns. Maybe this is what he meant by his
comment about preparing yourself to hear him, it is more like "unprepare"
yourself to hear him. I am sure that if one applied the concepts of 'chaos
theory' to Cecil Taylor's music, all kinds of patterns and structures would be
evident, only on a new level, previously thought to be outside of music as we
know it. This might also be true in John Cage who more openly made it known
that he was tapping into, as best a human can, the realm of the random.
Like, did you know there are books with lists of random numbers, in case you
needed some. Cage did things like using imperfections in the paper to suggest
where the notes should be written, etc. This presuppposes a hugely
syncrhronistic universe, one that is actually quite liberating to visit, or
perhaps, even to live in.
It makes so much more into "good"!
It is a relief from the inherent and eternally perpetuated hostility of this
mundane illusionary and judgmental world.
Zeno
Top Catt
>
>
> "Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:56:19 GMT, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Amos Omondi wrote:
> >
> > >> In article <3A8766CE...@sonic.net>,
> > >> zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Do you consider what Taylor plays to be random? How do you figure the
> > >> > way he arrives at what he actually plays?
> >
> > >> Yes. He just goes out there and mashes the piano.
> >
>
> of doing some kind of random mashing of the keys might be possible in one's
> imagination, the actuality is that ,in the end, the fingers have to commit to
> striking notes and in that last instant, in a sense, there must be a kind of
> intention in order to strike the note so that it rings out. You cannot really
> do a run without hitting individual notes somewhere in the mashing and this,
> alas, suggests a kind of intentionality. The piano is digital, you either hit
> the note or you don't.
>
> Think of the many known maestros who have quoted a Tayloresque passage, I
> believe, they had to learn it ,more or less. the same way they had to learn
> anything else they finger, otherwise it would not sound exactly right , it
> might, for example, sound too harmonic or too diatonic or something.
[snipped for brevity]
A very thoughtful commentary. It's always struck me, over the
course of 20 years of going to Taylor performances, that those
moments of "mashing--" slamming his fists or his forearms into
the keyboard--happen when Cecil has built the emotional tension
in the music up to point at which consonance is no longer
sufficent to express what he's feeling. And, as he's said
himself, his music is primarily about feelings ("To feel is
perhaps the most terrifying thing in this society.").
Not only that, but there's a widely-accepted (by now) tradition
of using tone-clusters and other dissonant effects in modern
classical music. Not only is there Cage and his variously
"prepared" instruments, but there's also Charles Ives, Henry
Cowell, Conlon Nancarrow, and Olivier Messaien... all of whom
arrived at the use of dissonances via completely different paths.
Take Messiaen's use of bird song: since most of the pitches lie
well beyond the upper end of the keyboard, Messiaen followed the
practice of transposing the bird songs downward. Thus, in
something like "Catalogue D'Oiseaux," for piano, there are many
moments of thunderous bass that are reminsicent of Cecil
attacking the lower octaves of the Boesendorfer. This similarity
arises only because of the transposition of the bird songs--as a
side effect of transposing them down in order to get the upper
notes onto the treble end of the keyboard, the lower notes become
*very* low indeed. Not to mention that birds know nothing of
diatonic scales; their songs range from chromatic to microtonal,
in some cases, and they certainly don't "resolve" in the way that
humans understand the term. There's a resemblance, here, too, to
Cecil's method of playing the *whole* keyboard, as "88 tuned
bongos."
But the underlying philosphical motivations of Messaien and
Taylor are far from identical. Messiaen is expressing what's
really a rather conventional Roman Catholic religiousity; in his
mind, the bird songs "glorify God," and that's why he used
them. Cecil's never had a particularly religious agenda, as far
as I know, although he's expressed some pantheistic sentiments
from time to time. From what I can tell from those few
statements, he's probably more in sympathy with the "Gaia"
movement than with any mainstream religion.
The point of all this is that the present-day musical landscape
is a broad one, perhaps too broad for some people to take in--
which leads me back to the "mashing" comment. Could it be nothing
more than the result of an inability to see Taylor's music within
the broader contexts of 20th century music? I suspect that that
might be the case.
T.C.
zeno
Top Catt wrote:
Interesting comments and thanks for them. I might mention also Bartok, who arrived
at his own percussive based sonority. One of my all time favorite pieces by him,
among so many, is "Sonata for 2 Pianos & Percussion". btw your comment about the
keyboard as 88 bongos really hits home in that I primarily play both of those
instruments and do not unfortunately own a Bosendorfer (thus I only have those 88
to hit). Out in my studio I have a home -made set of BooBams (described in a
latter issue of EMI) which is literally a whole set of tuned bongo-like drums. Any
recommendation for a Messiaen beginner, recordings not printed music. I am a much
better record collector than a sight reader.
Zeno
Bill
>It makes so much more into "good"!
>
>It is a relief from the inherent and eternally perpetuated hostility of this
>mundane illusionary and judgmental world.
>
Maybe, but he still sounds like shit. I usually think thoughts like
that when I listen to Coltrane or just now when I heard Cannonball's
solo on "Love for Sale" or Charlie Mariano's solo on Mingus' "Celia".
Bill
Top Catt
preoccupied these days (there's a lot going on at work). Anyway,
if you'd like to hear some of Messiaen's piano music, I'd
recommend the aforementioned "Catalogue D'Oiseaux," Books 1-3;
Peter Hill, piano: Unicorn-Kanchana CD DKP(CD)9062. Also,
"Visions De L'Amen," for two pianos. There are several good
recordings of this available, but my favorite is the one by the
piano duo Double Edge (Edmund Niemann & Nurit Tilles). That's on
New Albion CD NA 045. Keeping in mind that the man's catalogue is
enormous (he was almost Ellingtonian in terms of sheer output),
I'd also recommend "Oeuvres Pour Piano et Orchestre," with Yvonne
Loriod (Mme. Messiaen) at the piano.
BTW, the "88 tuned bongos" description of Cecil's playing is that
of the British jazz writer Valerie Wilmer.
T.C.
Top Catt
lewee...@aol.comporkpie says...
> In article <3A904991...@sonic.net>, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> writes:
>
> >It makes so much more into "good"!
> >
> >It is a relief from the inherent and eternally perpetuated hostility of this
> >mundane illusionary and judgmental world.
> >
>
> Maybe, but he still sounds like shit.
That's what I love about Usenet... there's always some
thoughtful, reflective person waiting in the wings to elevate any
given discussion further. Now where's my seltzer bottle? Somebody
needs a "shpritz" full in the face...!
T.C.
zeno
Bill wrote:
> In article <3A904991...@sonic.net>, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> writes:
>
> >It makes so much more into "good"!
> >
> >It is a relief from the inherent and eternally perpetuated hostility of this
> >mundane illusionary and judgmental world.
> >
>
> Maybe, but he still sounds like shit.
you forgot to add "in your humble eternally perpetuated hostile mundane
illusionary judmental opinion" conveniently abbreviated IMHEPHMIJO (LOL).
> I usually think thoughts like
> that when I listen to Coltrane or just now when I heard Cannonball's
> solo on "Love for Sale"
I like that too....I have alot of listening time on my hands so I am open to
more.....than even Wynton Marsalis who probably doesn't enjoy Liebermann's
"Concerto For Jazz Band And Symphony Orchestra" with the Sauter-Finegan
Orchestra as much as I do.
> or Charlie Mariano's solo on Mingus' "Celia".
>
Is that a different "Celia" than the one by Bud Powell? I will have to go to the
stacks and check on that. At any rate, I enjoyed learnig the Powell tune after
being reminded of it in Paudras' book on Bud which was made more available after
the last reprinting.
It's all good
except what's bad....
Zeno
Jeff Beer
"Top Catt" <top_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14fa113a6...@news.flashcom.net...
> Now how could I have left out Bartok? I guess I'm a bit
> preoccupied these days (there's a lot going on at work). Anyway,
> if you'd like to hear some of Messiaen's piano music, I'd
> recommend the aforementioned "Catalogue D'Oiseaux," Books 1-3;
> Peter Hill, piano: Unicorn-Kanchana CD DKP(CD)9062. Also,
> "Visions De L'Amen," for two pianos. There are several good
> recordings of this available, but my favorite is the one by the
> piano duo Double Edge (Edmund Niemann & Nurit Tilles). That's on
> New Albion CD NA 045. Keeping in mind that the man's catalogue is
> enormous (he was almost Ellingtonian in terms of sheer output),
> I'd also recommend "Oeuvres Pour Piano et Orchestre," with Yvonne
> Loriod (Mme. Messiaen) at the piano.
For solo piano, "20 Regard Sur L'Enfant-Jesus" is also an excellent work. I
don't have Loriod's versions yet, I should get them. I have Anton Batagov's
from a Soviet era label and am happy with them. While I have not seen it
yet, there is a DVD out with probably Messiaen's most famous work, "Quartet
for the End of Time". It is famous as much for the circumstances it was
written and first performed, in a Nazi POW camp. In the first movement of
End of Time, there are some cool altered chords on piano that rotate around
an Indian tala. The DVD also includes selections of him improvising on
organ at the Paris-Trinity Church, a gig he had held for a long time.
There are three CDs with the Orchestre de l'Opera Bastille conducted by
Myung-Whun Chung that includes some of his last works that are very good.
Boulez has a CD with Et Exspecto Resurrectionem Mortuorum and Chronochromie.
These are two of my favorites, Exspecto is great for the brass and gongs,
and Chronochromie ("the color of time") is a stunning work for a huge
orchestra that is probably his most texture oriented work. His opera "Saint
Francois D'Assise" is also IMO one of his best works. I am not sure how
many recordings there are available, I know there is at least one with all 8
tableaux, but I have one that has only four of them, the live recording
conducted by Zagrosek. If you want any more info, email me.
JAZZ CONTENT HERE:
The Jack Walrath CD "Gut Feelings" features works composed and arranged by
Walrath for jazz group and strings. One of the selections is an
arrangement of Gagaku from Messiaen's Sept Haikai. It also has
Albinoni/Giazotto's famous Adagio, Charles Mingus' Jump Monk, and three
works by Walrath. Usually I am not impressed with the string writing by
jazz musicians in jazz settings, but this is very good stuff. The band is
Walrath tpt, Carter Jefferson (sax), Mike Cochrane (piano), Anthony Cox
(bass), and Ronnie Burrage (drums).
I can't think of any other Messiaen adaptations for jazz at this time. Oh,
I just did, Zorn did a selection from End of Time with his Naked City band
but he took it much too fast.
Jeff
Dennis J. Kosterman
>"Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote:
>> ... He also sometimes
>> "mashes the piano", but that's definitely not all he does.
>Anyone who has ever touched a piano keyboard knows that although the concept
>of doing some kind of random mashing of the keys might be possible in one's
>imagination, the actuality is that ,in the end, the fingers have to commit to
>striking notes and in that last instant, in a sense, there must be a kind of
>intention in order to strike the note so that it rings out. You cannot really
>do a run without hitting individual notes somewhere in the mashing and this,
>alas, suggests a kind of intentionality. The piano is digital, you either hit
>the note or you don't.
The rest was interesting and well-written, and I agree with most of
it, but I've deleted it because it isn't relevant to the comment I'm
about to make. Which is: he does too sometimes "mash" the piano! I
mean, I've seen and heard him literally give the keyboard a forearm
smash (as somebody put it a few days ago). I believe he does this "for
effect", that the concept of the forearm smash and its temporal
relation to the rest of the music may be premeditated, but you can't
tell me that he knows exactly which notes his forearm is going to
"mash". I'm not saying this as a criticism. I think it's a valid
effect, and in general, I think he does know what he's doing. I don't
think he's playing random notes. But I don't think every note is
necessarily a conscious choice, either, especially when he's playing
clusters (i.e., forearm smashes).
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Nils
"Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote:
>
>
> The rest was interesting and well-written, and I agree with most of
> it, but I've deleted it because it isn't relevant to the comment I'm
> about to make. Which is: he does too sometimes "mash" the piano! I
> mean, I've seen and heard him literally give the keyboard a forearm
> smash (as somebody put it a few days ago). I believe he does this "for
> effect", that the concept of the forearm smash and its temporal
> relation to the rest of the music may be premeditated, but you can't
> tell me that he knows exactly which notes his forearm is going to
> "mash".
yes; there was a piano composer whose name escapes
me at the moment--john cage admired his work--who
designed a piece of wood at just exactly the right
length to hit every key on the piano. this is
your prototypical "masher". i think there was some
point to it, but i have a hard time imagining
exactly what.
this discussion harkens back to one we had a couple
years ago (my beard is long and grey) about don
pullen, and d.d. jackson, and the fact that pullen
made a point of doing exactly that: "mashing" the
piano. a fist or two in the right direction and
you get clusters flying. now some would decry this
approach as "unmusical" (and i'm sure they still do)
but i find pullen's work moving in the deepest way.
n
Zapbailey
>me at the moment--john cage admired his work--who
>designed a piece of wood at just exactly the right
>length to hit every key on the piano.
Charles Ives. In one of his pieces (can't
remember which one) there is an instruction to lay a piece of wood of specific
dimension across a certain area of the keyboard and press down. In his Piano
Sonata No.2, there are some very specifically notated all black key or white
key forearm chords spanning two octaves.
Art
Hide my true feelings toward my online service to email me.
Bill
>> or Charlie Mariano's solo on Mingus' "Celia".
>>
>
>Is that a different "Celia" than the one by Bud Powell? I will have to go to
>the
>stacks and check on that. At any rate, I enjoyed learnig the Powell tune
>after
>being reminded of it in Paudras' book on Bud which was made more available
>after
>the last reprinting.
>
It's on "Mingus,Mingus,Mingus,Mingus,Mingus"
Mingus was a genius, Taylor is yanking your chain. Notice that all
the great ones could actually play? Not just chops, but could make a
song sound pretty, and play the blues? I'd really like to hear a
recording where Taylor makes a song sound good, and plays the
blues.
Bill
Steve Emerson
>
> "Top Catt" <top_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.14fa113a6...@news.flashcom.net...
> > Now how could I have left out Bartok? I guess I'm a bit
> > preoccupied these days (there's a lot going on at work). Anyway,
> > if you'd like to hear some of Messiaen's piano music, I'd
> > recommend the aforementioned "Catalogue D'Oiseaux," Books 1-3;
> > Peter Hill, piano: Unicorn-Kanchana CD DKP(CD)9062. Also,
> > "Visions De L'Amen," for two pianos. There are several good
> > recordings of this available, but my favorite is the one by the
> > piano duo Double Edge (Edmund Niemann & Nurit Tilles). That's on
> > New Albion CD NA 045. Keeping in mind that the man's catalogue is
> > enormous (he was almost Ellingtonian in terms of sheer output),
> > I'd also recommend "Oeuvres Pour Piano et Orchestre," with Yvonne
> > Loriod (Mme. Messiaen) at the piano.
>
> For solo piano, "20 Regard Sur L'Enfant-Jesus" is also an excellent work. I
> don't have Loriod's versions yet, I should get them. I have Anton Batagov's
> from a Soviet era label and am happy with them.
Of the Loriod "Vingt Regards..." performances, only the Erato is in
print at the moment, but I'd recommend it highly. The music holds
together extremely well in her hands; which is not always the case with
these pieces.
The piano music of both Schoenberg and Alban Berg should also be
mentioned in context of this discussion. The uninformed assume that the
works are devoid of emotion and coldly abstract, but that's anything but
the case. And the Schoenberg pre-serial works, like the Berg sonata, are
downright accessible. For the Schoenberg, Maurizio Pollini's recording
is as good a place as any to start. Paul Jacobs and Glenn Gould are
equally compelling.
SE.
zeno
Bill wrote:
So you are one of those guys who has to play and enjoy every record you buy. I
am a collector addict...I didn't say how often I actually play his records, but
I do have them. I do seem to remember, in my nervous and more angry youth, that
I did play "The World Of Cecil Taylor" when it first came out. Then later I used
to play and get into "Live at Montmarte" when I was throwing paint around in the
studio. Admittedly, now in my more sedate years. I find I don't play Cecil as
much. Then the other day I walked into a little record store in Petaluma and the
proprietor was playing some Cecil (the other Candid LP) and it sounded so cool.
You know how like you re-discover a record you already have when you hear it on
the radio while driving around town, well, it was the same experience. So I am
rediscovering the mosaic set I have which is the cool stuff on Candid. Sure,
Cecil, like me and a whole lot of others, wish they could play like Bud or
Monk....or even Jimmy Yancey for that matter, but you do what you can do.
Zeno
zeno
"Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote:
Right, I forgot to acknowledge your point when you first made it. I should have
footnoted the exception of random clusters and elbow mashes. They used to say
Monk did this too. Actually, I did see Monk do this once, use his elbows etc., at
the Hollywood Bowl (a long time ago) and he was barefoot. Actually I was also
exaggerating a bit. I can play, more or less, with random mashing, and two things
happen: one, it really does sound like shit, and two, the technique very quickly
demands that you actually start committing to hitting the notes . This
immediately brings up the question of your actual intentions.
Zeno
zeno
zeno wrote:
Mashing, like any other technique , is subject to "editing". That is, after you try
it, you may need to adjust it to fit the effect or feeling you were after. So even
these mashing techniques, in a sense, are not completely random. Some mashing sounds
better than others.
Top Catt
[snipped for brevity]
> Actually I was also
> exaggerating a bit. I can play, more or less, with random mashing, and two things
> happen: one, it really does sound like shit, and two, the technique very quickly
> demands that you actually start committing to hitting the notes . This
> immediately brings up the question of your actual intentions.
>
> Zeno
Perhaps slightly OT (but perhaps not), there's a movie bio of
Jackson Pollock coming out soon. Pollock was sneered at for his
technique during his lifetime (he was called "Jack the Dripper,"
among other things), but in his hands, the drip-and-splatter
technique worked wonderfully. Even in reproduction, Pollock's
more successful canvases are things of great beauty, and I'd say
the same for Cecil's moments of using his fists and forearms on
the keyboard. As I suggested earlier, it works because he's
carefully built up the context for it; listen to "Abyss," the
first section of "Silent Tounges." Near the end, it seems that
he's done everything that's humanly possible on a piano (and then
some, with his hands flying all over the keyboard in a blur), so
he goes into a climactic series of forearm-smashing tone
clusters. It succeeds--absolutely--as a moment of tremendous
emotional release, because the emotional tension has been built
up until the music is like a volano that's ready to blow.
There's a great deal of difference between that and just randomly
banging the keys, which can indeed "sound like shit," although I
sometimes like to use that as a sort of free-association approach
to improvising, myself. However, if I start off with a series of
more-or-less random tone clusters, it's never long before I find
myself playing melodically in an identifiable key (matter of
temperament, I suppose).
T.C.
Bill
>So you are one of those guys who has to play and enjoy every record you buy.
Well, that would be nice, but I've found that many of the recordings that I
like
the most are recordings that I didn't get on first hearing, like Coltrane's
"Love Supreme" and Mingus "Ecclusiastics". I didn't care much for
Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" album when I first heard it although I liked
Cannonball's solo on "Freddie Freeloader" a lot. Now that album is
one of my top 10.
>I
>am a collector addict...I didn't say how often I actually play his records,
>but
>I do have them. I do seem to remember, in my nervous and more angry youth,
>that
>I did play "The World Of Cecil Taylor" when it first came out. Then later I
>used
>to play and get into "Live at Montmarte" when I was throwing paint around in
>the
>studio. Admittedly, now in my more sedate years. I find I don't play Cecil as
>much. Then the other day I walked into a little record store in Petaluma and
>the
>proprietor was playing some Cecil (the other Candid LP) and it sounded so
>cool.
>You know how like you re-discover a record you already have when you hear it
>on
>the radio while driving around town,
Yes.
>well, it was the same experience. So I
>am
>rediscovering the mosaic set I have which is the cool stuff on Candid. Sure,
>Cecil, like me and a whole lot of others, wish they could play like Bud or
>Monk....or even Jimmy Yancey for that matter, but you do what you can do.
I don't want him to play like anybody else, I just want to hear music. I
*prefer*
eccentric styles like Eric Dolphy's, if they make sense, that's what jazz is
all about. But I don't think I'll ever get into Taylor, or late Coltrane.
Bill
zeno
Bill wrote:
In this regard, I guess I do see what Gene Lees was saying in KBJazz, eg. that he
respects Cecil playing whatever he wants, but that he, Gene, doesn't necessarily
listen to him. It is really hard for me to be negative about avante garde
anything, just an old die-hard habit I guess, however, it is true these days,
that I rarely find myself playing alot of the music you are referring to around
the house. There is so much else to listen to. Sometimes one is in a kind of
chaotic state where it make more sense (the 60s!!!), I still wonder if those
moods will strike again and tthen that music will sound appropriate again. I am
going to try it and I will let you know.
Zeno
zeno
Top Catt wrote:
Yes, I agree, very well put ideas. Pollack uncovered a whole other world of structure
and a world of elegant albeit hallucinatory figurization (is that a word?) . I totally
can trip out for hours in excited viewing of his work. I think I am going to re-listen
to some Cecil. btw, do you remember that old Montmarte live recording I mentioned
earlier.
Zeno
Top Catt
I believe you're referring to the trio recording with Sunny
Murray and Jimmy Lyons, from 1962. It's fascinating as a measure
of Cecil's development, since it came at a time when he wasn't
being recorded much, otherwise. Seems to fall right in between
his earlier, more linear style and the free jazz approach that
he'd developed by the time he recorded "Unit Structures."
Murray's drumming alone is fascinating to listen to; he was
playing in a much different style than when he started recording
with Ayler a couple of years later.
Unfortunately, the club's piano is in terrible shape, but the
album is still well worth owning. The currently in-print release
is Revenant CD 202, under the title "Nefertiti, The Beautiful One
Has Come" (which was also the title of the old Arista/Freedom
LP).
T.C.
zeno
Top Catt wrote:
OK. I am starting back into Cecil. I went to the shelf to see what I actually have. I
grabbed an LP called NY City R&B. Hey this stuff sounds great. I have a pretty good
handful of his records but I do not have the ones you mention.
Something else comes to mind here.
Whether it be Pollack or Taylor, if a person tries to do this stuff, one finds very
quickly a new appreciation. I realize this argument is usually poo-pooed, but I think
there is great truth to it. When someone tries to make a Pollack painting, thinking
there is nothing to it, they immediately gain an insight and an apprecition
(hopefully). Same with Taylor. God bless the natural receptive fan that does not need
to do this herself, or is open the the recommendations of someone who has tried this
test. Appreciation is its own reward. I am totally stoked that I have gone out of my
way to develop an appreciation for all kinds of stuff that some kind not naturally
inviting at our present state of history. Everything from Cecil Taylor to 20's Cuban
Sones to Pretentious Kenton extravaganzas (forgive me, I grew up in Hollywood), to Art
Ensemble, to Ornette, to Henry Mancini and Pete Rugolo, to Joe Loco etc etc. As I
said, I have set it up so I have alot of listening time in my life style. Openess to
everything creates a momentary elation and the illusion that you will live forever.
eg. like I even have time for this. More often that not I find some value somewhere
along the line....if nothing else an obscure tune to cover with my own arrangement of
it.
Zeno
Here is what I have on hand:
Mosaic "Complete Candid"
Great Concert Of (box)
Conquistador
Live at the Cafe Montmartre
Looking Ahead
Unit Structures
In Transition ( bluenote 2-fer reissue)
{Coltrane Time }
In other words, just your basic default timid non committal smattering. Also I just
ordered Love For Sale (I think that is what it was---damn geezer memory)
So what are the 2 or 3 essential next steps coming from your more informed in-depth
dedication. I guess those that you mention above, right, for starters?
Top Catt
[snipped again]
>
> OK. I am starting back into Cecil. I went to the shelf to see what I actually have. I
> grabbed an LP called NY City R&B [...]
To answer your Taylor question in detail, "Silent Tongues" is a
must. If I had to choose one album of his as his single greatest,
it would be that one (meaning no disrespect to Jimmy Lyons or any
of his other collaborators).
That early Niedlinger/Shepp/Charles period is a good point of
entry; not only does the music stand up very well as a body of
work, but it gives the lie to the charge that Cecil could never
swing. He swings very hard indeed, and when he trades fours with
Dennis Charles, that's something to hear (also gives you an idea
why, from the beginning, so many of the best drummers have been
drawn to Cecil).
I'll fast-forward to the 70's--you should get "Akisakila,"
(Taylor/Lyons/Cyrille), which is extremely intense; here, the
Unit reaches a still higher plateau of energy. The recording is
only so-so (a bit "echoey," in a large hall), but it's a must.
also, "The Eighth," from 1981, the finest hour of the Taylor-
Lyons partnership--jimmy is white-hot here. Then there's the solo
album "Air Above Mountains," on which Cecil's in fine form (he
always seems to respond well to a live audience), and the sound
of the Boesendorfer is captured nicely.
Anything from the 1987-88 Unit with Carlos Ward, Leroy Jenkins,
Thurman Barker, and William Parker is worthwhile, too. The energy
level is down a notch without Jimmy, but the music tends to be
more expansive and less compressed. Might be more to your taste
if you also like "Conquistador."
Cecil's big-band album "Winged Serpent-Sliding Quadrants" is one
of only a couple of Taylor projects with larger groups (at least
the ones that got reacorded; he played fairly reguarly with a 10-
to-15 piece Unit in N.Y in the 80's). That's worth a listen, as
is the earlier "Jazz Composers' Orchestra," which is easy to miss
because it was released under Michael Mantler's name. But, as
with the Gil Evans "Into the Hot," Cecil's in the driver's seat
much of the time.
Whew... that ought to be enough to get you started. Have fun &
happy listening.
T.C.
Jeff Beer
"Zapbailey" <zapb...@aol.com.sucks> wrote in message
news:20010219104007...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> >yes; there was a piano composer whose name escapes
> >me at the moment--john cage admired his work--who
> >designed a piece of wood at just exactly the right
> >length to hit every key on the piano.
>
> Charles Ives. In one of his pieces (can't
> remember which one) there is an instruction to lay a piece of wood of
specific
> dimension across a certain area of the keyboard and press down. In his
Piano
> Sonata No.2, there are some very specifically notated all black key or
white
> key forearm chords spanning two octaves.
Yes, that's the one, the Concord.
Also, consider "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima", by Krzystof
Penderecki. The score has massive clusters with no clearly defined pitch
content, instead are instructions such as "Highest Tone Of The Instrument
(No Definite Pitch), "Play Between Bridge and Tailpiece", "Arpeggio on 4
Strings behind the Bridge", "Percussion Effect, Strike the Upper Sounding
Board of the Violin With the Nut or Bow or Finger Tips", or "Very Rapid
Nonrhythmisized Tremolo".
With all that, this work has a clear identity, and when you hear different
performances, you know it is the same work.
Jeff
Jeff Beer
> Perhaps slightly OT (but perhaps not), there's a movie bio of
> Jackson Pollock coming out soon. Pollock was sneered at for his
> technique during his lifetime (he was called "Jack the Dripper,"
> among other things), but in his hands, the drip-and-splatter
> technique worked wonderfully. Even in reproduction, Pollock's
> more successful canvases are things of great beauty, and I'd say
> the same for Cecil's moments of using his fists and forearms on
> the keyboard. As I suggested earlier, it works because he's
> carefully built up the context for it; listen to "Abyss," the
> first section of "Silent Tounges." Near the end, it seems that
> he's done everything that's humanly possible on a piano (and then
> some, with his hands flying all over the keyboard in a blur), so
> he goes into a climactic series of forearm-smashing tone
> clusters. It succeeds--absolutely--as a moment of tremendous
> emotional release, because the emotional tension has been built
> up until the music is like a volano that's ready to blow.
I read about that movie and can't wait to see it.
I saw a documentary, it was on Bravo, on J.P. in which he says "there is
no accident" in his paintings and his technique.
He likened it to the lasso of the Old West. In that documentary, there was
a discussion about this, and one of the talking heads said that in a square
inch, anybody could be a Jackson Pollack, but to sustain a gesture over the
large canvesses that J.P. liked was another matter. One thing you don't
get in the reproductions of JP is the size of the canvas, when you see the
in person, it has a much greater impact.
While we are on the topic of Silent Tongues, check out the very last track,
it is called After All No 2. It sounds like he is just playing the theme
of a composition with only a small amount of improvisation. The composition
has a very clear form, with the bass line descending chromatically. When
you listen to all of the stuff before it, you can hear the same themes, but
he will be working on them for a long time.
Jeff
Dennis J. Kosterman
>Here is what I have on hand:
>Mosaic "Complete Candid"
>Great Concert Of (box)
>Conquistador
>Live at the Cafe Montmartre
>Looking Ahead
>Unit Structures
>In Transition ( bluenote 2-fer reissue)
>{Coltrane Time }
>In other words, just your basic default timid non committal smattering. Also I just
>ordered Love For Sale (I think that is what it was---damn geezer memory)
>So what are the 2 or 3 essential next steps ... ?
Looks like you have just about all the early stuff, through the 60s,
but hardly anything after that. Which is OK -- most of what I would
call the "essential" CT albums are the earlier ones, because they
defined his aesthetic and his direction. Since then, he has simply
kept going in that direction, refining and developing his concept as
he goes. So it's hard to single out any one of his later albums as
essential. They're all excellent, though.
There are two basic types: solo piano, or with an ensemble. "Great
Concert" is typical of the later ensemble albums. I like the solo
albums better, because you can hear every amazing nuance of what he's
doing on the piano, without any other instruments getting in the way.
My favorite of these is "Looking (Solo Version)" on FMP -- he's
recorded a shitload of albums for FMP, mostly in 1988 and 1989.
Anyway, if you like "Looking (Solo)", you won't be disappointed in any
of his solo piano albums; and if you like "Great Concert", most of the
ensemble albums should agree with you. His chops, by the way, seem to
get more impressive by the year (and they were already awesome in the
50s).
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Richard Whitehouse
>> As I suggested earlier, it works because he's
>> carefully built up the context for it; listen to "Abyss," the
>> first section of "Silent Tounges." Near the end, it seems that
>> he's done everything that's humanly possible on a piano
Everything, that is, except sound good.
Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
Just joking. Someday, I hope to have enough free time to buy and
listen to even some Cecil Taylor records.
Bill
>Something else comes to mind here.
>Whether it be Pollack or Taylor, if a person tries to do this stuff, one
>finds very
>quickly a new appreciation. I realize this argument is usually poo-pooed, but
>I think
>there is great truth to it. When someone tries to make a Pollack painting,
>thinking
>there is nothing to it, they immediately gain an insight and an apprecition
>(hopefully). Same with Taylor.
I don't think I can buy it. When I heard Parker for the first time, I thought
he
was great. After learning to play his solos, I had a much greater appreciation
for the effort involved, both chop-wise and mentally, seeing how he hit
those notes on the chord at a fast tempo and making it make sense. But
the music was beautiful before and beautiful afterward.
>God bless the natural receptive fan that does
>not need
>to do this herself, or is open the the recommendations of someone who has
>tried this
>test. Appreciation is its own reward.
That's true. Keeping an open mind has led me to David Murray's Octet
recordings, some World sax quartet recordings that I like, Gato Barbieri's
early stuff on Flying Dutchman. But if it's just noise, then it's just noise.
>I am totally stoked that I have gone
>out of my
>way to develop an appreciation for all kinds of stuff that some kind not
>naturally
>inviting at our present state of history. Everything from Cecil Taylor to
>20's Cuban
>Sones to Pretentious Kenton extravaganzas (forgive me, I grew up in
>Hollywood)
I think Kenton may have had a greater impact than some think, especially
on Mingus. Listen to the tune "Art Pepper" on the Capitol CD "The Innovations
Orchestra." The tempo changes and the swirling sax behind the orchestra
certainly remind me of Mingus. Also, Art Pepper is fantastic, and makes
Paul Desmond seem like a pale imitation.
Bill
zeno
Bill wrote:
hmmm. I like them all at certain times. and Lee Konitz! he has done some really
great things over the years, and back then during the Kenton era as well. It
would never have occurred to me to compare Art Pepper with Paul Desmond. I sort
of think of the axes/axis [early]Frank Morgan/ Art Pepper and then maybe Paul
Desmond/Lee Konitz. Who knows about Mingus and Kenton, it would have been pretty
hard not to notice Kenton back then, man even Perez Prado was highly influenced,
I wonder if Mingus would not have said he owed it all the Ellington, then again
Kenton was omnipresent back then, interesting to think about.
Zeno
SJC
late Hoyt Curtin and who added a character or two to his monkier), meowed re:
Cecil Taylor-
>
>Not only that, but there's a widely-accepted (by now) tradition
>of using tone-clusters and other dissonant effects in modern
>classical music
Now THERE's an oxymoron (modern classical music.)
And now....we present "Save the Last Dance" quotes
"We have an audience...........Work with me."-Julia Stiles
"That lady was freaking"-Julia Stiles
"Gangsta Sarah!"-Sean Patrick tHOMAS"
Top Catt
gca...@aol.comegetit says...
> A Hanna-Barbera feline, (whose own cartoon had pretty jazzy music by the great
> late Hoyt Curtin and who added a character or two to his monkier), meowed re:
> Cecil Taylor-
> >
> >Not only that, but there's a widely-accepted (by now) tradition
> >of using tone-clusters and other dissonant effects in modern
> >classical music
>
> Now THERE's an oxymoron (modern classical music.)
>
This Cat(t)'s not going *there!* (Rowwwwwrr--fttt!).
T.C.
John Monroe
> I can't think of any other Messiaen adaptations for jazz at this time. Oh,
> I just did, Zorn did a selection from End of Time with his Naked City band
> but he took it much too fast.
Also, though it's uncredited, check out the second half of "In the
Beginning," from Don Pullen's "Evidence of Things Unseen." Large portions
of it are cribbed directly from Messiaen's "Visions de l'Amen."
John Monroe