I hate Wynton Marsalis
Ian McElroy
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Ulf
Ian McElroy <iandm...@home.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:SAnm6.385$o%6.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
zeno
Ian McElroy wrote:
> He's such a dink.
Did anyone watching KBJazz have flashbacks to Disney's "Song
Of The South", just curious?
Zeno
crib
records! i thank god for you, mr. mcelroy; your logical and well-reasoned
argument has won me over.
now, can someone convince me not to buy any cecil taylor -- perhaps by pointing
out that he's a "dorkus"?
crib
Bob
What's there against Wynton? He did a fine job on that recent PBS
series on Jazz. He was very knowlegeable and articulate. He traced
jazz from its origins (in gospel and blues) thru the swing era up to
the fusion era, which he marks as having begun with Bitches Brew.
I enjoy some of his music, in particular such pieces as Autumn Leaves,
Caravan and Little Drummer Boy.
He is no Miles Davis - but then Miles was a space creature, and I
doubt we will ever get a visit from one of them again.
Bob Knauer
---
Democracy is a form of religion - the worship of jackals by jackasses.
--H.L.Mencken
Bob
<aabj...@algonet.se> wrote:
>But, man, can he play!
Any specific recommendations - both album and piece?
I like Autumn Leaves, Caravan and Little Drummer Boy, to name a few.
zeno
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" wrote:
> But, man, can he play!
>
Right. And so can/could thousands of other trumpeters of as much or more
interest. Let's keep this in perspective.
Zeno
Bobby Knight
Let's not be foolish. I'm as tired of Wynton's supercilious attitude
as anyone, but there aren't dozens, much less thousands of trumpeters
with his abilities. Your perspective is somewhat skewed.
bk
zeno
zeno
Bobby Knight wrote:
I find almost all of the recorded trumpets in the history of jazz as
interesting and engaging. Then there are all the ones who did not or have
not yet recorded. I suspect my numbers are realistic. I do not evaluate on
technical dispay as much as personal expression and other forms of
inventiveness. To me Wynton is more the product of contempory careerism and
music education than of artistic individualism. He is ok, just not the
special for me.
Zeno
Bobby Knight
>I find almost all of the recorded trumpets in the history of jazz as
>interesting and engaging. Then there are all the ones who did not or have
>not yet recorded. I suspect my numbers are realistic. I do not evaluate on
>technical dispay as much as personal expression and other forms of
>inventiveness. To me Wynton is more the product of contempory careerism and
>music education than of artistic individualism. He is ok, just not the
>special for me.
>Zeno
I can accept this, and respect it, as an opinion even though I
disagree. Your earlier post was a little less circumspect.
bk
Mike O'Sullivan
--W.S Churchill
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3a9a89a3....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Mike O'Sullivan
nothing but a sense of ho-hum, very clever, but where is the sense of an
original mind at work?
"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@verio.net> wrote in message
news:bk6l9tk24nf3g733u...@4ax.com...
zeno
Bobby Knight wrote:
What exactly do you disagree with?
Could you give me some examples of trumpet players you like him better than.
Bobby Knight
<mi...@barnaby0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, TECHNICAL abilities yes, but why does his playing leave me with
>nothing but a sense of ho-hum, very clever, but where is the sense of an
>original mind at work?
point taken.
bk
Ian McElroy
just every time he talks it makes me laugh. I just think I got too much of
him during the KBJ series and wish he'd shut-up and play his trumpet.
ps- good come back I guess I should have made my point the first time but I
just couldn't think of what else to say.
"crib" <crib...@aol.com.go.away> wrote in message
news:20010226040122...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
Simon Weil
>>
>>> But, man, can he play!
>>>
>>
>>Right. And so can/could thousands of other trumpeters of as much or more
>>interest. Let's keep this in perspective.
>
>Let's not be foolish. I'm as tired of Wynton's supercilious attitude
>as anyone, but there aren't dozens, much less thousands of trumpeters
>with his abilities. Your perspective is somewhat skewed.
Enormously interesting...Never heard an rmb discussion like this before. I
guess it'll run and run. But just in case people aren't transfixed by the
prospect of 50 posts about WM, I want to mention that "Focus", the 1999 record
by Thirteen Ways (Fred Hersch, Michael Moore and Gerry Hemingway) is very good.
It has quirkiness that the Hersch/Frisell record has - and a sort of quiet,
strong, subtlety. People don't seem to talk much about Moore (who's an American
who has played a lot with Hemingway) - but I particularly like his clarinet
playing on this. I seem to have an affinity for clarinet and have also enjoyed
the John Carter records that I have heard. This sort of record, along with the
Clusone 3 stuff seems to represent a particular subsection of "avant-garde"
playing that I don't see much remarked on. A kind of accesible avant-garde
which retains an edge, but because it eschews the sort of flamethrower
expressivity associated with, say late Coltrane, can sort of be accepted into
polite society. I would also include Dave Douglas and Zorn's Masada material in
that. In some ways I think that's a pity, in that I feel that this "accessible
avant-garde" is perhaps succeeding at the expense of more primal music.
But I still like the Thirteen Ways disc.
Simon Weil
Bobby Knight
I'm smarter than that! In a forum such as this it is a death wish to
compare players. My disagreement is with this statement:
> >"Ulf Åbjörnsson" wrote:
> >
> >> But, man, can he play!
> >>
zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >Right. And so can/could thousands of other trumpeters of as much or more
> >interest. Let's keep this in perspective.
I just don't believe that there are thousands of others of as much or
more interest. I would trust that you would respect my opinion, as I
have yours.
bk
JC Martin
news:97d41p$36b$1...@zingo.tninet.se...
> But, man, can he play!
You mean in his "sheet music" period? *L*
-JC
JC Martin
How so? Wynton plays a lot of clichés. As far as playing jazz, their are
many trumpet players who can equal his technique. He may be the best
classical musician who can play jazz, but that in no way puts him on top in
the jazz world.
-JC
Bobby Knight
You really need to take a refresher course in reading. Who said he
was on top? Go back, read what was written, and do your best to
understand it. When you do, you'll realize that my contention is that
there are not thousands of trumpet players of as much, or more
interest.
bk
Bob
<mi...@barnaby0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The worst form of government, except for all the others.
>
>--W.S Churchill
Ol' Winnie was not very good on American history.
The US began as a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers
expressed a disdain for Demonocracy in any form - it's all there in
the written record.
Plato, in The Republic, Book Eight, states that Demonocracy is the
stage prior to Tyranny.
Bob Knauer
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> Ulf Åbjörnsson wrote:
> >But, man, can he play!
> Any specific recommendations - both album and piece?
> I like Autumn Leaves, Caravan and Little Drummer Boy, to name a few.
> Bob Knauer
>
and a programme I am particularly fond of is the Christmas Concert from
Carnegie Hall where he and his band shared the programme with some opera
singers and André Previn.
"Silent Night" in a Dukish arrangement stays in my memory.
Ulf
Ulf Åbjörnsson
trumpeters on Wynton's level or above.
Ulf
Top Catt
says...
> Bob skrev ...
> > Ulf Åbjörnsson wrote:
> > >But, man, can he play!
> > Any specific recommendations - both album and piece?
> > I like Autumn Leaves, Caravan and Little Drummer Boy, to name a few.
> > Bob Knauer
> >
> I do not have any albums with Wynton but I have heard him on TV some times
[...]
You... don't... have... any... of... his... albums!!??
Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor--I just fell out
laughing! Naughty boy, Ulf--you'd better go buy some Wynton
albums or papa Amos spank!
T.C.
JC Martin
Getting testy, are we?
Given that they're aren't really "thousands" of high-profile trumpet players
out there Bobby, your "contention" added relatively little value to the
thread. I think it was clear that Zeno was using hyperbole to make a
particular point...and I think most here understand his intent and what that
means. What's really the point of you playing school teacher?
-JC
JC Martin
Guess that makes you an expert then, eh Ulf? And how much Coltrane have you
listened to? Just his "sheet music" period, right? *LOL*
-JC
zeno
JC Martin wrote:
I always liked that Coltrane version of "After The Sheets Of Rain" on
Impulsive.
Zeno
bkn...@verio.net
<subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >technical dispay as much as personal expression and other forms of
>> >> >inventiveness. To me Wynton is more the product of contempory
>careerism
>> >and
>> >> >music education than of artistic individualism. He is ok, just not the
>> >> >special for me.
>> >> >Zeno
>> >> I can accept this, and respect it, as an opinion even though I
>> >> disagree. Your earlier post was a little less circumspect.
>> >> bk
>> >
>> >
>> >How so? Wynton plays a lot of clichИs. As far as playing jazz, their
>are
>> >many trumpet players who can equal his technique. He may be the best
>> >classical musician who can play jazz, but that in no way puts him on top
>in
>> >the jazz world.
>>
>> You really need to take a refresher course in reading. Who said he
>> was on top? Go back, read what was written, and do your best to
>> understand it. When you do, you'll realize that my contention is that
>> there are not thousands of trumpet players of as much, or more
>> interest.
>
>
>Getting testy, are we?
>
>Given that they're aren't really "thousands" of high-profile trumpet players
>out there Bobby, your "contention" added relatively little value to the
>thread. I think it was clear that Zeno was using hyperbole to make a
>particular point...and I think most here understand his intent and what that
>means. What's really the point of you playing school teacher?
My contention was just my opinion, which is what Usenet is all about.
Hyperbole is just that, and if you don't recognize that calling one on
hyperbole maybe you need a teacher.
bk
zeno
bkn...@verio.net wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:16:42 GMT, "JC Martin"
> <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >technical dispay as much as personal expression and other forms of
> >> >> >inventiveness. To me Wynton is more the product of contempory
> >careerism
> >> >and
> >> >> >music education than of artistic individualism. He is ok, just not the
> >> >> >special for me.
> >> >> >Zeno
> >> >> I can accept this, and respect it, as an opinion even though I
> >> >> disagree. Your earlier post was a little less circumspect.
> >> >> bk
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >How so? Wynton plays a lot of clichés. As far as playing jazz, their
> >are
> >> >many trumpet players who can equal his technique. He may be the best
> >> >classical musician who can play jazz, but that in no way puts him on top
> >in
> >> >the jazz world.
> >>
> >> You really need to take a refresher course in reading. Who said he
> >> was on top? Go back, read what was written, and do your best to
> >> understand it. When you do, you'll realize that my contention is that
> >> there are not thousands of trumpet players of as much, or more
> >> interest.
> >
> >
> >Getting testy, are we?
> >
> >Given that they're aren't really "thousands" of high-profile trumpet players
> >out there Bobby, your "contention" added relatively little value to the
> >thread. I think it was clear that Zeno was using hyperbole to make a
> >particular point...and I think most here understand his intent and what that
> >means. What's really the point of you playing school teacher?
>
> My contention was just my opinion, which is what Usenet is all about.
> Hyperbole is just that, and if you don't recognize that calling one on
> hyperbole maybe you need a teacher.
> bk
I never used the term "high profile" nor did you. Really I wasn't just using
hyperbole. In the history of jazz worldwide there are most definitely thousands.
If by "high profile" you mean those who have contributed to worthwhile
recordings that is still a very high number. Combine with that all the great
players who are out there who have not recorded and all the great Latin
musicians who also play exciting jazz, there most certainly are thousands. And
for my money I would listen to any of them just as soon as I would listen to
Marsalis. Just the other evening I was listening to something with some really
beautiful trumpet work, hold on and I will go look at the recording and see who
the hell that was......wait......
ok...it was either Doc Severinsen, Nick Travis, Joe Ferrante, Bobby Nichols, Al
Derise, or Al Maiorca. I don't have time right this moment to pin it down
further.
See what I mean. The iceberg is so much bigger than the hyped up little part
that peeks up over the water of any particular marketing moment. In the really
big picture Wynton ain't as much shit as he apparently thinks he is, and
certainly not to me. I have often walked into clubs and heard fabulous players
that were hitherto unkown to me. Same with recordings. Get real.
Zeno
Tom W. Ferguson
was using hyperbole to make a particular point...and I think most here
understand his intent and what that means. What's really the point of you
playing school teacher?"
We know J.C. was wrong because Zeno posted to say that no, he was not
indulging in hyperbole -- which I hadn't thought he was doing in the first
place . . . but I began to doubt myself after reading J.C.'s assertion that
I did not understand what most here understand. It wouldn't, after all, have
been the first time.
I thought Zeno had already made it quite clear that he was not indulging in
hyperbole when he posted earlier (my caps): "I find almost all of the
recorded trumpets in the history of jazz as interesting and engaging. Then
there are all the ones who did not or have not yet recorded. I SUSPECT MY
NUMBERS ARE REALISTIC."
But meanwhile, apparently Bobby Knight was also wrong about Zeno's
non-hyperbole -- although Bobby was quite right about insisting that he
never claimed Wynton is at the top of the heap . . . and further although it
is not entirely clear that Bobby believes Zeno's statements were hyperbole,
or simply does not believe that anyone can believe there are thousands of
trumpet players more engaging than Wynton Marsalis.
This all is but one example of why *I* -- despite not having spent enough
time listening to have any real opinion about his playing -- have grown to
hate Wynton Marsalis. I hope he doesn't take it personally.
Amos Omondi
loves us all, I
love him too.
> ----------
> From: crib...@aol.com.go.away
> (crib)[SMTP:crib...@aol.com.go.away]
> Posted At: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:01 PM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: I hate Wynton Marsalis
> Subject: Re: I hate Wynton Marsalis
Amos Omondi
Can't get him out of your head, can you? But, of course, he's
inconsequential, right?
bkn...@verio.net
>I never used the term "high profile" nor did you. Really I wasn't just using
>hyperbole.
I didn't bring up hyperbole, but responded to the word.
> In the history of jazz worldwide there are most definitely thousands.
>If by "high profile" you mean those who have contributed to worthwhile
>recordings that is still a very high number. Combine with that all the great
>players who are out there who have not recorded and all the great Latin
>musicians who also play exciting jazz, there most certainly are thousands. And
>for my money I would listen to any of them just as soon as I would listen to
>Marsalis. Just the other evening I was listening to something with some really
>beautiful trumpet work, hold on and I will go look at the recording and see who
>the hell that was......wait......
>
>ok...it was either Doc Severinsen, Nick Travis, Joe Ferrante, Bobby Nichols, Al
>Derise, or Al Maiorca. I don't have time right this moment to pin it down
>further.
>
>See what I mean. The iceberg is so much bigger than the hyped up little part
>that peeks up over the water of any particular marketing moment. In the really
>big picture Wynton ain't as much shit as he apparently thinks he is, and
>certainly not to me. I have often walked into clubs and heard fabulous players
>that were hitherto unkown to me. Same with recordings. Get real.
>
I am real. I have no problem with your opinion, so why the exhaustive
explanation of it? I just have a differing one. There's no argument
here.
bk
bkn...@verio.net
<t...@pathwaynet.com> wrote:
<clip well stated observations>
>This all is but one example of why *I* -- despite not having spent enough
>time listening to have any real opinion about his playing -- have grown to
>hate Wynton Marsalis. I hope he doesn't take it personally.
Me too.
bk
>
Amos Omondi
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:10:04 GMT, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>In the really
> >big picture Wynton ain't as much shit as he apparently thinks he is
>
Bob
wrote:
> >In the really
>> >big picture Wynton ain't as much shit as he apparently thinks he is
>Believe that hard enough and long enough, and it could well become true.
Is this the way they treated Miles Davis?
Are we about to experience something here?
I am certainly going to keep an eye on Marsalis now. Having such
strong critics is a sign of latent genius.
Mike Zimbouski
simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil) wrote:
> Enormously interesting...Never heard an rmb discussion like this before. I
> guess it'll run and run.
Rather like incontinence, that.
But just in case people aren't transfixed by the
> prospect of 50 posts about WM, I want to mention that "Focus", the 1999 record
> by Thirteen Ways (Fred Hersch, Michael Moore and Gerry Hemingway) is very
> good. It has quirkiness that the Hersch/Frisell record has - and a sort of
> quiet, strong, subtlety. People don't seem to talk much about Moore (who's an
> American who has played a lot with Hemingway) - but I particularly like his
> clarinet playing on this.
Moore's all right; not the most muscular player out there, but versatile,
my yes. And Hemingway is Hemingway. Still find it hard to get worked up
over Hersch, however. And I thought Moore was Dutch?
This sort of record, along with the
> Clusone 3 stuff seems to represent a particular subsection of "avant-garde"
> playing that I don't see much remarked on. A kind of accesible avant-garde
> which retains an edge, but because it eschews the sort of flamethrower
> expressivity associated with, say late Coltrane, can sort of be accepted into
> polite society. I would also include Dave Douglas and Zorn's Masada material
> in that. In some ways I think that's a pity, in that I feel that this
> "accessible avant-garde" is perhaps succeeding at the expense of more primal
> music.
Well, anything that is a step down from completely atonal noise is going
to do better than atonal noise, simply on the basis of what most people's
expectations of music are. Frankly, when it's something as gorgeous as a
Charms of the Night Sky disc, it's fairly hard to gainsay.
Mike Z
Tim
>Plato, in The Republic, Book Eight, states that Demonocracy is the
>stage prior to Tyranny.
And David Friedman (I believe) once called Democracy "tyranny of the
status quo".
/tim
sixti...@yahoo.com
crib
<< Having such strong critics is a sign of latent genius. >>
believe that long enough and hard enough, and...nah. it still won't be true.
crib
Tim
Very witty Zeno but isn't this thread about Wynton? I am not a huge
fan of Wynton's trumpet playing but feel I must chime in because noone
has bothered to mention his great contribution to the advancement of
scat singing.
/tim
sixti...@yahoo.com
crib
<< I thought Moore was Dutch? >>
i believe you're right; moore moved to amsterdam in the early eighties, and all
of his projects since have been based in europe. he was born in the states, but
i don't think it's accurate to refer to him as "an american."
crib
zeno
bkn...@verio.net wrote:
I definitely respect your opinion as you do mine.
I thought we were talking arithmetic.
{at this very moment I am digging trumpets: Cappy Oliver, Eddie Vandeveer, and
Chippie Outcalt.} ....Wynton would be proud.
Zeno
Simon Weil
> But just in case people aren't transfixed by the
>> prospect of 50 posts about WM, I want to mention that "Focus", the 1999
>record
>> by Thirteen Ways (Fred Hersch, Michael Moore and Gerry Hemingway) is very
>> good. It has quirkiness that the Hersch/Frisell record has - and a sort of
>> quiet, strong, subtlety. People don't seem to talk much about Moore (who's
>an
>> American who has played a lot with Hemingway) - but I particularly like his
>
>> clarinet playing on this.
>
>Moore's all right; not the most muscular player out there, but versatile,
>my yes.
Well he has that limpid tone you can get on clarinet and there's something
limpid about his playing also. Somehow he seems to be waiting around, seeing
what happens - and then responds. It makes him an ideal group player - and I
think that waiting and listening to others is part of the distinctiveness of
this group. I suppose I feel that, in his quiet, unassuming way he still makes
himself heard.
> And Hemingway is Hemingway.
A man with both power (when he wants to use it) and subtlety (which he uses all
the time).
>Still find it hard to get worked up
>over Hersch, however. And I thought Moore was Dutch?
Naah, US-born. Plays in Holland most of the time. Fred is an odd mixture. I
first heard him on a JMT duet record with Jane Ira Bloom from the 80s (this
record has yet to ba rereleased on CD). That was another lovely , subtle
affair. I agree that he has his nothingy sentimental side - But he has that
quiet understated side also. That's what you get on the JIB record and here and
on the Bill Frisell record. With that, because he lets the piano speak for
itself (or him through it) without worrying about excessive romanticism, his
every note can end up carring a weight. Which is a lot of the strength of this
recording. The other thing about him is he seems to have this little devil
inside him. On the Frisell record, there's a picture of him holding an
undersize trident - and there's something of that quality to his playing with
Frisell and with Moore and Hemingway. It gives him that quirky side and
sometimes makes one think of an understudy to Monk. Like Monk kept using
tritones - which are the devil's chord (or some such term) in classical music -
and it sounds like Hersch is sometimes the sorceror's apprentice.
>
>This sort of record, along with the
>> Clusone 3 stuff seems to represent a particular subsection of "avant-garde"
>> playing that I don't see much remarked on. A kind of accesible avant-garde
>> which retains an edge, but because it eschews the sort of flamethrower
>> expressivity associated with, say late Coltrane, can sort of be accepted
>into
>> polite society. I would also include Dave Douglas and Zorn's Masada
>material
>> in that. In some ways I think that's a pity, in that I feel that this
>> "accessible avant-garde" is perhaps succeeding at the expense of more
>primal
>> music.
>
>Well, anything that is a step down from completely atonal noise is going
>to do better than atonal noise, simply on the basis of what most people's
>expectations of music are. Frankly, when it's something as gorgeous as a
>Charms of the Night Sky disc, it's fairly hard to gainsay.
I just think there is a certain sort of avant- garde which is house trained and
accesible to the masses on those terms - and there's another sort of
avant-garde that you let into your house and starts chewing the carpet and
frightening the neighbours. I don't think Dave Douglas is ever going to do
that. I miss it and I think if we're not very careful, that sort of music is
going to disappear.
People seem to have a taste for elegance these days.
Simon Weil
Mike O'Sullivan
government, "one man one vote" was very far from being their first choice.
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3a9abf54....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Jerry Prather
r...@houston.rr.com (Bob) writes:
:>
:>On 27 Feb 2001 08:38:12 -0500, pra...@exis.net (Jerry Prather) wrote:
:>
:>>He can't talk
:>
:>I suspect you did not see him when he presented that jazz special - a
:>series shown on public television. I thought he came of very
:>knowledgeable and very articulate.
Unfortunatly I watched at least part of two of them. He
came across as very articulate - just like some preacher
who's just regurgitating someone else's sermon that he
pulled from a book.
On one of them he played his longish composition, "Big
Train". The man has no idea of what a train sounds like!
The Duke knew.
He who has ears, let him hear! (the music that is)... (I
wish he'd go back to classical trumpet...grumble, grumble,
grumble...)
Jerry Prather
crib...@aol.com.go.away (crib) writes:
:>marsalis is quite fallible; but if you're going to criticize him, at least show
:>some degree of familiarity with the subject. if you don't find his compositions
:>interesting, that certainly is your "two cents"; but to say that he "can't
:>compose" shows an ignorance as to either his compositions or the nature of jazz
:>composition in general (or both).
:>
:>crib
See the post I sent out two minutes ago in regard to another
post. And, BTW, I see no use in being verbose when I can
say "He stinks, IMHO!" and have said it all.
Jerry
zeno
numbers actually stack up?
Zeno
Simon Weil
>> I just think there is a certain sort of avant- garde which is house trained
>and
>> accesible to the masses on those terms - and there's another sort of
>> avant-garde that you let into your house and starts chewing the carpet and
>> frightening the neighbours. I don't think Dave Douglas is ever going to do
>> that. I miss it and I think if we're not very careful, that sort of music
>is
>> going to disappear.
>>
>Well, there are numerous forms of avant-garde. We had a
>great discussion of it once here years ago, based on a
>Village Voice article by Kevin Whitehead, and you can
>find a rather pallid version of it in my 'so you wanna
>be an avant-garde jazz fan' piece.
Yeah, I don't think I was here for the discussion, but I do know your 'so you
wanna..' piece.
Near as I can tell,
>the stuff you think frightens the neighbors, I would
>call expressionism. Not to put everybody into a box,
>but this would be late Trane, Ayler, Brotzmann, Ware,
>etc.
Right. Just to piss everybody off, I don't find expressionism that helpful a
term. I mean it works if you know early 20 Century art and can relate it to
that - but otherwise it seems a bit opaque to me. Not that I have a better noun
- but I think the adjective "primal" - strikes closer to what I'm thinking
about. It's primal music - sort of visceral and unashamed of it.
>Then there's restructuralism, which in a sense
>comes out of free jazz and applies new structures which
>incorporate the lessons learned by the freer
>explorations. We can stick Braxton and Lacy in here
>among many others. There's freebop, which we can think
>of as the more directly Ornette-inspired stuff that has
>been at least somewhat incorporated into mainstream
>jazz. There's postmodernism (or eclecticism), with the
>AACM and Zorn being the best-known practitioners. At
>some point, someone suggested something like Euro-free
>improv, which would include Bailey et al. And someone
>suggested something like abstract impressionism, which I
>think was meant to include someone like Jimmy Giuffre.
>
>As you can tell, lots of musicians jump around. Braxton
>is both a rstructuralist and post-modernist and I
>suppose has played expressionism, abstract impressionism
>and some stuff pretty close to Euro-free too maybe. The
>Dutch cut across a number of these styles. Sun Ra could
>almost lay claim to have invented each of these. Etc.
>
>I don't think you have any need to worry about this form
>disappearing since, at least on this side of the pond,
>it seems to still be the most popular form of
>avant-garde. David S. Ware, and his compatriots Matt
>Shipp and William Parker, probably draw better than
>anybody. Charles Gayle was real big a few years ago.
>Vandermark's DKV trio falls into this bag, and the V5
>can still get pretty woolly. The AALY trio with Ken and
>Mats Gustafsson is in here. Brotzmann is probably more
>popular in the states now than he's ever been, thanks to
>Die Like a Dog and the Brotzmann 10tet. The groups Test
>and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Other Dimensions in
>Music seem to be catching on. Most of the music being
>issued on the Eremite and AUM Fidelity labels is of this
>type, and a fair amount of what's on Okkadisk. There
>are a number of younger (or at least recently noticed on
>the scene) players exploring these areas, like Assif
>Tsahar, Marco Eneidi, Ivo Perelman, Blaise Siwula, and
>to a certain extent, the Gold Sparkle Band and (oh heck,
>another band whose name slips my mind at the moment).
I can't talk about these more recent players - But there is something that's
telling me that so much of this stuff is coming from people who are 50 and
over, long-established in the field. And somehow I don't get the impression
that the newcomers - who would include Vandermark - are really doing anything
all that new in this, primal, area. I mean, to me, Cecil Taylor would be the
major exponent of this sort of music.
>But I think it is true that over the last 20 or so
>years, there's been more emphasis on composition and
>structure and there's been increasing use of more sparse
>textures. Some folks insist on seeing this as more
>'intellectual' or academic.
I suppose what I'm worrying about is that people don't seem to do as much
screaming and in your face dissonance as they used to.
>
>> People seem to have a taste for elegance these days.
>
>Depends on which people. I think most critics are
>thinking this way these days,
That's exactly what I'm worried about. I can't think of a major critic who
really votes for this sort of music. They seem to have a distaste for it. I
mean, I wonder how much that has resulted in someone like Dave Douglas being
poster boy of the month. Not that I don't like what he does - but that he
should be The Way Forward For jazz strikes me as not so much to my taste.
>a lot of the younger
>folks in the US who are attracted to this music are
>attracted by its energy and sense of freedom. But in a
>few years, they (critics, young people, other people)
>will probably change their tastes yet again.
>
I think it's terribly dependent on the musicians (of course). But I don't think
the current crop of critics are ever going to start raving about primal,
visceral music. I keep having the feeling that that is where a lot of the
future of jazz is, though.
Simon Weil
crib
<< Anyone interested in starting an ongoing list of trumpet players to see how
the numbers actually stack up? >>
if you're going to start, today's as good a day as any. a new ryan kisor album
was released on criss cross, featuring kisor's trumpet and chris potter's
saxophone with james genus' bass and gene jackson's drums. there's some really
fantastic writing on this disc, in my opinion; these guys really rose to the
two-horn, no-harmony challenge and produced some fantastic lines. of course,
the soloing is good, too -- but that was expected, from these musicians. the
writing is a pleasant surprise.
(y'know...since we were talking about trumpeters who compose, and all...)
crib
crib
<< I see no use in being verbose when I can say "He stinks, IMHO!" and have
said it all. >>
fair enough. just realize that if everyone here thought that way, this group
would be little more than what many of the other music newsgroups are: few
"threads," and mostly just jumbles of "band-X rulez!!!!!" and "band-Y sux!!!!!"
exclamations.
i prefer conversation. if 'verbosity' is the price, i'll cope. otherwise, why
spend time coming here to begin with? i'm not trying to talk anyone out of
coming here, because i think it's great that we have so many different points
of view; but really, if you don't like to write, isn't it a bit odd for you to
be participating in an online newsgroup?
crib
Bob
>"He stinks, IMHO!"
But what about particular pieces: Autumn Leaves, Caravan, Little
Drummer Boy?
Jerry Prather
crib...@aol.com.go.away (crib) writes:
:>i prefer conversation. if 'verbosity' is the price, i'll cope. otherwise, why
:>spend time coming here to begin with? i'm not trying to talk anyone out of
:>coming here, because i think it's great that we have so many different points
:>of view; but really, if you don't like to write, isn't it a bit odd for you to
:>be participating in an online newsgroup?
Did you read my second post - the one where I critiqued "Big
Train"? If not, go back and read it. A train is one of the
most rhythmic things that exist. What Wynton wrote was
_not_ rhythmic. It was highly discontinuous; something that
is totally against a train's nature. If you are going to
compose thematic music on trains, shouldn't the composer be
expected to do his homework, listen to trains, and reflect
that experience?
I know I'm picking on a single (but major) work, but if he
won't do his homework and/or reflect that homework in his
composition, why should I pay any attention to one of his
"sermons"?
Sic semper Wyntonius!
Jerry
Bob
>Anyone interested in starting an ongoing list of trumpet players to see how the
>numbers actually stack up?
You already know my vote.
There is only one spectacular trumpet player - well, maybe two.
Miles and Louie.
Bob
>ryan kisor album was released on criss cross, featuring kisor's trumpet and chris potter's
>saxophone with james genus' bass and gene jackson's drums.
Please, will all of you give more specifics when you recommend music.
We lurkers are here to discover your recommendations, so don't be so
goddam obscure.
Thanks,
Amos Omondi
> ----------
> From: Mike O'Sullivan[SMTP:mi...@barnaby0.demon.co.uk]
> Posted At: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:33 PM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: I hate Wynton Marsalis
> Subject: Re: I hate Wynton Marsalis
>
> Right. I'd sooner talk about Clifford Brown.
>
> "Amos Omondi" <ASA...@ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message
> news:0CF260C495FED111A661...@mail3.ntu.edu.sg...
Amos Omondi
comments!
> ----------
> From: pra...@exis.net (Jerry Prather)[SMTP:pra...@exis.net]
> Posted At: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:38 PM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: I hate Wynton Marsalis
> Subject: Re: SV: I hate Wynton Marsalis
>
> In message
> <983213932.21629.3...@news.demon.co.uk> -
> "Mike O'Sullivan" <mi...@barnaby0.demon.co.uk> writes:
> :>
> :>Well, TECHNICAL abilities yes, but why does his playing leave me
> with
> :>nothing but a sense of ho-hum, very clever, but where is the sense
> of an
> :>original mind at work?
>
> I'll listen to him play and enjoy it --- as long as he is
> playing someone else's music.
>
> He can't talk and he can't compose. And what the blue
> blazes is he talking about if his composition is so lousy!
>
> Just my $.02
>
> Jerry
>
>
Amos Omondi
> ----------
> From: zeno[SMTP:ze...@sonic.net]
> Posted At: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 6:40 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: I hate Wynton Marsalis
> Subject: Re: SV: I hate Wynton Marsalis
>
crib
<< Please, will all of you give more specifics when you recommend music. We
lurkers are here to discover your recommendations, so don't be so goddam
obscure. >>
hey, i'm all for turning people on to new music; but if my description of a
ryan kisor cd that was released today on the criss cross label featuring chris
potter, james genus and gene jackson wasn't "specific" enough for you, i submit
that the problem lies with *you*, not me.
kisor's released maybe six records as a leader -- three of which, to my
knowledge, are still in-print and widely available. the other two were
released, i believe, in 1998 and 1999. chris potter only appears on one of the
three. same goes for james genus. same goes for gene jackson. so by combining
any two pieces of the information i provided, you can narrow the possibilities
down to exactly one. you've got an entire internet at your fingertips. i'm more
than happy to recommend great music, but you've gotta put some effort in. i
can't come over to your house and listen to it for you.
now, if i'd been telling you about the fantastic barry harris album i've been
listening to featuring george mraz and leroy williams, then you might have had
something "goddamned obscure"... btw, y'all should pick that up if you can find
it: "the last time i saw paris," on venus records. it's an import...so grab it
if you see it, 'cause you might not again. someone was referring recently to
john lewis as a true, original "bebop master" who was still practicing his
craft; i wouldn't take anything away from lewis, but that comment goes doubly
for harris -- and half again for this album, on which he reaches right into the
bud powell songbook with which he's so familiar.
come to think of it, if i have some time (ha! "time." i remember that,
vaguely...), i should put together a post mentioning some of these older
pianists who are unjustifiably little-known and who've been recording in recent
years for japanese labels such as venus and diw. harris, walter bishop, jr.,
harold mabern, richard wyands, stanley cowell...if you want real, serious jazz,
this is it. these guys have been playing for two or three times as long as
whatever 'young lion' whose disc you're listening to. that's constructive, for
you: we should all shut the hell up about wynton, and go listen to some chris
anderson.
it does drive me nuts to have to pay twenty bucks a pop for discs that were
recorded in NYC; but man, when you get the things in and start listening to the
music that these masters make, the price doesn't seem nearly as imposing.
crib
H. Loess
>bob knauer writes, in defense of his comment, "having such strong critics is a
>sign of latent genius":
><< It was [true] in the case of Miles Davis. >>
>"kenny g."
>finished?
Naturally, some have a longer latency than others.
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
crib
<< A train is one of the most rhythmic things that exist. What Wynton wrote
was _not_ rhythmic. It was highly discontinuous... If you are going to compose
thematic music on trains, shouldn't the composer be expected to do his
homework, listen to trains, and reflect that experience? >>
ok...so, in your estimation, because "big train" didn't somehow "sound like a
train," the piece was a failure?
(i suppose it'd be like forking fish on a plate to use the "appalachian spring"
example, here...but damn, it's tempting.)
i don't think you and i are going to agree on "big train"; so for the sake of
this discussion, let's accept your premise: "big train" is a failure.
this is your justification for leaping to the conclusion that he "can't write"?
why -- because the goal of composition is always to come up with a piece that
somehow "reflects" in a blatantly obvious way some non-musical experience to
which your audience can relate?
it's unwise, i know, but i'm going to leap to a conclusion of my own here: you
don't know a heck of a lot about composition. (i could be wrong, of course;
such is the risk of guessing.) if that's the case, you might consider taking my
word on this; because while i'm no carla bley, i do know a thing or two about
the subject. wynton marsalis can write jazz. we can argue about whether it's
good, and we can argue about whether he's stuck in ellingtonia (without duke's
players or arrangers, for that matter); but if you're going to say things like
"he can't write," you're just going to be wrong. i'm not trying to pick a fight
or anything; that's just the way it is. you might as well say, "that
two-year-old can recite hamlet," or "christopher reeve can walk." sorry...it's
just not true. we're not talking about passing value judgment on someone's
opinion, here; we're talking about making a factual correction. if you'd added
the word "good," i'd have kept my keyboard shut ('so to speak' -- ha! damn
puns...).
<< why should I pay any attention to one of his "sermons"? >>
you shouldn't. i'm not here to blow up wynton's balloon; that's amos's gig.
given only forty seconds, off the top of my head, i'll bet i could name a
hundred jazz musicians -- younger and older -- whose music i find more
interesting than wynton's. i just think it's ridiculous the way many in the
jazz community make him out to be some sort of anti-christ; so when someone
makes a criticism of him that's just flat-out wrong, sometimes i opt to object.
speaking of which...if you're referring to "premature autopsies" with that
comment, you might note that it was written by stanley crouch. another popular
misconception in the jazz community: wynton marsalis and stanley crouch are
*not* two independently-functioning bodies controlled in tandem by a mad
scientist as part of a fiendish plot to soundtrack all the world with 1940s-era
jazz.
crib
JC Martin
> On 28 Feb 2001 00:17:04 GMT, crib...@aol.com.go.away (crib) wrote:
>
> >ryan kisor album was released on criss cross, featuring kisor's trumpet
and chris potter's
> >saxophone with james genus' bass and gene jackson's drums.
>
> Please, will all of you give more specifics when you recommend music.
>
> We lurkers are here to discover your recommendations, so don't be so
> goddam obscure.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob Knauer
Yes Dad.
sheesh!
-JC
Mike O'Sullivan
du Jazz during the 1980s. I have got a bootleg tape of it somewhere, but
that's all I'm afraid. Wynton was on site, but had not been billed to
appear. During Delfayo's set, Wynton suddenly appeared on stage, to his
brother's great joy. All the time Wynton was soloing (and playing great),
Delfayo was wearing a wide grin, loving it.
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3a9c07f0...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:11:41 -0000, "Mike O'Sullivan"
> <mi...@barnaby0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >One occasion I did enjoy Wynton was at the Nice festival a few years ago,
> >when he appeared on stage unannounced during one of his brother Delfayo's
> >sets, and played half a set, I remember one particularly blistering solo
> >which I liked more than anything I've heard since..
>
> What is the name of the album and that particular piece?
>
> Bob Knauer
Gerald Belton
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:40:56 GMT, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>Anyone interested in starting an ongoing list of trumpet players to see how the
>>numbers actually stack up?
>
>You already know my vote.
>
>There is only one spectacular trumpet player - well, maybe two.
>
>Miles and Louie.
Don't forget Louie's ghost, James Andrews.
Gerald
--
http://www.beltonphoto.com
Gallery of Jazz Photography
"...marvelous photos!" - Debbie Gillaspie, Curator,Chicago Jazz Archive
Bob
>hey, i'm all for turning people on to new music; but if my description of a
>ryan kisor cd that was released today on the criss cross label featuring chris
>potter, james genus and gene jackson wasn't "specific" enough for you, i submit
>that the problem lies with *you*, not me.
Oh, come on. I am not talking about that.
BTW, I did get some pieces from that album. Now I need to find some
time to listent to them.
>i'm more
>than happy to recommend great music, but you've gotta put some effort in. i
>can't come over to your house and listen to it for you.
Yer beating the wrong horse, dude.
zeno
Zeno
Walter Davis
Well, the most common term I've seen used for it (other
than 'free jazz') is 'energy' music. More recently some
have dubbed it 'ecstatic'. I like 'expressionism'
because to me the music is, generally, a rather direct
expression of the artist's emotion (in the moment)
and/or spirituality. I don't want people to think 'art
school' when I use the term. I also think it helps
explains why sometimes it works for me (and presumably
others) and sometimes it doesn't -- it is such a
personal expression, and sometimes I can go along for
the ride and sometimes I can't, depending a lot on my
mood or general emotional state.
On the other hand, I think the word 'primal' has some
serious drawbacks. Again, if one is thinking of its
meaning in art history, that's fine. But it also
conveys (at least in the US) 'violent', 'savage',
'uncontrolled', 'natural', 'unstudied' and various other
images which are reminiscent of the way jazz was
portrayed in its early days -- images which were used to
deny jazz recognition as an artform. Those images are
still used by some to dismiss this music (as you well
know Simon...or should I reference you to your own piece
on AAJ :-).
But labels are just labels, so it doesn't much matter
what we call it.
But that's where things get sticky. Cecil Taylor
certainly has tons of energy, but his music is highly
structured. He belongs as much if not more to
'restructuralism' as he does to 'expressionism.'
Are the new folks doing anything new? Shit, who knows?
Is anybody doing anything new? One of the motivating
forces behind the emphasis on composition and finding a
good mix of composition and improv was that many
musicians felt that expressionism had hit the wall. But
there are some newer players who are more likely to
include it as part of their repertoire.
As to everybody being over 50 -- it's practically
impossible to get any sort of name recognition in
avant-garde jazz these days until you're at least 40.
Ware was playing with Cecil in the 70's, but he didn't
become prominent until the early-mid 90's. Parker,
Daniel Carter, Raphe Malik, etc. were all doing this in
the 70's too. Ken Vandermark is already in his
mid-30's, and that's probably true of almost every
musician I mentioned. But it's every bit as true if not
more so of everybody who's made a name for themselves
mostly playing other forms of avant-garde. That's just
the nature of the beast these days. Despite the obvious
mistaken stereotype that everybody thinks they can play
this music so it's the refuge of the untalented and
pseudo-artistic rock musicians, it takes a long time to
develop this craft and of course an even longer time
before even fans of the most obscure music have heard of
you. There are exceptions of course, but they're fairly
rare.
> >Depends on which people. I think most critics are
> >thinking this way these days,
>
> That's exactly what I'm worried about. I can't think of a major critic who
> really votes for this sort of music. They seem to have a distaste for it. I
> mean, I wonder how much that has resulted in someone like Dave Douglas being
> poster boy of the month. Not that I don't like what he does - but that he
> should be The Way Forward For jazz strikes me as not so much to my taste.
>
Yes, but in a few years, a new crop of critics will come
forward who will have a distaste for elegant jazz and
will wonder where the 'primal' music went and they'll
champion some new screamer. Becoming a major critic is
a lot like becoming a name on the avant-garde scene --
it takes a good long while and I doubt there's a 'major
critic' under the age of 40.
I think the genesis of Douglas' popularity among critics
et al is pretty clear. He's the answer to Wynton, an
incredibly talented trumpeter with a solid jazz lineage
(he played with Horace Silver fer chrissakes) and
respect for the tradition (see the tribute albums), but
whose jazz philosophy is one of openness and
experimentation. The connection to Zorn gives him cred
in the downtown world. So he should be embraced by
'both sides.' Of course he still had to spend years
recording on small labels and win a couple of major
awards before he could land a major label deal. :-)
Basically it's the role that the critics hoped Don Byron
would fill, but he never seemed up to the task. David
Murray was supposed to play it before that (even before
W came on the scene). vTo me, this is always something
of a mistake. By saying "see this guy meets all the
standards set forth by Wynton et al" simply validates
those bogus standards to begin with. It might get Dave
Douglas into the club, but it'll still leave Daniel
Carter out (though he's every bit as 'qualified').
> I think it's terribly dependent on the musicians (of course). But I don't think
> the current crop of critics are ever going to start raving about primal,
> visceral music. I keep having the feeling that that is where a lot of the
> future of jazz is, though.
>
No, not the current crop, maybe the next.
But I don't really think this is where the future of
jazz is. I don't think any one element can be thought
of as the future of jazz. To the extent I'll predict
anything, it's that the future of jazz is music that
uses any number of elements pretty much at the
musicians' whim. This is largely what's been going
among younger musicians for the last decade -- they play
expressionism, but that's just one tool at their
disposal. Much of this may not be 'primal' enough for
your tastes since it will generally just be a part of an
overall concept rather than the overall concept.
Jazz for too long has seemingly had to choose between
one of two extremes. It was either a 'primal' music,
one of 'soul' and direct expression (whether we're
talking Ayler or Blakey or whatever); or it was a music
of elegance and sophistication. That's a false
dichotomy in my book.
I think we've reached or are very close to the point
where we've always said we wanted to go, and now it
confuses us. We've always expressed a philosophy that
musicians should be essentially free to express
themselves how they see fit. And that's where I think
we are -- musicians have a huge array of ingredients at
their disposal. Want to play free? Fine. Play
structured music? Fine. Want to introduce randomness or
microtonality or whatever? Fine. Bring in Indian
music, Turkish music, African music, Asian music, Tuvan
throat singers, Panamanian rhythms? All fine. Not only
can they play in any of these ways, they can mix and
match to their content. Other than maybe some of the
expressionist folks who've come up around William
Parker, I can't think of any 'younger' musicians who
don't cross these boundaries with regularity. Even in
the straight-ahead world, there's much more interest in
loosening things up, bringing in other musics, etc.
So maybe we've reached the point where all musicians are
beyond category (or at least can be if they want to
be). So maybe we should accept that and take our
expressionism and restructuralism as they come.
Paul Heroy
>Simon Weil wrote:
>>
>>
>> I just think there is a certain sort of avant- garde which is house trained
> and
>> accesible to the masses on those terms - and there's another sort of
>> avant-garde that you let into your house and starts chewing the carpet and
>> frightening the neighbours. I don't think Dave Douglas is ever going to do
>> that. I miss it and I think if we're not very careful, that sort of music is
>> going to disappear.
<big snippage>
>I don't think you have any need to worry about this form
>disappearing since, at least on this side of the pond,
>it seems to still be the most popular form of
>avant-garde. David S. Ware, and his compatriots Matt
>Shipp and William Parker, probably draw better than
>anybody. Charles Gayle was real big a few years ago.
>Vandermark's DKV trio falls into this bag, and the V5
>can still get pretty woolly.
It's interesting that Walt brings up these players, because when I
read the original poster's comments one of the things that immediately
came to mind was that some of these very same people have been making
music along the lines he mentioned. The last 2 recordings from Shipp
(Pastoral Composure and New Orbit, both on his own Thirsty Ear label),
some of Parker's recent stuff (including one Painter's Spring on Thirsty
Ear and another, O'Neal's Porch), certainly much of V5's stuff, all fall
into what could generally be described as more polite and melodic avant
jazz. I've been noticing it enough just in the past few months especially
with Shipp & Parker's releases that it's started to strike me as an
actual movement to reincorporate more accessible melodic themes and
rhythmic elements into music that is still avant and sounds fresh. There
are moments, especially on Shipp's records, of just sheer and starkly
beautiful sounds, very different from much of his recorded work in the
past.
Even David S. Ware's last record for Columbia displays this sensibility,
somewhat. It's not nearly as aggressively shrieky and atonal as most of
his recordings.
--
Paul Heroy <*> It's yahoo, not hooya.
Simon Weil
>> Near as I can tell,
>> >the stuff you think frightens the neighbors, I would
>> >call expressionism. Not to put everybody into a box,
>> >but this would be late Trane, Ayler, Brotzmann, Ware,
>> >etc.
>>
>> Right. Just to piss everybody off, I don't find expressionism that helpful
>a
>> term. I mean it works if you know early 20 Century art and can relate it to
>> that - but otherwise it seems a bit opaque to me. Not that I have a better
>noun
>> - but I think the adjective "primal" - strikes closer to what I'm thinking
>> about. It's primal music - sort of visceral and unashamed of it.
>
>Well, the most common term I've seen used for it (other
>than 'free jazz') is 'energy' music.
Yeah, I read Jost's Free Jazz book where he describes Cecil like that. But I
don't think it's a terribly good term. I can think of *some people* who play
a-g jazz where energy music does seem to decribe what they do. I'd put
Vandermark and Zorn's Ornette tribute into that category. But that's because I
think neither of these is a particularly distinctive soloist. What carries
their music is, as much as anything else, the energy level. With Cecil - or
late Coltrane or whoever, there is also a voice there.
> More recently some
>have dubbed it 'ecstatic'.
Right, that's the aum fidelity line. Certainly when you read their stuff, a lot
of these people have a spiritual take on what they do.
> I like 'expressionism'
>because to me the music is, generally, a rather direct
>expression of the artist's emotion (in the moment)
>and/or spirituality. I don't want people to think 'art
>school' when I use the term. I also think it helps
>explains why sometimes it works for me (and presumably
>others) and sometimes it doesn't -- it is such a
>personal expression, and sometimes I can go along for
>the ride and sometimes I can't, depending a lot on my
>mood or general emotional state.
I see that. I think for me the music has a deeper meaning - like I feel some of
it (e.g Cecil) is kind of universal. So I'm looking for something that speaks
of that.
>
>On the other hand, I think the word 'primal' has some
>serious drawbacks. Again, if one is thinking of its
>meaning in art history, that's fine.
Well, actually, there is no (that I can tell) use of this word in art history.
The word would probably be "primitive" - but that, to preempt your next point
definitely *does* have negative connotations - indeed I've seen it used in an
article putting down Free Music. What I'm looking for is a word that says this
music gets down to the nitty gritty, down to where it's dangerous - that is
where art has to go if it's going to say something deep.
But it also
>conveys (at least in the US) 'violent', 'savage',
>'uncontrolled', 'natural', 'unstudied' and various other
>images which are reminiscent of the way jazz was
>portrayed in its early days -- images which were used to
>deny jazz recognition as an artform.
Indeed that's true. And I think it's about time that jazz confronted the fact
that it can deal with these emotions without falling back into the noble
savage/ juju drums stereotype. We have had 20 years in which jazz has buried
this sort of music - and to me it has a lot to do with fear of just such
stereotyping. But the fact is you cannot remove 'violent', savage',
'uncontrolled', 'natural', 'unstudied' from art without emasculating it. I mean
take Shakespeare - THE paradigm great artist - what would happen if you took
that lot out of his work? I mean where would you be in Hamlet if, at the end,
the stage wasn't strewn with corpses? You know, if instead of dying, all those
people just fainted for a minute or two - or moved to Paraguay - or, whatever.
The whole visceral, gut-level meaning of the play would be changed. It would be
Shakespeare-lite, Disney version Shakespeare. And, to my mind, that's where we
end up in jazz if we get rid of all those nasty horrid violent emotions (and
whatever else). And, to me, not being allowed to talk about it like that is
tantamount to saying we don't really want to *experience* those emotions in
jazz either. No we want elegant (spits the word out). But the other thing one
has to understand is that *art is not life*. I mean, just because, one deals
with primal emotions in jazz, does not mean that jazz people are going to go
round the corner and commit rape. How absurd! It's like saying that Shakespeare
must have been a serial killer to have imagined all that stuff. Blaah. You
know, if people want to say jazz is an art they have to wake up to this stuff.
You can't run scared when someone waves the spectre of the savage untrained
jazzman in your face.
Wow, what a rant! Sorry.
Well Cecil is Cecil - and, as he puts it, his own academy. I do kind of think
when someone is at that level then he likely includes *all* trends of his time.
>
>Are the new folks doing anything new? Shit, who knows?
>Is anybody doing anything new?
Oh, I've no doubt there are a fair number of people in jazz doing new stuff
right now. Otherwise I wouldn't be interested in it. I don't buy this idea that
everything has been done. I mean for me Berne is pretty good. But I don't think
he's a great artist.
One of the motivating
>forces behind the emphasis on composition and finding a
>good mix of composition and improv was that many
>musicians felt that expressionism had hit the wall. But
>there are some newer players who are more likely to
>include it as part of their repertoire.
I have this feeling there's a spirit of the age thing - and we live in a pretty
uncreative, superficial age.
>
>As to everybody being over 50 -- it's practically
>impossible to get any sort of name recognition in
>avant-garde jazz these days until you're at least 40.
>Ware was playing with Cecil in the 70's, but he didn't
>become prominent until the early-mid 90's. Parker,
>Daniel Carter, Raphe Malik, etc. were all doing this in
>the 70's too. Ken Vandermark is already in his
>mid-30's, and that's probably true of almost every
>musician I mentioned. But it's every bit as true if not
>more so of everybody who's made a name for themselves
>mostly playing other forms of avant-garde. That's just
>the nature of the beast these days. Despite the obvious
>mistaken stereotype that everybody thinks they can play
>this music so it's the refuge of the untalented and
>pseudo-artistic rock musicians, it takes a long time to
>develop this craft and of course an even longer time
>before even fans of the most obscure music have heard of
>you. There are exceptions of course, but they're fairly
>rare.
Right, but it is striking that guys like Dolphy and Cecil and Ornette could be
doing mature work in their 30s - and were applauded for it, at least in the
community.
>
>> >Depends on which people. I think most critics are
>> >thinking this way these days,
>>
>> That's exactly what I'm worried about. I can't think of a major critic who
>> really votes for this sort of music. They seem to have a distaste for it. I
>> mean, I wonder how much that has resulted in someone like Dave Douglas
>being
>> poster boy of the month. Not that I don't like what he does - but that he
>> should be The Way Forward For jazz strikes me as not so much to my taste.
>>
>Yes, but in a few years, a new crop of critics will come
>forward who will have a distaste for elegant jazz and
>will wonder where the 'primal' music went and they'll
>champion some new screamer. Becoming a major critic is
>a lot like becoming a name on the avant-garde scene --
>it takes a good long while and I doubt there's a 'major
>critic' under the age of 40.
Somehow I have a feeling that the current generation of "top" critics started
coming on the scene from 1980 onwards (I'm thinking of Giddins etc.) - - and
that these are the "elegant" ones. That is, I think that this particular trend
has been going on for longer than you allow.
>
>I think the genesis of Douglas' popularity among critics
>et al is pretty clear. He's the answer to Wynton, an
>incredibly talented trumpeter with a solid jazz lineage
>(he played with Horace Silver fer chrissakes) and
>respect for the tradition (see the tribute albums), but
>whose jazz philosophy is one of openness and
>experimentation. The connection to Zorn gives him cred
>in the downtown world. So he should be embraced by
>'both sides.' Of course he still had to spend years
>recording on small labels and win a couple of major
>awards before he could land a major label deal. :-)
>
>Basically it's the role that the critics hoped Don Byron
>would fill, but he never seemed up to the task. David
>Murray was supposed to play it before that (even before
>W came on the scene). vTo me, this is always something
>of a mistake. By saying "see this guy meets all the
>standards set forth by Wynton et al" simply validates
>those bogus standards to begin with. It might get Dave
>Douglas into the club, but it'll still leave Daniel
>Carter out (though he's every bit as 'qualified').
I think you hit the nail on the head. Bing.
>
>> I think it's terribly dependent on the musicians (of course). But I don't
>think
>> the current crop of critics are ever going to start raving about primal,
>> visceral music. I keep having the feeling that that is where a lot of the
>> future of jazz is, though.
>>
>No, not the current crop, maybe the next.
>
>But I don't really think this is where the future of
>jazz is. I don't think any one element can be thought
>of as the future of jazz. To the extent I'll predict
>anything, it's that the future of jazz is music that
>uses any number of elements pretty much at the
>musicians' whim. This is largely what's been going
>among younger musicians for the last decade -- they play
>expressionism, but that's just one tool at their
>disposal. Much of this may not be 'primal' enough for
>your tastes since it will generally just be a part of an
>overall concept rather than the overall concept.
>
>Jazz for too long has seemingly had to choose between
>one of two extremes. It was either a 'primal' music,
>one of 'soul' and direct expression (whether we're
>talking Ayler or Blakey or whatever); or it was a music
>of elegance and sophistication. That's a false
>dichotomy in my book.
>
Well, inasmuch as I think "primal" has been marginalised for years in jazz -
for the reason I outlined above - I think there is some need for jazz as a
whole to come to terms with it. But, to be straight, there is just an instinct
I have that this is the music that would connect jazz up with its audience in a
new and vital way. And I just keep having that feeling, I've had it for a
couple of years now.
>I think we've reached or are very close to the point
>where we've always said we wanted to go, and now it
>confuses us. We've always expressed a philosophy that
>musicians should be essentially free to express
>themselves how they see fit. And that's where I think
>we are -- musicians have a huge array of ingredients at
>their disposal. Want to play free? Fine. Play
>structured music? Fine. Want to introduce randomness or
>microtonality or whatever? Fine. Bring in Indian
>music, Turkish music, African music, Asian music, Tuvan
>throat singers, Panamanian rhythms? All fine. Not only
>can they play in any of these ways, they can mix and
>match to their content. Other than maybe some of the
>expressionist folks who've come up around William
>Parker, I can't think of any 'younger' musicians who
>don't cross these boundaries with regularity. Even in
>the straight-ahead world, there's much more interest in
>loosening things up, bringing in other musics, etc.
>
>So maybe we've reached the point where all musicians are
>beyond category (or at least can be if they want to
>be). So maybe we should accept that and take our
>expressionism and restructuralism as they come.
Who knows. Don't miss next week's episode...And maybe it will be....thrilling.
Simon Weil
Walter Davis
Yes, which I think is part of what I mention in my
second post in response to Simon -- musicians are now
free to incorporate whatever elements they want. To an
extent, I think Shipp's recent move may be something of
a mistake (though "orbit" is such a beautiful record I'm
ready to change my mind), because for whatever reason it
strikes me more as a response to Crouch (with whom we
all know he had a major run-in) et al to 'prove' that he
can do this stuff too. (He once cited a similar reason
as part of the motivation for _By the Law of Music_).
But that serves to validate Crouch et al's criteria.
But of course, that's just how it strikes me without
having read anything Shipp has said about it, so I'm
perfectly willing to believe that's not the case and the
shift is more 'genuine.'
And on the other hand, Shipp has said some things which
suggest he agrees with Simon, for example criticizing
the critic Francis Davis for overrating
composed/arranged material and underrating more visceral
material (which Shipp (unfortunately IMHO) put into
"European" and "African" boxes.) Unless Shipp has
changed his tune, I don't know that more elegance is his
goal.
On the third hand, my memory is that the PR blurb for
the 'blue series' did say something about bringing the
straight-ahead and avant worlds together by
incorporating the best of both or something like that.
As to Ware, let's just say it's hardly the first time
someone signed with a major label and their music became
more approachable. (hey, I'm still a cynic)
With Vandermark, we have a weird case. In many ways,
his music is more approachable now than it was 5 years
ago. On the other hand, his work with AALY and the
duets with Lytton and his increasing exposure to
European musicians has led him in completely different,
more free directions.
My basic objection is to the notion that 'structured,
arranged, composed' etc. is somehow contradictory to
what I take Simon to mean by 'primal'. Parker's Little
Huey and In Order to Survive are every bit as 'primal'
as his playing with Charles Gayle or his solo work.
I completely agree that jazz is in a time when
composition, structure, etc. are more prevalent than
they've been in some time. But to me the genius of the
last 30 years of development of this music is that so
many composers (Braxton, Mengelberg, Schlippenbach,
Cecil, Parker, Vandermark, Edward Wilkerson, Abrams,
Hemingway, Eskelin, Butch Morris, Zorn, Lovano, Wynton
(gasp!), Lacy, Rivers ... ) have found so many different
ways of balancing composition/structure and
improvisation that it's no problem at all to have
expansive, planned structures _and_ in the moment
creation.
Walter Davis
>
>
> Indeed that's true. And I think it's about time that jazz confronted the fact
> that it can deal with these emotions without falling back into the noble
> savage/ juju drums stereotype. We have had 20 years in which jazz has buried
> this sort of music - and to me it has a lot to do with fear of just such
> stereotyping. But the fact is you cannot remove 'violent', savage',
> 'uncontrolled', 'natural', 'unstudied' from art without emasculating it. I mean
> take Shakespeare - THE paradigm great artist - what would happen if you took
> that lot out of his work? I mean where would you be in Hamlet if, at the end,
> the stage wasn't strewn with corpses? You know, if instead of dying, all those
> people just fainted for a minute or two - or moved to Paraguay - or, whatever.
> The whole visceral, gut-level meaning of the play would be changed. It would be
> Shakespeare-lite, Disney version Shakespeare. And, to my mind, that's where we
> end up in jazz if we get rid of all those nasty horrid violent emotions (and
> whatever else). And, to me, not being allowed to talk about it like that is
> tantamount to saying we don't really want to *experience* those emotions in
> jazz either. No we want elegant (spits the word out). But the other thing one
> has to understand is that *art is not life*. I mean, just because, one deals
> with primal emotions in jazz, does not mean that jazz people are going to go
> round the corner and commit rape. How absurd! It's like saying that Shakespeare
> must have been a serial killer to have imagined all that stuff. Blaah. You
> know, if people want to say jazz is an art they have to wake up to this stuff.
> You can't run scared when someone waves the spectre of the savage untrained
> jazzman in your face.
>
First, I see no reason why "non-primal" music can't
express violence or react to violence. Douglas, for
example, has tunes inspired by the Bosnian conflict.
Kristallnacht isn't exactly a walk in the park.
Second, I think the equation of visceral playing with a
portrayal of violence is a severe misconception.
Coltrane was in no way about violence, his music is
about love and sprituality. When kids got blown up in a
church, he didn't respond with violent skronking, he
responded with the soulful dirge "Alabama". His
visceral stuff has titles like "Ascension" and "the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Ayler is really
no different. I can't recall any quotes from Ornette
suggesting his music was about 'horrid, violent
emotions.' Parker and Gayle, they're all about
spirituality too. Shepp you can make a case for. And I
don't know what sorts of things Brotzmann may have been
saying back in the day.
I think your sense that current musicians are restrained
and cleansing the music of ugliness is completely
off-base.
> One of the motivating
> >forces behind the emphasis on composition and finding a
> >good mix of composition and improv was that many
> >musicians felt that expressionism had hit the wall. But
> >there are some newer players who are more likely to
> >include it as part of their repertoire.
>
> I have this feeling there's a spirit of the age thing - and we live in a pretty
> uncreative, superficial age.
And I think the music is combating that uncreative
superficiality by making creative and meaningful use of
all that it has at hand.
And no offense, but pining for 'primal' jazz is quite
unoriginal and equating energy with horrid violent
emotion is rather superficial. Not that the same can't
be said of what I'm saying.
> Right, but it is striking that guys like Dolphy and Cecil and Ornette could be
> doing mature work in their 30s - and were applauded for it, at least in the
> community.
That's because the jazz market changed. They had
opportunities to play and enough writers and fans around
to notice them. And they got lucky.
And I think there are lots of artists in their 30's
doing mature work, no doubt many I don't know. Nobody's
applauding for it because there's nobody there to
applaud them ... and some chunk of those who are just
don't like what they're doing so they say it's not
mature.
I mean, Dave Douglas is in his 30's and his music is
being applauded in the community and to an extent
outside of it. So presumably the problem is you don't
think it's 'mature.'
Frankly your argument now seems the same as those who
argue that there's been no new Bird.
> Somehow I have a feeling that the current generation of "top" critics started
> coming on the scene from 1980 onwards (I'm thinking of Giddins etc.) - - and
> that these are the "elegant" ones. That is, I think that this particular trend
> has been going on for longer than you allow.
No, I think this trend began around 1975, which is when
Braxton and others first introduced 'restructuralism'
and 'postmodernism' and other things. Some critics,
like Giddins and Francis Davis, jumped onto this pretty
soon, but for the most part they were still only willing
to support those whose work had strong connections to
the jazz tradition (e.g. Threadgill, Murray). Giddins,
Davis, Watrous and others became THE critics sometime
around 85-90 and they've seemingly done very little to
keep up with what's happened after that. In the last 10
years or so, we've seen a few younger (I think) critics
like Whitehead, Ratliff, and Corbett start to come to
the fore and they have pushed for their favorites. Time
will tell if they keep up. The next NY Times critic
might well now be writing for Signal to Noise and
praising the music you're advocating to high heavens.
What's happened in the last few years is that we've seen
an increasing openness in the mainstream jazz world. Or
more accurately I suppose, critics like Ratliff
especially have been showering praise on straight-ahead
musicians like Greg Osby, Jason Moran, etc. who are
moving towards a more composerly, arranged, somehwat
more inclusive, what have you style. Even Wynton has
been quoted to the effect that head-solo-head has pretty
much run its course and it's time to move in this
direction. Douglas has also benefited from this
increased attention with the added benefit that he was
already accepted by the avant-garde critics and fans.
> >
> >I think the genesis of Douglas' popularity among critics
> >et al is pretty clear. He's the answer to Wynton, an
> >incredibly talented trumpeter with a solid jazz lineage
> >(he played with Horace Silver fer chrissakes) and
> >respect for the tradition (see the tribute albums), but
> >whose jazz philosophy is one of openness and
> >experimentation. The connection to Zorn gives him cred
> >in the downtown world. So he should be embraced by
> >'both sides.' Of course he still had to spend years
> >recording on small labels and win a couple of major
> >awards before he could land a major label deal. :-)
> >
> >Basically it's the role that the critics hoped Don Byron
> >would fill, but he never seemed up to the task. David
> >Murray was supposed to play it before that (even before
> >W came on the scene). vTo me, this is always something
> >of a mistake. By saying "see this guy meets all the
> >standards set forth by Wynton et al" simply validates
> >those bogus standards to begin with. It might get Dave
> >Douglas into the club, but it'll still leave Daniel
> >Carter out (though he's every bit as 'qualified').
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head. Bing.
Well thanks. But what role the critics show Douglas et
al as playing doesn't mean this is what their music is
about. They could have just as easily picked David S.
Ware and they might yet still pick Matthew Shipp.
I mean what's the surprise -- in order to get the
support of mainstream critics writing for mainstream
newspapers, your music has to somehow address the
mainstream. Who the critics support has some effect on
who can get good record deals and who can get the good
gigs, but it doesn't generally effect the music very
much.
> Well, inasmuch as I think "primal" has been marginalised for years in jazz -
> for the reason I outlined above - I think there is some need for jazz as a
> whole to come to terms with it.
I think jazz came to terms with it 20-25 years ago.
Much as the death of Parker in many ways brought bop to
an end and all sorts of musicians began searching for
new ways out of that box in the mid-50's, so the death
of Coltrane and Ayler led many people to sort of say
"hey, that was the music of their time and they
perfrected it, we need to find new ways out of the
box." There's 'primal' all over the place (to these
ears), it's just not the only thing going on for most
musicians. What was the Art Ensemble about if not a mix
of primal energy, tradition, and a new structural
elegance?
I mean, it's just as easy to turn this around. Where
would Shakespeare be without the violence? I dunno --
Ingmar Bergman maybe? Where would Shakespeare be with
just the violence and the screaming but without the
beautiful words and the quieter emotions? Arnold
Schwarzenegger. :-)
In many ways, I think we live in a world where complex
images of humanity are far more 'dangerous' than horrid
violent emotions. People encounter screaming all the
time. Anger is our lifeblood -- especially in the US.
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" is
still a staple. There's a good reason gun sales are
always brisk. Our society has always been based on
division. In such a world, delicacy can be quite
dangerous. Sorrow is much more frightening than grief.
Loneliness is so scary we grab onto whatever facile
notion of community that consumer capitalism wants to
throw our way and we grieve the death of a car racer
like he's a member of the family -- and the scary thing
is that for many people he _was_ as important as a
member of the family. In many ways we have welcomed the
substitution of wrenching emotional outbursts for deeper
emotional unease.
Now I think 'primal' music is every bit as capable of
giving us that picture as the 'non-primal' stuff, but
I'll be damned if I buy into the notion that the only
legit way to deal with that is with energy or violence
or screaming.
But to get off my high horse, c'mon man, it's music,
have some fun. There's no more primal drummer than Jim
Black but there's probably no more joyful drummer than
Jim Black. What the hell's wrong with that?
> But, to be straight, there is just an instinct
> I have that this is the music that would connect jazz up with its audience in a
> new and vital way. And I just keep having that feeling, I've had it for a
> couple of years now.
>
Well, I won't know if I agree with you unless you point
me to who you think is doing this. I mean Cecil's not
hooking jazz up with its audience in a new and vital way
(or at least not much of that audience and no more so
than he was 25 years ago).
Now maybe what you mean is that jazz will never find its
_new_ vital audience until it gives up the trappings of
high culture and institutions and takes its music to the
people. If so, on that we agree. But what needs to
change there is not the music, but rather educating
musicians about a different approach _and_ finding ways
to make that approach sustainable in the current
market-driven world (aye there's the rub). The
musicians job is to make genuine and creative music, and
I think that's what most of them are doing. But I think
it's asking too much to also expect them to find that
new approach and figure out how to make it work.
crib
crib
Tim
<aim...@altavista.net> wrote:
>I completely agree that jazz is in a time when
>composition, structure, etc. are more prevalent than
>they've been in some time. But to me the genius of the
>last 30 years of development of this music is that so
>many composers (Braxton, Mengelberg, Schlippenbach,
>Cecil, Parker, Vandermark, Edward Wilkerson, Abrams,
>Hemingway, Eskelin, Butch Morris, Zorn, Lovano, Wynton
>(gasp!), Lacy, Rivers ... ) have found so many different
>ways of balancing composition/structure and
>improvisation that it's no problem at all to have
>expansive, planned structures _and_ in the moment
>creation.
I noticed that Threadgill is not on your list of composers and was not
mentioned in your previous post either. I came to Threadgill fairly
recently and really find his music fascinating (being a tuba player
helps). I would be interested to hear where you think Threadgill's
music fits into the last 30 years since you seem to be very
knowledgable about the more recent " Avant Guarde Of Jazz".
Thanks,
/tim
sixti...@yahoo.com
Marcel-Franck Simon
: Walt Davis:
: >Well, there are numerous forms of avant-garde. We had a
: >great discussion of it once here years ago, based on a
: >Near as I can tell,
: >the stuff you think frightens the neighbors, I would
: >call expressionism. Not to put everybody into a box,
: Right. Just to piss everybody off, I don't find expressionism that helpful a
: term. I mean it works if you know early 20 Century art and can relate it to
: that - but otherwise it seems a bit opaque to me. Not that I have a better noun
: - but I think the adjective "primal" - strikes closer to what I'm thinking
: about. It's primal music - sort of visceral and unashamed of it.
I think expressionism was Whitehead's term, and I don't like it
either. "Emotionalism" is better but sounds vaguely pejorative.
: >Then there's restructuralism, which in a sense
: >comes out of free jazz and applies new structures which
: >incorporate the lessons learned by the freer
: >explorations. We can stick Braxton and Lacy in here
And, especially, Roscoe Mitchell, who virtually invented the
genre (Sun Ra was a precursor.)
: > There's freebop, which we can think
: >of as the more directly Ornette-inspired stuff that has
: >been at least somewhat incorporated into mainstream
"Ornette-inspired" and "somewhat incorporated" are terms so
vague as to cease being useful. I prefer something along the
lines of "Blues-infused music not governed by chord progressions
or scales, and not necessarily sharing the standard small-group
model of a soloist supported by a rhythm section, yet that retains
a linear rhythmic structure. First introduced by Ornette Coleman,
whose harmolodic conception can be understood usefully as a formal
definition of the freebop style."
: > There's postmodernism (or eclecticism), with the
: >AACM and Zorn being the best-known practitioners. At
Po-mo is another term that's been overstretched into uselessness.
I prefer pastiche, which has the advantage of a useful relatively
formal definition, and the corollary disadvantage of being known
by few outside art communities.
: > ...someone suggested something like Euro-free
: >improv, which would include Bailey et al. And someone
No need IMO to use limiters like "Euro-free" since there are
American improv musicians and "free" is a term both redundant and
overloaded from "free jazz." The key differentiator is a belief in
the absolute primacy of improvisation in the moment, with as few
as possible (and preferably no) preconceived notions or concepts
for the music.
: >suggested something like abstract impressionism, which I
: >think was meant to include someone like Jimmy Giuffre.
Are there many such, other than Giuffre? If not you're probably
better off not trying to coin a term, but rather explaining Giuffre
as an extension/exception of the other forms.
: >As you can tell, lots of musicians jump around. Braxton
: >is both a rstructuralist and post-modernist and I
: >suppose has played expressionism, abstract impressionism
: >and some stuff pretty close to Euro-free too maybe. The
: >Dutch cut across a number of these styles. Sun Ra could
: >almost lay claim to have invented each of these. Etc.
Yes, that's a very important point. Which is why I like these
terms. It'd be very useful for say a Braxton CD review to tag
it to its style or mix of styles.
: >I don't think you have any need to worry about this form
^^^^emotionalism
: >disappearing since, at least on this side of the pond,
: >it seems to still be the most popular form of
: >avant-garde.
[ Emotionalist players list snipped. ]
: I can't talk about these more recent players - But there is something that's
: telling me that so much of this stuff is coming from people who are 50 and
: over, long-established in the field. And somehow I don't get the impression
: that the newcomers - who would include Vandermark - are really doing anything
: all that new in this, primal, area. I mean, to me, Cecil Taylor would be the
: major exponent of this sort of music.
TAYLOR IS NOT AN EMOTIONALIST! HE IS A RESTRUCTURALIST! See the
articles I posted in response to the fellow asking about NEFERTITI
vs UNIT STRUCTURES.
I completely agree with Simon's other point though. If there are any
emotionalists playing stuff that 1977-vintage emotionalists did not
already know and play, I have not heard them. I mean no disrespect
to emotionalist music but IMO adherents who slag be- or post-boppers
for being stuck in the past, are pots calling the kettle black. With
the aggravating circumstance that not only are these musicians (and
their fans!) convinced of the newness of their actually-well-understood
output, they also believe the music intrinsically makes some sort of
post-1960s political statement. These guys need to be told loud and
clear that it's not 1976 anymore, to say nothing of 1968 or 1964, and
they'd better wake up and smell the coffee.
There will be flames over this, but hopefully we can get past them and
actually have a discussion rather than shout at each other.
To start, then, people have the right to play whatever their muse tells
them to play. This applies to emotionalists, and also to beboppers.
So I can say Milt Jackson played kick ass hard bop in a late recording
without some emotionalist fan jiving about "nothing happening." I should
be able to respond to the anti-young-lion "nothing new" rant by asking
what exactly, say, Assif Tsahar does that's so special...
Please understand, I'm not picking on Assif Tsahar here (he's a fine
player, to whom I wish whatever career success he can achieve.) I do
mean to attack the idiotic exclusionary attitudes that "my music good
because my music new avant-garde" or "*my* music better because my
music defender of tradition." These are of a pair, come from the same
base tribalistic human impulse that, if left unchecked, develops into
racism, xenophobia and the rest. They are JUST AS BAD as each other,
and if I heard *one more* smug reviewer expressing them (Cadence are
you listening?), I might go postal.
OK, I feel better now.
--
Marcel-Franck Simon Hewlett Packard
"Papa Loko, ou se' van, wa pouse'-n ale' Florham Park, NJ
Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe'" min...@fpk.hp.com
the rmb troll faq is at http://liquid2k.net/rmbtroll. spread the word!
Vincent Kargatis / Anne Larson
news:97m619$olb$1...@web1.cup.hp.com...
> No need IMO to use limiters like "Euro-free" since there are
> American improv musicians and "free" is a term both redundant and
> overloaded from "free jazz." The key differentiator is a belief in
> the absolute primacy of improvisation in the moment, with as few
> as possible (and preferably no) preconceived notions or concepts
> for the music.
Hm, I see your point, but I think "Euro-free" or related phrases have
attached themselves to identifiable styles, that are indeed (statistically,
so to speak) correlated to music of European origin or influence. At least
styles that are in any way connected to jazz, even by only history. For
example, one example I like of "American" free improvisation is What We Live
(Larry Ochs, Lisle Ellis, Donald Robinson), which, although occasionally
directly referencing jazz styles (of the free variety), seem mostly to be
working in what one would describe as free improvisation, but sound quite
different from the "typical" European free improvisation. These are merely
subjective interpretations, of course, but I personally don't think the
terms above are necessarily redundant and overloaded (heck, hard to avoid
potential "overloading" from any phraseology!). Certainly "free jazz" as a
phrase has passed descriptiveness to become a label itself.
My ears also happen to somewhat separate that completely-devoid-of-jazz
improv (non-)genre(s) of what might currently be called electro-acoustic
improvisation (see, e.g., Erstwhile Records).
And yes, I was having fun trying to "overload" my semantic caveats as much
as possible above. :)
vince
Francois Ziegler
> : > There's postmodernism (or eclecticism), with the
> : >AACM and Zorn being the best-known practitioners. At
>
> Po-mo is another term that's been overstretched into uselessness.
Architect Mario Botta answered this by calling his style "post-ancient".
(See e.g. http://www.papress.com/books/birkhauser/3764355417.html.)
FZ
________________________________________________________________________
Walter Davis
Threadgill should have been on my list....and I think I
did finally get around to mentioning him in one of the
posts. It's odd I forgot him since he's one of my
faves. And there's a lot of folks around here who can
comment more fully on the last 30 years than I can.
Lumping artists together is always limiting, but I think
it's fair to say that Threadgill was one of the leading
proponents of the AACM style. The Art Ensemble,
Threadgill, Muhal Richard Abrams, Braxton (at least in
the early-mid 70's), Wadada Leo Smith were playing music
which combined jazz (or more broadly "Great Black
Music") tradition, energy, and new
approaches/compositional structures. Later AACM bands
like 8 Bold Souls, Ernest Dawkins, Ethnic Heritage
Ensemble also mine this territory. Threadgill's work in
Air and the Sextett seem to fit quite comfortably into
that bag. (And if you like Threadgill and tuba, you
should try to track down the 8 Bold Souls albums -- I
particularly recommend the 2 on Arabesque, but the
latest on Atavistic is quite good).
I wasn't jazz-conscious at the time, but I believe that
Air Lore was very well received. And certainly the
critic Francis Davis is a big Threadgill fan.
I've been a less impressed with Threadgill's music of
the last 10 years or so, but that's more a comment on
how great I think Air and the sextett were than it is on
his current music. Though I too love the way he makes
use of tuba.
And I suppose the way his music has changed over the
years fits in with Simon's thesis as well. To be
honest, I'm still not 100% sure what Simon means by
'primal' (I think his meaning is probably more complex
than I first gave it credit for), but I suspect that
he'd find Air to be the most primal Threadgill, followed
by the sextett, Very Very Circus, then Make a Move.
Marc Sabatella
Whitehead taxonomy, with the exception that I've added another category that
for no good reason I call impressionism, for the 60's Blue Note avant-garde
and all that it has influenced. And I've invested a bit of work into trying
to flesh out these ideas (see the chapter on "Modern Jazz" under "Jazz
Styles" in my online Jazz Improvisation Almanac). But it's not like I
really care that much what we call anything.
Marcel-Franck Simon <min...@fpk.hp.com> wrote:
> Simon Weil (simo...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Right. Just to piss everybody off, I don't find expressionism that
helpful a
> : term. I mean it works if you know early 20 Century art and can relate it
to
> : that - but otherwise it seems a bit opaque to me. Not that I have a
better noun
> : - but I think the adjective "primal" - strikes closer to what I'm
thinking
> : about. It's primal music - sort of visceral and unashamed of it.
>
> I think expressionism was Whitehead's term, and I don't like it
> either. "Emotionalism" is better but sounds vaguely pejorative.
While I agree that "expressionism" is not the world's most descriptive term,
then again, its not as musically meaningless as "New Orleans style",
"bebop", "hard bop", etc. I'd put it on the same level as "cool" or
"swing" - it captures something, but leaves alot out.
The way I relate to the term "expressionism" best is by thinking of it in a
way that, I suppose, plays right into the hands of its critics. Most jazz,
indeed most music, is about finding a balance between expression of self and
bowing to the needs of the music. One differentiator between styles is
where we find that balance. I hear "expressionistic" music as fnding that
balance point more in favor of expression of self than other forms of jazz,
although in some ways, paradoxically not much more so than in some New
Orleans style jazz. This is not to say it's every man for himself; there is
usually a group vision all ensembles members share, and they work toward it.
Still, it isn't normally quite as much about moment-to-moment adjusting to
what everyone else is doing as, say, something like Andrew Hill's early Blue
Note recordings, which strike me as being at the opposite end of that
extreme.
> : > There's freebop, which we can think
> : >of as the more directly Ornette-inspired stuff that has
> : >been at least somewhat incorporated into mainstream
>
> "Ornette-inspired" and "somewhat incorporated" are terms so
> vague as to cease being useful. I prefer something along the
> lines of "Blues-infused music not governed by chord progressions
> or scales, and not necessarily sharing the standard small-group
> model of a soloist supported by a rhythm section, yet that retains
> a linear rhythmic structure. First introduced by Ornette Coleman,
> whose harmolodic conception can be understood usefully as a formal
> definition of the freebop style."
I guess I don't see how this is an improvement over "Ornette-inspired",
unless you mean to differentiate Ornette's earliest recordings (which is
what "freebop" really applies to) from his later ones.
> Po-mo is another term that's been overstretched into uselessness.
> I prefer pastiche, which has the advantage of a useful relatively
> formal definition, and the corollary disadvantage of being known
> by few outside art communities.
The other problem is that it is somewhat narrower than pomo, at least as I
see it. To me, pastiche connotes something assembled out of relatively
large, undigested chunks of source material. This might apply to some of
Zorn's pieces, but I see people like Abrams or Threadgill coming up with
something more organic, and I see it all as pomo.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Walter Davis
> : Walt Davis:
> : > ...someone suggested something like Euro-free
> : >improv, which would include Bailey et al. And someone
>
> No need IMO to use limiters like "Euro-free" since there are
> American improv musicians and "free" is a term both redundant and
> overloaded from "free jazz."
I agree, I just couldn't remember what term was
proposed. Now I think the term that was proposed was
'non-idiomatic free improvisation.' Catchy ain't it?
> : >suggested something like abstract impressionism, which I
> : >think was meant to include someone like Jimmy Giuffre.
>
> Are there many such, other than Giuffre? If not you're probably
> better off not trying to coin a term, but rather explaining Giuffre
> as an extension/exception of the other forms.
>
Well, I'm trying to recall an rmb thread from something
like 6 or 7 years ago (and without the dejanews
archives). A thread I don't think I even participated
in for that matter (maybe Marc remembers better). Heck,
maybe Marcel participated. I think some nominated
Andrew Hill for this category. These days I think I'd
nominate Guillermo Gregorio. Maybe Ran Blake (I'm not
familiar enough with his music). But back then I wasn't
clear on why this wasn't just restructuralism and now I
don't remember what the proponents' arguments were in
favor of this category. I think it was basically "free"
but not "skronky" and "just idiomatic enough".
And as I'm sure you can imagine, it's not like there was
unanimity on the categories or their names.
> I completely agree with Simon's other point though. If there are any
> emotionalists playing stuff that 1977-vintage emotionalists did not
> already know and play, I have not heard them. I mean no disrespect
> to emotionalist music but IMO adherents who slag be- or post-boppers
> for being stuck in the past, are pots calling the kettle black. With
> the aggravating circumstance that not only are these musicians (and
> their fans!) convinced of the newness of their actually-well-understood
> output, they also believe the music intrinsically makes some sort of
> post-1960s political statement. These guys need to be told loud and
> clear that it's not 1976 anymore, to say nothing of 1968 or 1964, and
> they'd better wake up and smell the coffee.
>
> There will be flames over this, but hopefully we can get past them and
> actually have a discussion rather than shout at each other.
>
I'm not sure that was Simon's point, especially since it
seems to me that Simon is pining for more of those
'post-60's political statements' (though I could be
wrong).
But it's not clear to me what "new" things emotionalism
could do. Unfortunately, emotionalism is the one term
you didn't define in greater detail Marcel. :-) But to
me, the 'purpose' of emotionalism is for a player to
directly express themselves within the moment,
traditionally at a high energy level but I don't know
that we have to make that part of the definition. It
requires honesty, technique, and abandon. As such, I
don't think it can ever really be a dead end (its as new
as the person playing it), but I also don't see that it
can change formally without turning into one of the
other categories. I mean you can conceivably add new
extended techniques for your instrument (which I think
has been the case except maybe for saxists).... though
chances are if they did that extensively (e.g. Mats
Gustafsson), I'd slip them into restructuralist :-)...
but I don't quite see what's 'new' that can be added.
Unless we are talking about restructuralists or
pastichists including emotionalism within their works --
which I think happens but apparently Simon doesn't (at
least not often enough for his tastes).
And when comparing this music to mainstream jazz, while
it may be true that it's not 'new' either, it's
certainly 'fresher' in that there aren't that many
people doing it and it does offer fewer constraints.
And finally, here again we run into the problem of
categorization. William Parker is, from what I see, the
real leader of the current American emotionalism scene.
But he also has no problem playing with Cecil Taylor and
he's quite the composer himself and I wouldn't classify
his solo bass work as purely emotionalist. Heck, the
Little Huey stuff is almost representational (or are we
back to calling that programmatic? :-)
Ware and Gayle are probably the closest to pure
emotionalists -- yet they've both played with Taylor and
their more recent work has moved in a more structured
direction. I suppose someone like Fred Anderson (who's
less skronky but certainly emotional) is close as well,
but he's also performed with Marilyn Crispell, Peter
Kowald, and others.
Among the younger folks, I think every one that I'm
familiar with also works in other contexts. I'm glad to
see this, I think you may be as well, but I'm not so
sure about Simon. :-)
> To start, then, people have the right to play whatever their muse tells
> them to play. This applies to emotionalists, and also to beboppers.
> So I can say Milt Jackson played kick ass hard bop in a late recording
> without some emotionalist fan jiving about "nothing happening." I should
> be able to respond to the anti-young-lion "nothing new" rant by asking
> what exactly, say, Assif Tsahar does that's so special...
Sure...but I hope you're not suggesting this very
conversation doesn't happen all the time on this board.
:-) But to me, in either case, the answer is
essentially subjective. It need not be completely
subjective, but the essence of either reaction is "I dug
it" or "it's got soul" or "it's got a genuine blues
feeling" or "it's primal."
Of course for the most part, even young emotionalist
fans have enough respect for guys like Jackson not to
diss them. Just don't compliment you know who or anyone
who followed....
And of course the answer to the question "what's new
about Assif Tsahar" is that jazz has never had Assif
Tsahar before. And isn't that all that emotionalism
really requires?
(by the way, I think I'm leaning toward 'visceral' as a
good name for this category)
>
> Please understand, I'm not picking on Assif Tsahar here (he's a fine
> player, to whom I wish whatever career success he can achieve.) I do
> mean to attack the idiotic exclusionary attitudes that "my music good
> because my music new avant-garde" or "*my* music better because my
> music defender of tradition." These are of a pair, come from the same
> base tribalistic human impulse that, if left unchecked, develops into
> racism, xenophobia and the rest. They are JUST AS BAD as each other,
> and if I heard *one more* smug reviewer expressing them (Cadence are
> you listening?), I might go postal.
>
Ahh, the ever-popular anti-social violent response to
tribalism! :-))))
But your concerns here are similar (though stronger) to
my reactions to Simon. To say that music needs to be
'primal' and that this is missing from later forms of
'avant-garde' is of a similar type as you-know-who
saying that music has to have a 'genuine blues feeling'
and that this is missing from all forms of
'avant-garde.' And maybe just as vague in meaning. :-)
Granted the overlap between Simon's 'primal' musicians
and you-know-who's 'blues' musicians is probably a very
small set, but sometimes it's the form that bothers you
more than the content.
Simon Weil
>I wasn't jazz-conscious at the time, but I believe that
>Air Lore was very well received. And certainly the
>critic Francis Davis is a big Threadgill fan.
>
>I've been a less impressed with Threadgill's music of
>the last 10 years or so, but that's more a comment on
>how great I think Air and the sextett were than it is on
>his current music. Though I too love the way he makes
>use of tuba.
>
>And I suppose the way his music has changed over the
>years fits in with Simon's thesis as well. To be
>honest, I'm still not 100% sure what Simon means by
>'primal' (I think his meaning is probably more complex
>than I first gave it credit for), but I suspect that
>he'd find Air to be the most primal Threadgill, followed
>by the sextett, Very Very Circus, then Make a Move.
I actually only know the later stuff and that's not very primal - more in the
Dave Douglas sort of mode, if you will. So...
Just to shoot myself in the foot (probably both feet and the head as well),
I'll attempt to clarify what I mean by the P word. This is the the New Shorter
Oxford Dictionary definition:
1)Pertaining to, or having Ecclesiastical primacy; of or pertaining to a
primate
2) Belonging to the first age or earliest stage: original, primitive, primeval,
b) *Psychol.* Of, pertaining to, or designating the needs, fears, behaviour
etc., that are postulated (esp. in Freudian theory) to form the origins of
human life.
3) Of first rank, standing, or importance, chief; fundamental, essential.
Probably the thing I'm closest to is 2b. I have the idea that people are made
up of a rational side and a non-rational side. I think there is a trend in
Western society to deny and marginalise that non-rational side - as in the
cult of rational, competitive man we currently enjoy. Primal is a way of trying
to address that marginalised non-rational side. There are others,as in the
flight to various esoteric "spiritual" religions - some of which manifest
themselves in jazz. But whatever you believe, my bottom line is that there is
some part of human experience that is diminished and denied by the way Society
is currently set up. My way of looking at people is that there is a whole bunch
of conflicting drives and emotions which underly and motivate what people do.
These include the most beautiful and sublime hopes and wishes and dreams and
and some of the most violent (I don't personally subscribe to the view that
everyone is capable of the most heinous crimes). Most of these
emotions/drives/whatever never come out, because Society allows them no
(reasonably) legitimate release - So that each and everyone of us has these
Primal things floating around in the back of our
unconscious/semiconscious/whatever. I want to make clear that, to me, this
stuff is neither bad nor good - it's made up of *potential* bad (say a desire
to do violence) and potential *good* (say a desire to live in a better world).
I say Society allows them no legitimate release, but of course it does - in Art
(and I guess in Sports and whatever else). Here one can enjoy vicariously one's
primal drives and have them have them hurt no-one. In the process, I suggest,
one gets closer to them - and in the moment of release - understand more about
oneself, even if obscurely. And that knowing of oneself, that self-knowledge,
is a moment of growth -it enrches the individual just as ultimately it
enriches society at large. This is partly because art (as opposed to
Schwarzenneger movies) provides a moral context - a context in which (for
example) one's destructiveness can be experienced and its potential
consequences also experienced. And some of them might be even be positive. But
in Schwarzenneger movies, really, one just exults in power and destruction for
its own sake. This is what I take to be your worry, Walt, about "primal" - that
somehow Primal jazz would just be an excuse for an intoxication with primal
violence - and I don't think that at all. I think it allows Primal everything -
which in particular includes the exceptional beautiful things mankind is
capable of to be taken out and looked at, at least a bit, by the ordinary
person. I think Shakespeare's great works do that. I think Picasso does that,
though he deals more with the destructive elements of Primal. And I think Cecil
and the other 60s Free guys did that, though, again, their area of Primal
differs somewhat from the things that had gone before. They all had this
Utopian/Spiritual ethic, but they also contained violence, perhaps in tune with
their times . Now we're 30+ years on - and whatever Primal musicians come up
(if they do) they would have a different take.
I think that people like Marsalis deny this sort of possibility to jazz.
Squeeze up all that stuff and allow it no release.
Simon Weil
Darren
Simon Weil wrote
consequences also experienced. **SNIP** >>
*************************************************
Welcome to SynchronicitY
http://members.aol.com/wwrivrrat/
*************************************************
Vincent Kargatis / Anne Larson
well),
> I'll attempt to clarify what I mean by the P word.
I think many (I for sure) would be helped if you listed specific
artists/examples of what you mean, especially of current musicians (I know
you've said the current scene is lacking in them, but surely there are some
you feel meet the criteria).
> I think that people like Marsalis deny this sort of possibility to jazz.
> Squeeze up all that stuff and allow it no release.
Maybe, but do you see that as having relevance to the spectrum of
interesting artists working today, especially regarding your observed lack
of your preferred stylistic bent? From my listening chair, Marsalis is
irrelevant in any way I can think of, so it's hard to care about what he's
denying.
v
Simon Weil
>> Just to shoot myself in the foot (probably both feet and the head as
>well),
>> I'll attempt to clarify what I mean by the P word.
>
>I think many (I for sure) would be helped if you listed specific
>artists/examples of what you mean, especially of current musicians (I know
>you've said the current scene is lacking in them, but surely there are some
>you feel meet the criteria).
He then chopped out the heart of my post as if it did not matter at all and
continued:
>
>> I think that people like Marsalis deny this sort of possibility to jazz.
>> Squeeze up all that stuff and allow it no release.
>
>Maybe, but do you see that as having relevance to the spectrum of
>interesting artists working today, especially regarding your observed lack
>of your preferred stylistic bent? From my listening chair, Marsalis is
>irrelevant in any way I can think of, so it's hard to care about what he's
>denying.
Why should I bother replying if you treat what I write with such lack of
respect?
Simon Weil
Vincent Kargatis / Anne Larson
news:20010303135019...@ng-mb1.aol.com...
> Why should I bother replying if you treat what I write with such lack of
> respect?
My apologies - I meant no disrespect at all.
> He then chopped out the heart of my post as if it did not matter at all
I only snipped it because I wasn't interested in addressing any of the
issues or definitions you introduced. A purely personal reaction which of
course does not bear on the quality of your post. I was, however,
interested in your previous thesis that "primal" was mostly missing in jazz
today, and that you thought that's where jazz's future best lies. And I
found that despite your descriptions of the concept, I still couldn't
identify current musicians that might exemplify that direction for you (I'm
assuming there are at least a few), so I asked for examples, so I could
understand better your main discussion point (which I took as not the
definition of "primal" music, but rather the music itself that you're
applying the label to).
All this, because if your "primal" styles pretty much overlap with what the
others are calling expressionism/emotionalism (and I can't yet tell), then
I'm a bit surprised, since it's fairly apparent to me that there's
relatively little unexplored in that sub-genre ("expressionism"), and I
don't see it as offering a significant pathways to new developments in jazz,
at least as a dominant influence. "Expressionism" in that sense I think has
more recently pushed *other* genres of music onto new paths, say Japanese
noise, or dense, complex metal like Meshuggah. But not jazz, which squeezed
most of the new paths out of that in the 60s and 70s, as Walt noted earlier.
Now, as I said, I'm not sure if your "primal" extends beyond what we're
calling "expressionism", so I'm looking for (current) musician examples. I
don't think any amount of description will help me understand better, just
as I find play-by-play descriptions of musical events in record reviews
pretty useless for me.
> >> I think that people like Marsalis deny this sort of possibility to
jazz.
> >> Squeeze up all that stuff and allow it no release.
> >
> >Maybe, but do you see that as having relevance to the spectrum of
> >interesting artists working today [etc]
I included this as a parenthetical remark, having nothing to do with the
"primal" discussion, and simply reflecting my chagrin that I keep seeing
Marsalis's name pop up in weird and irrelevant (imo) places. I personally
don't see his relevance to most musicians working today in the genres we're
discussing, so I was wondering aloud why others seemed to, enough so that
they mention him.
vince
Walter Davis
> This is what I take to be your worry, Walt, about "primal" - that
> somehow Primal jazz would just be an excuse for an intoxication with primal
> violence - and I don't think that at all.
Ahh, I have no worries whatsoever about primal. Dave
Douglas can strip naked and spin around like a whirling
dervish and I'll have no problem with it.
My disagreement/concern is that your previous portrayals
had borne a resemblance to the stereotypes applied to
the very music you seemed to be extolling. I worry not
about primal jazz or any supposed effects it has on its
audience, I disagree with the portrayal of primal jazz
as 'violent' and I disagree with the notion that
structured jazz can't be primal much less that it exists
as a means of suppressing primal jazz.
Now I'm glad to see that your notion of 'primal' is a
bit broader than it first looked to me, but now it does
seem to bear more resemblance to 'soul' or 'blues
feeling' or, god forbid, 'the gutbucket'. Who's
'primal' and who's not seems as subjective as any other
notion of what makes 'real jazz' or 'great jazz' or what
have you. To wit, you don't feel that much jazz today
'speaks to you' or at least it doesn't do so on a
'primal level'. On the other hand, some of the most
ecstatic, transcendent, primal, whatever experiences
I've ever had in jazz have been delivered by folks like
Mats Gustafsson, Ken Vandermark, Gerry Hemingway, Thomas
Lehn, Peter Kowald, Myra Melford, Jim Black -- all folks
who I'm not sure cut the primal mustard with you and
certainly all folks who also play lots of the type of
music you see as non-primal.
Still, given it's all subjective, I don't disagree that
there's some music which is more 'primal' than other
music. The problems I've had with the things you've
written have focused on two related fronts: (1) that
'structure' is in some way the antithesis of primal and
therefore (2) musicians who impose structure are
motivated by a desire to suppress primal music. Cecil
Taylor (your prime example) blows (1) out of the water.
Now you might be able to make a good case that Wynton is
guilty of (2), but I've heard little to nothing from
'avant-garde' structuralists to suggest anything of the
sort. And given how many such musicians communicate
primally _to me_, I doubt I'd buy it even if you could
make the case.
And I suspect that it really comes down more to how
we've been conditioned to hear things. Wailing sax
trios are immediately recognized as 'primal' -- maybe
retread primal, but definitely primal. Pointillistic
solo sax is immediately recognized as 'cerebral' even if
it's completely unstructured. Almost anything over a
strong, 'soulful' beat is primal; almost anything
without a drummer is cerebral. The bass is a more
primal instrument, cello and violin are more cerebral.
Finally, improvisation is primal, composition is
cerebral.
And I think all that conditioning is wrong. And as I
suggested before, to me the widely unrecognized, one
might even say suppressed, genius of the last 25 years
or so of jazz is that musicians (i.e. predominantly
'avant-garde' musicians) have broken down that
conditioning. Most especially, composers (i.e.
structuralists) have come up with many solutions to
incorporate improvisation within the context of their
compositions. Similarly, improvisers have become expert
both at 'instant composition' and at expressing
themselves within the confines of a (now much less
restrictive) composition.
Walter Davis
>
> Why should I bother replying if you treat what I write with such lack of
> respect?
Simon, snipping is not a sign of disrespect. Many of us
out here appreciate it when someone snips part of what
they're responding to, especially if they're responding
to only a couple points. (As a pet peeve, I hate it
when people quote an entire post just to say "well
said"). Oftentimes, one also snips because one doesn't
have anything to say about the snipped part or, god
forbid, one even agrees with or at least comprehends the
point being made.
Vince had one suggestion (examples would help us know
what you're talking about) and a comment (that given
this is a discussion primarily among 'avant-gardists'
about the current state of 'avant-garde' jazz, Marsalis
isn't a particularly relevant discussion point). I fail
to see how reproducing your entire post would impact on
those comments.
Simon Weil
>The problems I've had with the things you've
>written have focused on two related fronts: (1) that
>'structure' is in some way the antithesis of primal
If you go back this thread (and I just did), you will find that I *never
mention structure at all* much less make it out to be the antithesis of primal.
Ergo you ain't reading what I wrote, you are reading *into* what I wrote.
Walt continued:
and
>therefore (2) musicians who impose structure are
>motivated by a desire to suppress primal music.
Cecil
>Taylor (your prime example) blows (1) out of the water.
Unfortunately it doesn't blow anything out of the water 'cos I don't make
primal the antithesis of structure. I am indeed aware that his music is
profoundly structured *and has always been so*. To just agree with Marcel, I do
think restructuralist (or whatever) describes it. Now I want to jump back to an
earlier statement Walt made:
>I disagree with the portrayal of primal jazz
>as 'violent'
Well Cecil himself seems to have acknowledged that about his music (at least in
his early years). I do hear violence in other Primal/60s music - and it would
be dishonest for me to say that I don't. But I see the violence as *only one
element* - and when you boil it all way, I think that violence does actually
play a rather small role in (for example) Cecil's art. Mostly I hear the
surface of his music as violent; beneath the surface it's the most sublime
beautiful stuff. But I don't think you can deny the surface.
and I disagree with the notion that
>structured jazz can't be primal much less that it exists
>as a means of suppressing primal jazz.
This is based on your reading into my position (see above).
I urge to to rethink.
Simon Weil
Marc Sabatella
> I agree, I just couldn't remember what term was
> proposed. Now I think the term that was proposed was
> 'non-idiomatic free improvisation.' Catchy ain't it?
That's Derek Bailey's term. Descriptive enougn, I guess, but lacks the
romance of "bebop" or even "expressionism". Makes me think even more fondly
of the terms "swing" and "cool".
> > Are there many such, other than Giuffre? If not you're probably
> > better off not trying to coin a term, but rather explaining Giuffre
> > as an extension/exception of the other forms.
> >
> Well, I'm trying to recall an rmb thread from something
> like 6 or 7 years ago (and without the dejanews
> archives). A thread I don't think I even participated
> in for that matter (maybe Marc remembers better).
I'm not sure I do. I use the term impressionism in the context of this
taxonomy, and I do recall it came from an RMB discussion, but I don't really
recall Guiffre being the example. To me, it ended up meaning Andrew Hill,
as suggested, and that whol scene, and also maybe some ECM free-ish stuff,
and who knows what else. Sure, Guiffre fits here as well as anyone.
> back then I wasn't
> clear on why this wasn't just restructuralism and now I
> don't remember what the proponents' arguments were in
> favor of this category. I think it was basically "free"
> but not "skronky" and "just idiomatic enough".
I would say there is less of an emphasis on creating new structures in which
to work, but more a matter of letting things happen and going where the
music takes you. I think Whitehead lumped this in with restructuralism at
first, but in my phone conversation with him, he expressed support for the
idea of separating it out. He wasn't crazy about the term impressionism
though (abstract or otherwise), because to him, that meant Miles second
quintet. I can't say as I really see that connection strongly, but on the
other hand, it could definitely be argued that this group was doing things
that related to this style.
> Ware and Gayle are probably the closest to pure
> emotionalists -- yet they've both played with Taylor and
> their more recent work has moved in a more structured
> direction.
I wonder about association with Taylor as automatic validation of one's
restructuralist tendencies. While Taylor certainly has his structures, my
impression is that he, like Ornette, isn't too specific about what he
requires of his cohorts, and to a large extent lets them play what they
will. I haven't heard Ware or Gayle with Taylor, but somehow, I'd be
surprised if they sounded that different from how they sound on their own.
In any case, I am not sure why there should be a search for a "pure"
emotionalist who never does anything else - do we make similar demands of
any other style? I'm not so sure that's really what Simon was after.
> > To start, then, people have the right to play whatever their muse tells
> > them to play. This applies to emotionalists, and also to beboppers.
> > So I can say Milt Jackson played kick ass hard bop in a late recording
> > without some emotionalist fan jiving about "nothing happening." I should
> > be able to respond to the anti-young-lion "nothing new" rant by asking
> > what exactly, say, Assif Tsahar does that's so special...
>
> Sure...but I hope you're not suggesting this very
> conversation doesn't happen all the time on this board.
> :-) But to me, in either case, the answer is
> essentially subjective. It need not be completely
> subjective, but the essence of either reaction is "I dug
> it" or "it's got soul" or "it's got a genuine blues
> feeling" or "it's primal."
I think it can go beyond that, though. For me, the issue is one of
inclusiveness. If an emotionalist were to somehow deny the validity of
other styles - as opposed to merely not playing them well, or saying they
are old hat - I'd be concerned. This rarely happens, though. Instead, it
tends to be the beboppers who deny the validity of emotionalism. I guess
I'm a postmodern at heart - I want to acknowledge all of it in my music. I
don't require that everyone do the same, but they'd better at least
acknowledge the validity of it.
Marcel-Franck Simon
: > > To start, then, people have the right to play whatever their muse tells
: > > them to play. This applies to emotionalists, and also to beboppers.
: > > So I can say Milt Jackson played kick ass hard bop in a late recording
: > > without some emotionalist fan jiving about "nothing happening." I should
: > > be able to respond to the anti-young-lion "nothing new" rant by asking
: > > what exactly, say, Assif Tsahar does that's so special...
Walter Davis responded, in an article that has not (yet) arrived on my
server, and quoted by Marc Sabatella:
: > Sure...but I hope you're not suggesting this very
: > conversation doesn't happen all the time on this board.
In my experience it's very difficult to say that someone doesn't do
anyting new without it being heard as the someone does't do anything
interesting, or worse, the someone doesn't do anything of value.
Which is not only wrong, it's very harmful. If everyone has to do new
"cutting edge stuff" that limits the opportunity for different musicians
to interact around common tunes, comparing vocabularies, approaches,
"tricks of the trade" and so on. The mindless pursuit of the new atomizes
the music; it destroys opportunities for shared discovery of the next
broadly-based musical developent. It'll be hard for the next bebop or
even freebop to happen if "the music" is actually several dozens of small
(regional or stylistic) communities with much intra-community ferment
but little cross-fertilization.
Marc Sabatella (ma...@outsideshore.com) wrote:
: I think it can go beyond that, though. For me, the issue is one of
: inclusiveness. If an emotionalist were to somehow deny the validity of
: other styles - as opposed to merely not playing them well, or saying they
: are old hat - I'd be concerned. This rarely happens, though. Instead, it
: tends to be the beboppers who deny the validity of emotionalism. I guess
: I'm a postmodern at heart - I want to acknowledge all of it in my music. I
: don't require that everyone do the same, but they'd better at least
: acknowledge the validity of it.
Well yes, though in my experience the *fans* of emotionalism are not as
inclusive as you give credit above. The musicians themselves are pretty
live-and-let-live, with some well-known exceptions (eg Jarrett on Wynton
or Branford-as-quoted-by-Burns on Taylor.) But, the fans do contribute
to the divisions in the music today. Certainly certain segments of the
jazz press do positions themselves as defenders of this or that camp.
All of which is an unfortunate waste of time. to say nothing of harmful
as I argue above.
Walter Davis
>
> Walt Davis wrote:
> >The problems I've had with the things you've
> >written have focused on two related fronts: (1) that
> >'structure' is in some way the antithesis of primal
>
> If you go back this thread (and I just did), you will find that I *never
> mention structure at all* much less make it out to be the antithesis of primal.
> Ergo you ain't reading what I wrote, you are reading *into* what I wrote.
Fair enough, but your original non-primal example was
Dave Douglas, we've discussed (not sure who started)
musicians favored by Giddins and Davis (structuralists
all), we've discussed the trend in jazz towards greater
stucture/composition/arrangement, and certainly if you
don't see 'primal' as counter to structure, then I have
an even less clear idea what you're referencing. And
based on most of the other posts in this thread, it
seems that every one of us (perhaps following my lead)
seem to think this is the contrast you're trying to
make. This is why we keep asking for examples.
Which, upon rethinking, leaves me even more at music
Simon really likes vs. music Simon kinda likes. Which
is perfectly fine, but doesn't leave us with much to
discuss regarding current trends in jazz.