Jazz History books???
JAdanZZY
book? I love jazz history and I already have one but there has to be better
ones. Please give me the info. Thanks
Dan
aakermit
I recommend "The History of Jazz" by Ted Gioia (Oxford University Press,
1997) It is an excellent overview of jazz history, very readable and the
author has credibility as a musician and record producer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Fitzgerald
>How about the Mark C. Gridley books?
I suppose, if you're into having everything under the sun compiled
into a half-page "list" of names. At least that's the way it was with
the editions of Jazz Styles that I knew back in the 1980's. And I
never found Gridley to be particularly astute.
As I've said many times before, I much prefer Lewis Porter's "Jazz:
From Its Origins To The Present" from Prentice-Hall.
Mike
Blue Lake
aakermit <aake...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8dl4cf$bii$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
>
> I recommend "The History of Jazz" by Ted Gioia (Oxford University Press,
> 1997) It is an excellent overview of jazz history, very readable and the
> author has credibility as a musician and record producer.
How about the Mark C. Gridley books?
Lazaro Vega
Blue Lake
Michael Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:fivsfscdc0jvgvv4e...@4ax.com...
>
> into a half-page "list" of names. At least that's the way it was with
> the editions of Jazz Styles that I knew back in the 1980's. And I
> never found Gridley to be particularly astute.
>
> As I've said many times before, I much prefer Lewis Porter's "Jazz:
> From Its Origins To The Present" from Prentice-Hall.
>
> Mike
>
> fitz...@eclipse.net
> http://www.eclipse.net/~fitzgera
Mike,
Yes, he hasn't changed the format much: still list based. Just wondered what
people thought.
Lazaro
Steve Bosarge
JAdanZZY <jada...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000419145915...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Can anyone tell me off a really good comprehensive, competent, jazz
history
> book?
1. "The Story of Jazz," Marshall Stearns, Oxford Univ. Press, 1956 (and
many revisions, reprintings and republications)
2. "Where's the Melody?" Martin Williams, Da Capo Press, 1966 (and at
least
two revisions)
Both original works obviously are dated, but history covered up to their
times is
highly accurate and interestingly written..
Steve Bosarge
New Century Management Consultants
Consultants to the Music Industry since 1987
Adam Bravo
biographies about various jazz musicians, but if one reads from cover to
cover, they can get a good idea of the links between them.
JAdanZZY <jada...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000419145915...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Can anyone tell me off a really good comprehensive, competent, jazz
history
Alan David Mills
news:20000419145915...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Can anyone tell me off a really good comprehensive, competent, jazz history
> book? I love jazz history and I already have one but there has to be
> better ones. Please give me the info. Thanks
>
> Dan
Not a critical work but an enjoyable read is "Hear me Talkin' to ya"
by Shapiro and Hentoff. It's a collection of quotes by musicians
describing their experiences in jazz. Unfortunately it's only valid
up to the mid 1950s when the book was published.
I like this form - it's also the one used by Stuart Nicholson in his
recent "A Portrait of Duke Ellington". It would be good if there was
a book which covered the last 50 years in the same way that the
Shapiro/Hentoff book covered the first 40 or so years of the music.
--
Alan Mills (living in Devon, England)
Marc Sabatella
> Michael Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
> > >How about the Mark C. Gridley books?
> >
> > I suppose, if you're into having everything under the sun compiled
> > into a half-page "list" of names. At least that's the way it was
with
> > the editions of Jazz Styles that I knew back in the 1980's. And I
> > never found Gridley to be particularly astute.
> Yes, he hasn't changed the format much: still list based. Just
wondered what
> people thought.
Interesting. These are the first negative comments I've seen about this
book. I've only seen it briefly and thought it looked promising, and
have been meaning to buy a copy ever since, but now I'm not so sure.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sound clips, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
ap...@my-deja.com
"Steve Bosarge" <new-c...@mciworld.com> wrote:
>
> JAdanZZY <jada...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000419145915...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> > Can anyone tell me off a really good comprehensive, competent, jazz
> history
> > book?
>
(and
> many revisions, reprintings and republications)
Seconded.It is still the best for the period it covers.
Also worth checking out is Hobsbawm's "The Jazz Scene",
written,I fear,at about the same time.
george skandalidis
Chuck Nessa
CN
Michael Fitzgerald
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> Michael Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
>>>How about the Mark C. Gridley books?
>> I suppose, if you're into having everything under the sun compiled
>> into a half-page "list" of names. At least that's the way it was with
>> the editions of Jazz Styles that I knew back in the 1980's. And I
>> never found Gridley to be particularly astute.
>Interesting. These are the first negative comments I've seen about this
>book. I've only seen it briefly and thought it looked promising, and
>have been meaning to buy a copy ever since, but now I'm not so sure.
See if you can find it at a library or at a "Fox Books Superstore"
where you can sit in the cafe and check it out thoroughly before
purchasing.
Unfortunately, the Lewis Porter book that I recommended is almost
never found in those bookstores. It's primarily a college textbook and
most stores have to special order it. But it's worth the effort and
wait (and the inflated textbook price - even in paperback).
What is great about it is that Porter (as is typical of him) debunks a
lot of myths that are pervasive in every other intro to jazz text (and
a lot of more serious books, too). And he does it right from the
start. Also, it's nice to have a book that isn't *totally* wedded to
the Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz (like the Gridley book is).
Martin Williams didn't do the best job in the world putting that
collection together, so why should every book written afterwards have
to suffer from his bias?
In my opinion, the Gridley book is far too lightweight for someone who
is anything more than a total novice in the music, while the Porter
still has refreshing insights that reward the experienced reader.
There's also an excellent teacher's guide that has a lot of good
information - available free from Prentice-Hall if you call up and say
you're an educator.
Mike
Simon Weil
>>>>How about the Mark C. Gridley books?
>>> I suppose, if you're into having everything under the sun compiled
>>> into a half-page "list" of names. At least that's the way it was with
>>> the editions of Jazz Styles that I knew back in the 1980's. And I
>>> never found Gridley to be particularly astute.
>
>>Interesting. These are the first negative comments I've seen about this
>>book. I've only seen it briefly and thought it looked promising, and
>>have been meaning to buy a copy ever since, but now I'm not so sure.
>
>See if you can find it at a library or at a "Fox Books Superstore"
>where you can sit in the cafe and check it out thoroughly before
>purchasing.
I just bought this. It is meant to be used as part of a College course or
something. Structured learning. It comes in various editions with and without
accompanying CDs. I made the mistake of not getting one of the 2 CDs and have
had to re-order to get it. It does give the basic frame of Jazz history, and I
think competently - But there are things I would disagree with as well. The
nice thing about it is it is keyed to the CDs. So if you're not too sure (which
the original poster suggested) about specific things in Jazz you can hear them
as well as get a description. The *really* nice thing for the technical novice
is he does go into some detail about all those abstruse terms that Jazz-bozos/
musicians use - and has a CD of illustrations. The major problem I have with it
is that I kind of feel there's a redundancy in it - I keep skipping bits.
Perhaps this has to do with being keyed to College learning where you keep on
having to go over the same- ish point.
>
>Unfortunately, the Lewis Porter book that I recommended is almost
>never found in those bookstores. It's primarily a college textbook and
>most stores have to special order it. But it's worth the effort and
>wait (and the inflated textbook price - even in paperback).
I think this is a solid, reliable text. It probably *is* the best available
history. You read right the way through it and you'll have everything you need
to know. My problem with it is that I don't think it's a particularly easy
read. I can go through a chapter (and do), but it doesn't flow.
>
>What is great about it is that Porter (as is typical of him) debunks a
>lot of myths that are pervasive in every other intro to jazz text (and
>a lot of more serious books, too). And he does it right from the
>start. Also, it's nice to have a book that isn't *totally* wedded to
>the Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz (like the Gridley book is).
>Martin Williams didn't do the best job in the world putting that
>collection together, so why should every book written afterwards have
>to suffer from his bias?
If you do Art History courses, this is quite a common sort of angle - The idea
that past critics have not been terrible reliable, whereas current critics
(including of course the writer of the course!) are wedded to a much more
reliable (Kind of Scientific) approach to the data. But what you get like that
is a distrust of the "brilliant insight" sort of critic - who just hears
something and gets it right - in favor of the dogged collector of all the
facts. Personally I think Martin Williams' *The Jazz Tradition* is a great book
- he does have great insights - while I think that the Porter/Ullman is a good
one.
The big problem , for me, with Williams is that he seems to have come to a
grinding halt - criticism-wise - in the late 60s (This is one definite plus for
Porter/Ullman. It goes all the way to the 90s). Other than the World Saxophone
Quartet, no post-60s Jazz seem to have excited him on the most profound level.
But I think that reflects a problem in Jazz criticism as a whole. No-one has
really worked out what to think about/how to look at post-60s Jazz in a
cohesive way. Histories up to that point tend to agree. After that you just
have to read as much as much as you can and figure out your own line.
Incidentally, if you want a good read which is also fairly (I think) reliable:
"The Story of Jazz," Marshall Stearns, (mentioned by Steve Borsage) is fine.
Only goes up to Bop. I read it with _The Freedom Principle (Jazz after 1958)_
by John Litweiler. No so reliable, but, again, readable.
>
>In my opinion, the Gridley book is far too lightweight for someone who
>is anything more than a total novice in the music, while the Porter
>still has refreshing insights that reward the experienced reader.
>
I'm not a total novice - but I don't play. I think you're confusing the two.
Simon Weil
Blue Lake
. I read it with _The Freedom Principle (Jazz after 1958)_
by John Litweiler. No so reliable, but, again, readable.
What do you find unreliable in The Freedom Principle? Litweiler's bio on
Ornette is also fascinating, and I've recently plowed through Szwed's Sun Ra
biography, Space is the Place, the Lives and Times of Sun Ra, which also
sheds considerable light on this era of jazz discussed here.
But The Freedom Principle has some nice insight into the AACM music,
especially The Art Ensemble. So I was just wondering where you find the
research to waver.
Lazaro Vega
Simon Weil
>
>. I read it with _The Freedom Principle (Jazz after 1958)_
> by John Litweiler. No so reliable, but, again, readable.
>
>What do you find unreliable in The Freedom Principle? Litweiler's bio on
>Ornette is also fascinating, and I've recently plowed through Szwed's Sun Ra
>biography, Space is the Place, the Lives and Times of Sun Ra, which also
>sheds considerable light on this era of jazz discussed here.
>
>But The Freedom Principle has some nice insight into the AACM music,
>especially The Art Ensemble. So I was just wondering where you find the
>research to waver.
I'm not really (if indeed at all) qualified to talk about the research. What
worried me was his catch-all chapter 10 "Pop-Jazz, Fusion and Romanticism".
Some quotes:
"As Miles Davis's music declined in the late 1960s, the sales of his records
declined, too...Davis's bosses ordered him to make a hit record or else;
"Bitches Brew" was his response...." [Following Bitches Brew] "..the content of
[Miles] music declined to a search for new idea or effect, and innovation
became valueless..."
On Bill Evans: "His undramatic music was focused in the piano's middle octates,
and a summary of all these qualities is an art of understatement and an
emotionality that ranges from hip to pretty to wistful: modest good manners
raised to a world view."
On fusion guitarists:
"John Abercrombie, Ralph Towner, and Pat Metheny [are characterised by an]
overwheming dominance of pastoral moods in their musics. The nostalgic ache of
sighing cadences is the ruling element of this latter-day pop-jazz...It's hard
to imagine a music more soothing than Metheny's *Offramp* LP; these tranqilized
sounds are divorced for emotion, from tension, from art or any other kind of
vital communication..."
" [Keith] Jarrett's very creativity is pathetically fleeting....For several
years he has been the most popular of fusion musicians."
Litweiler should have left this chapter out. He just so obviously has no
sympathy for these guys and ruins his credibility by writing about them. The
rest (12 chapters in my edition) seems fine, indeed valuable - But, for the
relatively unformed Jazz listener, this chapter needs to be taken with a few
tons of salt.
Simon Weil
Blue Lake
Simon Weil <simo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000426182102...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
Maybe he had to include the chapter to get the rest of the information
published.
LV
Blue Lake
Blue Lake <ra...@bluelake.org> wrote in message
news:8e825n$sr5$0...@205.138.138.3...
And, actually, these comments gave the book more crediblity in my mind. The
AACM rules in idea land like no one else.
Lazaro Vega
>
>
Michael Fitzgerald
>On fusion guitarists:
>"John Abercrombie, Ralph Towner, and Pat Metheny [are characterised by an]
>overwheming dominance of pastoral moods in their musics. The nostalgic ache of
>sighing cadences is the ruling element of this latter-day pop-jazz...It's hard
>to imagine a music more soothing than Metheny's *Offramp* LP; these tranqilized
>sounds are divorced for emotion, from tension, from art or any other kind of
>vital communication..."
Has Litweiler ever HEARD the Metheny record??????????
Yeah, soothing. Sure. Like the title track.
That's one for emptying rooms - it's an Ornette-inspired piece that is
fast and furious.
How about "Eighteen" - with its huge backbeat to get the college-kid
crowds (the PMG audience of the time) dancing.
I guess I could understand the comment if all he ever heard was
"James" which was a tribute to James Taylor (and has subsequently been
recorded by Roy "smooth jazz" Haynes, btw). But the comment is based
in complete ignorance of the subject.
"Overwhelming dominance of pastoral moods." What a crock. Thank you,
Simon, for giving those specific examples.
Mike
Simon Weil
>> > >. I read it with _The Freedom Principle (Jazz after 1958)_
>> > > by John Litweiler. No so reliable, but, again, readable.
>> > >
Lazaro Vega replied:
>> > >What do you find unreliable in The Freedom Principle?
>> > >research to waver.
>> >
I replied:
>> > I'm not really (if indeed at all) qualified to talk about the research.
>> What
>> > worried me was his catch-all chapter 10 "Pop-Jazz, Fusion and
>> Romanticism".
>> > Some quotes:
>> > "As Miles Davis's music declined in the late 1960s, the sales of his
>> records
>> > declined, too...Davis's bosses ordered him to make a hit record or else;
>> > "Bitches Brew" was his response...." [Following Bitches Brew] "..the
>> content of
>> > [Miles] music declined to a search for new idea or effect, and
>innovation
>> > became valueless..."
>> >
>> > On Bill Evans: "His undramatic music was focused in the piano's middle
>> octates,
>> > and a summary of all these qualities is an art of understatement and an
>> > emotionality that ranges from hip to pretty to wistful: modest good
>> manners
>> > raised to a world view."
>> >
>> > "John Abercrombie, Ralph Towner, and Pat Metheny [are characterised by
>an]
>> > overwheming dominance of pastoral moods in their musics. The nostalgic
>> ache of
>> > sighing cadences is the ruling element of this latter-day
>pop-jazz...It's
>> hard
>> > to imagine a music more soothing than Metheny's *Offramp* LP; these
>> tranqilized
>> > sounds are divorced for emotion, from tension, from art or any other
>kind
>> of
>> > vital communication..."
>> >
>> several
>> > years he has been the most popular of fusion musicians."
>> >
>> > Litweiler should have left this chapter out. He just so obviously has no
>> > sympathy for these guys and ruins his credibility by writing about them.
>> The
>> > rest (12 chapters in my edition) seems fine, indeed valuable - But,
>for
>> the
>> > relatively unformed Jazz listener, this chapter needs to be taken with a
>> few
>> > tons of salt.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe he had to include the chapter to get the rest of the information
>> published.
>
>And, actually, these comments gave the book more crediblity in my mind. The
>AACM rules in idea land like no one else.
My problem was that I felt he was essentially writing out of an elitist
position. I bought it in 1985, when I was relatively new to Jazz and was trying
to find out about the avant-garde. The trouble was all I had to go on, to make
sense out of his comments was the players in the chapter I mentioned. For, at
this point, and coming from Rock, these were the guys I had got. I was taken
aback by the venom of his attacks on that music. I did see, even then, that
there was *something* in his criticism, but I also knew that the kind of
blanket way it was applied was grossly unfair. He seemed to be saying that
avant-garde music existed on a much higher plane. The implication was the music
I liked was mush. In that way, he ruined his credibility with me, except in the
case of Ornette, where his writing spoke to me directly. I just thought, well
alright, maybe it is mush to you but I like it. I can't really understand the
music that you like, the avant-garde, and which you assert to be so much more
superior and so much more demanding to listen to. Well so be it, maybe it is
only for this elite which I certainly don't feel part of - and the result is
that I didn't really try listening to avant-garde music for years. I don't
think this is the result he was trying to achieve.
To take this a little wider - I think this sort of view of Jazz (of whatever
sort) as elitist music coupled with a put down of rock or pop or another form
of Jazz is terribly damaging in the long run. It just antagonises all those
people who might listen to Jazz (or a particular bit of Jazz), by telling them
that the music that they listen to now, and by implication their taste, is
worthless. To make it clear, I don't think people state (or are perhaps really
aware) that they think of Jazz as in some way elite - But I do get the
impression that other people get that message.
Simon Weil
Blue Lake
Simon,
I see what you mean, and it's not a good thing to put down another person's
music to puff up your own. But I took John's book a different way, I guess.
Then again, maybe I'm a jazz snob. Could be. I'm tired of the music being
unfavorably compared to European concert music as if jazz musicians didn't
have anything better to offer than entertaining people while they did
something else. The basic adage that music is made to be listened to is
somehow over looked when talking about jazz. The music, it seems, is made to
be "on" while people eat, smoke, screw, whatever.
And if music is meant to be listened to, there are levels to that. There is
a hierarchy. I know its kind to be egalitarian, but there really are musical
forms which may be considered at a different level. I mean, are the Monkees
on the same level as Pink Floyd? Is Oscar Peterson on the same level as
Monk, or Jarrett on the same level as the Art Ensemble? Are the rhythms of
rap music, the musical equivilant of six guys jumping up and down on a
garage door, on the same level as what Max Roach or Elvin Jones can do? Not
really. There's strata there, and defining that isn't just about "I like it"
or "I don't like" but on some observable musical phenomenon. And it isn't
even about simplicity vs complexity: some simple music can be great, some
complex music can be unlistenable.
One of the basic principles of Roscoe Mitchell's music is that it occurs on
varying levels. I take my cue from him. But that doesn't mean one has to put
down any of the above mentioned styles, or denigrate your enjoyment of them,
to make that point. But just in making that point people will get offended.
A couple of years ago the International Association of Jazz Educators had
their annual conference in Chicago and there was a panel discussion on this
history of Chicago Jazz which included Barrett Deems, Marian McPartland,
Mwata Bowden (representing the AACM) and Ken Vandermark. I made the point to
the panel that in his day Louis Armstrong's music was as "radical" or
"avant-garde" as Ken Vandermark's, for instance, is today. And both Deems
and McPartland wholeheartedly agreed.
There's a certain "out frontness" in that aspect of the freedom principle
which I think John was tapping into. But the fact of the matter, too, is
that the fusion movement and the music of Keith Jarrett eclipsed the AACM's
fundamentally more challenging, more aggressive and more daring musical
settings. He's right about that. A measured comparison which reveals
different musical levels is not a popular thing, but I have sympathy for the
Chicagoans in their feeling that they spent all of their time and energy
coming up with the coolest shit and then having something not quite so cool
or musically evolved getting more attention.
Sounds like you were able to find another way into the music which came in
the wake of Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor and Sun Ra. So, what, ultimately,
did it for you?
Lazaro Vega
Simon Weil
>> My problem was that I felt he [John Litweiler] was essentially writing out
of an elitist
>> position [in *The Freedom Principle*]. I bought it in 1985, when I was
>Simon,
>
>I see what you mean, and it's not a good thing to put down another person's
>music to puff up your own. But I took John's book a different way, I guess.
>Then again, maybe I'm a jazz snob. Could be.
Ever since bop, there has been a view amongst the people who listen to it that
Jazz is an elite music. The boppers deliberately made the music hard for others
to play - and that set a trend for the guys who listened to it, or were in on
the scene, to consider themselves hip - elite. I think it's become, in part, a
tradition rather than something rationally considered. It has got passed down.
You see it in Marsalis - who can be really obnoxiously elitist about pop music
- And I think it's in Litweiler as well. I think there are rational reasons for
people to think of Jazz as quality music, but that's something other than
looking down on others because Jazzers have got into the habit.
I'm tired of the music being
>unfavorably compared to European concert music as if jazz musicians didn't
>have anything better to offer than entertaining people while they did
>something else. The basic adage that music is made to be listened to is
>somehow over looked when talking about jazz. The music, it seems, is made to
>be "on" while people eat, smoke, screw, whatever.
Who can disagree.
>
>And if music is meant to be listened to, there are levels to that. There is
>a hierarchy. I know its kind to be egalitarian, but there really are musical
>forms which may be considered at a different level. I mean, are the Monkees
>on the same level as Pink Floyd? Is Oscar Peterson on the same level as
>Monk, or Jarrett on the same level as the Art Ensemble? Are the rhythms of
>rap music, the musical equivilant of six guys jumping up and down on a
>garage door, on the same level as what Max Roach or Elvin Jones can do? Not
>really. There's strata there, and defining that isn't just about "I like it"
>or "I don't like" but on some observable musical phenomenon. And it isn't
>even about simplicity vs complexity: some simple music can be great, some
>complex music can be unlistenable.
>
>One of the basic principles of Roscoe Mitchell's music is that it occurs on
>varying levels. I take my cue from him. But that doesn't mean one has to put
>down any of the above mentioned styles, or denigrate your enjoyment of them,
>to make that point. But just in making that point people will get offended.
Sure, Lazaro, I think that it's a difficult line to walk.
>A couple of years ago the International Association of Jazz Educators had
>their annual conference in Chicago and there was a panel discussion on this
>history of Chicago Jazz which included Barrett Deems, Marian McPartland,
>Mwata Bowden (representing the AACM) and Ken Vandermark. I made the point to
>the panel that in his day Louis Armstrong's music was as "radical" or
>"avant-garde" as Ken Vandermark's, for instance, is today. And both Deems
>and McPartland wholeheartedly agreed.
>
>There's a certain "out frontness" in that aspect of the freedom principle
>which I think John was tapping into. But the fact of the matter, too, is
>that the fusion movement and the music of Keith Jarrett eclipsed the AACM's
>fundamentally more challenging, more aggressive and more daring musical
>settings. He's right about that. A measured comparison which reveals
>different musical levels is not a popular thing, but I have sympathy for the
>Chicagoans in their feeling that they spent all of their time and energy
>coming up with the coolest shit and then having something not quite so cool
>or musically evolved getting more attention.
Yes, if I was in the AACM I would resent others getting more of the pub. But
i'm not sure the real war is with other Jazz musicians. It's to try and enhance
the status of Jazz as a whole - and a lot, if possible. I mean no living Jazzer
(other than Wynton) gets that much attention.
I personally think that measured comparison is absolutely what is required.
It's helpful to know which artsists one should paryticularly apply oneself to,
for a start. Moreover, if one could do it right, it would enhance Jazz's
credibility, not just against pop music, but against the other arts as well -
the latter seems particularly worthwhile. But measured comparison is right out
of touch with the (relativist) spirit of the age - And I don't think it is an
easy thing to achieve. If you ask me, yes, the Art Ensemble at their best did
achieve a perfection a way beyond Jarrett's capabilities. But, to be straight,
I can't think of one - not *one* - current Jazz critic who I would trust to
make measured comparisons across the board. I can't express to you how very
poor I think Jazz criticism is - it's always been bad compared to other forms -
and now it's even worse! This is also important for your point about Classical
music compared to Jazz (and for mine about increasing the credibility of Jazz).
The fact is nobody knows how good Jazz is compared to Classical music (or any
other Artform) because we've never had critics good enough to present the
content present in Jazz in such a way that legitimate comaparisons with other
forms become viable. Jazz critics simply have not been able to put themselves -
and the music across - in such a way that the outside world understands.
Result: Jazz is the poor (artistic) relative.
>
>Sounds like you were able to find another way into the music which came in
>the wake of Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor and Sun Ra. So, what, ultimately,
>did it for you?
It was listening to a guy called Charles Fox on BBC Radio 3. He would always
play the most up to date music and mix it with, say, Pat Metheny. The BBC took
him off in, I think, 1990 and he died soon after. He was a legitimate critic
with an ability to hear for himself. Nobody on British radion since has been in
his class. But, and here's the odd part, when he was playing the (more
advanced, let's say) music, I didn't get it. I t was only after his passing
when I really missed out on a decent reliable voice to suggest new things that
I remembered all the stuff he's been so mad keen on and I didn't get. I sort
of applied myself gradually - and, with a lot of help from rmb, I'm getting
somewhere.
God, I have gone on and on.
Simon Weil
Blue Lake
Simon Weil <simo...@aol.com> wrote in message .
But, to be straight,
> I can't think of one - not *one* - current Jazz critic who I would trust
to
> make measured comparisons across the board. I can't express to you how
very
> poor I think Jazz criticism is - it's always been bad compared to other
forms -
> and now it's even worse! This is also important for your point about
Classical
> music compared to Jazz (and for mine about increasing the credibility of
Jazz).
> The fact is nobody knows how good Jazz is compared to Classical music (or
any
> other Artform) because we've never had critics good enough to present the
> content present in Jazz in such a way that legitimate comaparisons with
other
> forms become viable. Jazz critics simply have not been able to put
themselves -
> and the music across - in such a way that the outside world understands.
> Result: Jazz is the poor (artistic) relative.
Perhaps you could go on some more about what you think a good jazz critic
should have. In my attempts at this in The Grand Rapids Press (Michigan)
over the last 15 years it's been A) to describe the music from it's sound,
instrumentation, song titles, audience reaction, etc. B) to identify whether
or not the artist achieves what they set out to do, how well or not well; C)
set what they've done in historical context both stylistically and
critically.
But it's become harder and harder to get this across in a newspaper article
because of editors who don't know what I'm talking about and therefore
assume the reader won't either. And they'll spend too much of their
editorial time fucking up what I've written rather than just letting it
through and asking later, "Who's Charlie Paker? and why did you mention him
in relation to "Cherokee"? Was he a native American?" How can you reach the
public when the someone who has editorial authority over you doesn't have a
clue about anything other than Bugs Bunny trivia?
I made a comment during an editorial meeting that a rock critic's simile --
he said a performance was "as cool as the fan aisle at K-mart" -- was lame,
and suggested why not write, "as cool as a blast from the French metro?"
Three editors in unison replied, "They won't get it!" We all agreed on, "as
cool as reaching for a brew on a summer afternoon" or something that could
be related to the millions of dollars spent on beer advertising and
therefore wasn't a "reach" at all. And I never used that.
After a while I just gave up fighting with them about it and left for
awhile. I'm trying to write a book now about a Korean musician (Jin Hi Kim)
who plays contemporary classical music (Xenakis Ensemble, Chamber Orchestra
of Lincoln Center), traditional Korean music (court music/ritual shamanistic
posession) and also improvises (Oliver Lake, William Parker, Derek Bailey).
I've taken a leave from the paper.
It's just a grind to have to write about jazz as if it were something other
than music. Sports writers use more of the language than the entertainment
page. In my absence they've put their classical critic on the beat for major
jazz stories (just advances, pre-concert notices, no reviews) and he's doing
a good job addressing the fictional dumb ass the paper conjures as it's
audience. When I can stop saying things like that, then I'll be ready to go
back and slog through it again.
But in the meanwhile I'm producing 30 hours of jazz music a week on a
100,000 watt public radio station, so if people in the area want to listen
to the music I'd be reviewing in the paper anyway, or want to know which
concerts they should check out, they know where to find me. It's just that
the paper reaches such a larger audience than the radio station that I know
I'll be going back.
And on and on....it's catching....what about Gunther Schuller as a music
critic?
Lazaro Vega
Simon Weil
> But, to be straight,
>> I can't think of one - not *one* - current Jazz critic who I would trust
>to
>> make measured comparisons across the board. I can't express to you how
>very
>> poor I think Jazz criticism is - it's always been bad compared to other
>forms -
>> and now it's even worse! This is also important for your point about
>Classical
>> music compared to Jazz (and for mine about increasing the credibility of
>Jazz).
>> The fact is nobody knows how good Jazz is compared to Classical music (or
>any
>> other Artform) because we've never had critics good enough to present the
>> content present in Jazz in such a way that legitimate comaparisons with
>other
>> forms become viable. Jazz critics simply have not been able to put
>themselves -
>> and the music across - in such a way that the outside world understands.
>> Result: Jazz is the poor (artistic) relative.
>
I'm going to answer this in a bizarre way. It seems to me that your problem at
The Grand Rapids Press is not how to do good criticism so much as how to do
criticism at all. Where the editors maintain that all the audience can
understand is guzzling beer (or similar) - what they effectively demand is that
you drag your discourse down to a level of banality. In a way what you've got
at the paper reminds me of the Chris Heim school of radio programming where
everything has to be kept "easy and relaxed" - which is for me "The Banality
School of Radio Programming". Underlying both there is deep and profound
contempt, a view of the audience as dunderheads - Actually people as a whole as
dumb schmucks.
When I was talking about critics, I guess my ideal would have been Kenneth
Clark, who did that series "Civilisation" on TV. I saw that when I was a kid -
like millions of others. I've got the book (which I suppose is more or less an
transcription). It's full of intellectual stuff - The guy was a great critic -
But it also comes across. I just enjoyed it when I was 16 and had no idea of
being "intellectual" at all - and that must have gone for many others as well
because it was a worldwide success.
It seems to me that Kenneth Clark proves that it is perfectly possible to do
intelligent programming (or writing) for the common man. It's just that, for
some reason, people seem to have hypnotised themselves into thinking that all
people can understand is beer ads.
And now you get the weird bit. Sometimes it seems to me that there is a certain
class of people whose interest it is to maintain that the world is best seem
through few gallons of Budweiser. If you think about what Heim is doing on her
playlist, effectively she is removing creativity. That's what I mean by "The
Banality School". She's taking Jazz and reducing it to wallpaper. It's as
though to Heim and her ilk creativity is the enemy - and not because the man in
the street doesn't appreciate creativity (to me the Kenneth Clark example shows
that) - rather my instinct is it's because all Heim ever can produce is
banality. To me there's a kind of jealousy to that. They don't have the talent.
I would have thought that your "as cool as a blast from the French metro?"
simile would have come across. I mean everyone knows "Paris Fashions". Think of
all those Western movies where some stuff comes in "Direct from Paris, France".
It's a term that evokes a world beyond provincial America. Cool like that -
Wider horizons. But I guess to "The Banality School" wider horizons are likely
to be the enemy.
Simon Weil
Blue Lake
Simon,
There's a Gunther Schuller Keynote Address for the Music Personnel
Conference which I think you'd really enjoy reading, if only to put a few
more shells in the chamber -- the whole narcotizing effect of mediocrity as
commodity is challenged in the most clear ways.
http://www.newmusicbox.com/hymn/may
Hope the link works. It's about 5 pages long, but really attacks this "modal
programming" concept that has swept through the media as a means to build
audience numbers.
Best,
Lazaro Vega
>
>
Simon Weil
<snip>I guess to "The Banality School" wider horizons are
>likely
>> to be the enemy.
>>
>> Simon Weil
>
>Simon,
>
>There's a Gunther Schuller Keynote Address for the Music Personnel
>Conference which I think you'd really enjoy reading, if only to put a few
>more shells in the chamber -- the whole narcotizing effect of mediocrity as
>commodity is challenged in the most clear ways.
>
>http://www.newmusicbox.com/hymn/may
>
>Hope the link works. It's about 5 pages long, but really attacks this "modal
>programming" concept that has swept through the media as a means to build
>audience numbers.
>
>Best,
>
>Lazaro Vega
Lazaro, I found it on:
And then scanning for Schuller's name. Very good address. Even inspiring. I
learnt a lot. "For double double God's sake don't play any Schoenberg". Gawd.
Thanks,
Simon Weil