Martin Williams

[Simon Weil]

Simon, my man! Congrats on nailing Murray-- the man is not wholly UNknowledgeable but i FELT he was jive from the git-go as we used to say. My earlier point to you is wrt to Af-Am humanity, arts, etc. is it ain't-- it ought not have EVER been-- jes' "jazz" or acceptable "uptown" blues. I'm slightly (but only slightly) hesitant about calling Martin Williams a square bc maybe he could dig the other stuff but just didn't feel comfortable writing abt it himself-- a fair, honest reaction...

Thanks Clem! Jive is a more succinct way of putting it.

I'd compare the Civil Rights thing to Jazz as a great human achievement - that's the one obvious place (for this UK white guy) where American blacks have operated on the highest level. Indeed changed the world. I mean I really relate to guys like Bayard Rustin. My personal feeling is it needs changing some more.

Yeah, Martin W. did write kind of square. But a lot of that's books and covers. I am particularly struck by what Larry said about his generosity to those coming up. You've got to have a decent soul for that.

You know what I'd like? New black criticism of 60s Jazz.

Simon Weil

Edited December 26, 2004 by Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

Maybe the other pasts don't mean anything to you, but they do to me, becuase they are the gist of my point - namely that jazz was once music that existed as part of everyday life first and then fodder for intellectual speculation (in both creation and appreciation), instead of what it has now quite often become - intellectual fodder first and foremost. I don't like the shift. And if that's "anti-intellectual", so be it. I don't think it is, simply because I have no problem with the intellectual component of the music and the culture.

None whatsoever.

I think you're simply mistaken if you believe that Jazz is now quite often "fodder for intellectual speculation". The two leading modes of Jazz appreciation (that I can see anyway) are aestheticism - i.e to do with the beauty of the Jazz form (the leading critic for this is Whitney Balliet and he has several followers of varing distinction. And a lot of no distinction) - and the sort of technical appreciation of the music (which can be to do with nailing down dates, times etc - or to do with technical exegisis of the music).

You can get aestheticism which tends to the intellectual - and you're correct to say that Murray does this. In other arts - e.g. visual art, music, literature - this combination of formal appreciation and intellectually deep discussion can and has produced classic criticism. And, I would argue, you need that combination to produce criticism that really does justice to an art. But it doesn't happen very much in Jazz. Martin Williams is the best we've got at it.

You can take a guess at why that might be. My guess is that Anglo-American society is simply not very good at producing intellectuals. Indeed it's not very friendly to intellectuals in general. Perhaps we might hope that Afro-American society might be better at it. I hope so. But, so far, Murray and the rest seem to fit into that mold - by being not very good as intellectuals.

I would repeat, the problem for Jazz is not over-intellectualization, it's that the intellectuals we've got haven't, as a rule, been much good.

But you need to be able to tell the difference.

Simon Weil

[couw]

Charles Mingus

Igor Stravinsky

Howlin' Wolf

Bram Stoker

[Christiern]

"...but from his writings, he seemed A LOT hipper than Martin. (i could be wrong.)"

Martin was in some ways eccentric, but I never thought of him as anything but "hip." He had an interesting, eclectic group of friends, and I had the impression that they reflected the breadth of his intellectual curiosity. I recall one Sunday afternoon cocktail party where I saw Ornette and Rudi Blesh (who believed jazz came to a dead end in the 1940s) engaged in deep conversation in one corner and Amir Baraka (then Leroi Jones), holding a baby in his arms, making small-talk with Charlotte Moorman. These are the people I recall, but the gathering was more intriguing than my specific recollection indicates.

[JSngry]

Maybe the other pasts don't mean anything to you, but they do to me, becuase they are the gist of my point - namely that jazz was once music that existed as part of everyday life first and then fodder for intellectual speculation (in both creation and appreciation), instead of what it has now quite often become - intellectual fodder first and foremost. I don't like the shift.

To what do you attribute the shift, Jim?

Bereneoboppers of all stripes and all occupations who wanted the times to represnt them rather than vice-versa.

Them and Reagan kinda were made for each other, loathe as they'd each be to admit it.

[couw]

Bereneoboppers of all stripes and all occupations

I have some of those in my back yard but still don't quite know what they are supposed to represent. Any light in my dark yard?

[AllenLowe]

Whooa - sorry I went away this weekend; still trying to absorb the threads of this thread - I will add a few things that I hope don't seem irrelevant -

1) Jazz may seem more "intellectual"these days than in certain past times, but that's an inevitable turn for any art form. But, to look more deeply than this - can we truly separate intellect and feeling? To me intellect is an aspect of feeling, feeling an aspect of the intellect. So maybe it's not that musicians are now more intellectual than in the past, but that they are intellectual (and emotional) in a much different way. And, anyway, who among us can truly separate those two elements, in any real why? They are both equal parts of the psyche; any dichotomy is, IMHO, false.

2) Martin Williams - interesting and important guy; I had a few encounters - he was a pain in the ass, but an accomodating and important pain in the ass, and truly one of the pioneers of jazz criticism. I know this has already been said, but it bears repeating. Reading the collection of his reviews is interesting, because his opinions have aged quite well (including some non-snobbish and acute observations about Elvis). He had technical issues, and made some mistakes this way. Dick Katz, who worked with him on a number of things, told me that Williams refused to acknowledge or admit to his technical limitations.

3) Frances Davis's book on the blues is one of the finest of the genreand, believe me, I've read just about all of them - and, by the way, Francis HAS done hillbilly, and well - his piece on Johnny Cash is brilliant, and he did another fine piece on Pee Wee King. So enough of that.

Edited December 27, 2004 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

I think you're simply mistaken if you believe that Jazz is now quite often "fodder for intellectual speculation".

And I think you're mistaken if you think that the whole "gotta play IN THE TRADITION" trip hasn't infiltrated the whole structure of jazz to the point that it affects the people who spend the money, and since the (mostly) demise of the organic jazz community (at least in America) has made these cats a significant source of income and opportunity to get some "exposure", the music's being framed accordingly. Not cool, not good musical focus, and to the extent that efforts are being directed towards producing music that fits a to one degree or another imposed philosophy, over-intellectualized. Yes.

I would repeat, the problem for Jazz is not over-intellectualization, it's that the intellectuals we've got haven't, as a rule, been much good.

But you need to be able to tell the difference.

I think I can tell the difference, and that's what I'm so pissed at - the over-emphasis on bad intellectualism. If you think that I have any reservations in principal about the mingling of jazz and intellectualism, think again. But the music must always be the source of the intellectualisation, not the other way around. Good theory stems from contemplating successful practice, not the other way around.

I mean, it ain't like Lincoln Center is producing The Harlem Renaissance II (or III). And not just because Lincoln Center ain't in Harlem either.

[JSngry]

Tex-- I'm gonna shout it one more time for you, hoss, on the dusty plains of Collin County--

PEE WEE CRAYTON!!

.

Indeed.

To hear him, Big Joe Turner, and Sonny Stitt together, all getting on up there in years, and none in outstanding form, is nevertheless something to hear, even if it's not necessarily "good". It's too good to worry about whether or not it's good.

Not what you're shouting about, I know (and I do know what you're shouting about) but still...

Edited December 27, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Bereneoboppers of all stripes and all occupations

I have some of those in my back yard but still don't quite know what they are supposed to represent. Any light in my dark yard?

Try Sevin, and lots of it.

[JSngry]

He had technical issues, and made some mistakes this way. Dick Katz, who worked with him on a number of things, told me that Williams refused to acknowledge or admit to his technical limitations.

And this...is a problem for me.

Because where Williams went in his tone was that hiw opinions were authoritative, that he knew and it was your job to learn. Not that this was how the music struck him, but that this is what the music was. Well, cool, teach me.

And I learned. but as I continued to learn more about the mechanics of music, the more I learned that sometimes (and sometimes uncomfortably so) the teacher was blowing smoke in a way that made me wonder - if this cat was so damn SURE about what he was hearing, and if what he was hearing wasn't really what was THERE, how much could I, no - SHOULD I believe that what he was telling me that I needed to hear in the music really was there, much less that it was what I needed to be hearing. Even when he was right, he was sometimes just half-right. Which is better than not being right at all, but hardly justification for me to be enamored of and with the authoritative stance that came with it, a stance that seemed/seems to be lovingly recieved in some quarters.

Like I said, a problem for me that continues to this day. Maybe you had to be there...

[Leeway]

But the music must always be the source of the intellectualisation, not the other way around. Good theory stems from contemplating successful practice, not the other way around.

Art and criticism are always in a dialectical relationship. As I said in my earlier post, I believe that artists lead the way, and great artists, in a short historical moment, can blow away all the tired theorizing and practice that impedes the development of any art form at a critical juncture.

But great art needs great critics, the kind who can appreciate "the new thing" and help clear space for it, nurture it until it can take hold, and help spread the new ideas. Eventually, this process repeats itself.

As for "bad intellectualizing," that doesn't really get us anywhere, as what we see as "bad" might be something we just don't like. Time tends to sort out what is truly new, original, and worthwhile, from what was mereley the secondary, the pastiche, the retread.

Much of this has been worried through in other fields, and it remains a valid source of attention. perhaps the classic work on this subject is T.S. Eliot's essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent. For those so inclined, I have included a link to the essay itself:

T.S. Eliot Essay

[JSngry]

Indeed.

To hear him, Big Joe Turner, and Sonny Stitt together, all getting on up there in years, and none in outstanding form, is nevertheless something to hear, even if it's not necessarily "good". It's too good to worry about whether or not it's good.

whoa... really? really? please tell us ** that ** story, dadd-i-o.

[Larry Kart]

Clem -- I'm pretty sure it was the same Israel Young, the guy who was connected to Sing Out!, right?

Don't know who did what at The Jazz Review, but I've always felt that Hentoff, for all his usefulness early on (at least to guys like me, reading Down Beat in the 1950s and looking for guidance and enlightenment) was kind of square in that his relationship to the musicians seemed a bit puppy dog-ish. (Martin, by contrast, I think maintained his distance and his dignity -- even if he arguably was over-invested in the dignity thing. I was the one who said you might not want to read Martin on Ammons or Arnett Cobb.) Back to Nat -- as time has passed, it seems to me like jazz has more or less become one of his many free-lancer meal tickets, to be punched when necessary. Likewise, after a certain point his liner notes became on-the-nod strings of quotes, from himself and other sources.

I had an interesting encounter with Mr. Zappa, or so it seemed to me. It's in the book.

Don't recall what blues Martin liked, but I do recall him pointing out in print on several occasions that the once fairly common belief that the blues was a folk music pure and simple doesn't hold up to examination -- rather, what we have is a fairly constant recycling and reshaping of popular music of many kinds and vintages and that, for example, what one might prize as deeply authentic and personal in a Blind Lemon Jefferson or a Leadbelly or a Fred McDowell or a Snooks Eaglin (different as they each may be) often turns out to have been a song that they first heard on the radio or on a record and then wrought into a shape they found pleasing. Allen Lowe is THE expert on this whole multi-faceted process. Martin, I believe, found the whole idea of "folk music" (or rather the ideology of it) wrong-headed, even pernicious. No, he didn't like Johnny Griffin (but then you knew that -- right?).

[couw]

1) Jazz may seem more "intellectual"these days than in certain past times, but that's an inevitable turn for any art form. But, to look more deeply than this - can we truly separate intellect and feeling? To me intellect is an aspect of feeling, feeling an aspect of the intellect. So maybe it's not that musicians are now more intellectual than in the past, but that they are intellectual (and emotional) in a much different way. And, anyway, who among us can truly separate those two elements, in any real why? They are both equal parts of the psyche; any dichotomy is, IMHO, false.

Yes, intellect and feeling can be discerned. Trouble is, they cannot once you start typing as you are always channeling the one through the other. The eternal problem of Albert Schweizer. Still he wrote some books that make sense.

Intellect is not an aspect of feeling. Feeling is not an aspect of intellect. Both are aspects of the person and intuition resides between and varies. For each person intuition reaches elseplace than for others. The very question on discerning between the aspects of feeling and intellect is rather nonsensical and though stale, yet somehow still sensational, but still silly in the end. Intuition cannot be parted, yet it is part feeling and part intellect. That does not mean there isn't pure intellect or pure feeling as well.

The notion that a dichotomy that discerns between the two aspects of discourse is false is plain silly. dialectically that is.

So there is no "depth" to be had in trying to discern these two aspects, every body does it all of the time, although not consciously (ain't life grand?). Maybe if you can place intuition in a valid common path of evolution through the times, there is depth to be reached. Good luck!

Saying that "today's musicians" are "intellectual (and emotional) in a much different way" does not really say anything if you do not tell how and where. And who too, BTW. It may turn out "they" have tilted their balance of feewing and tfought after all.

All of this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand BTW.

I have a sudden urge to talk about pudding, but I digress....

Edited December 27, 2004 by couw

[couw]

Bereneoboppers of all stripes and all occupations

I have some of those in my back yard but still don't quite know what they are supposed to represent. Any light in my dark yard?

Try Sevin, and lots of it.

don't ask, kill?

nice philosophy....

[JSngry]

Don't ask once you know.

[couw]

Don't ask once you know.

I don't know, so I will ask again

[JSngry]

Try Sevin, and lots of it.

[JSngry]

Indeed.

[AllenLowe]

"The very question on discerning between the aspects of feeling and intellect is rather nonsensical and though stale, yet somehow still sensational, but still silly in the end. Intuition cannot be parted, yet it is part feeling and part intellect. That does not mean there isn't pure intellect or pure feeling as well.

All of this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand BTW."

Spoken like someone who really only understands and considers these concepts in theory, but not in actual practice.

Excuse me, but you might try reading through the ENTIRE thread - there has been much discussion on this, pertaining to Williams and the state of music pre-modern and post-modern. I was pointing out the mistake of calling certain modernists "intellectual" while considering their predecessors to be non- intellectual, which particlarly pertains in many discussions of jazz as an early music (say, pre-War) versus jazz as a modern music (say, post-War). And if the very question is nonsensical, why have you given it so much thought? Spare us the academic dialectics, please. These are the things that musicians and writers (in the real world) grapple with every day. And just as you can sometimes, at least theoretically, separate form and content, they are still, in their essence, aspects of each other.

Edited December 27, 2004 by AllenLowe

[couw]

Well, excuse me Mr Lowe. I just thought your dichotomous world could do with a third entity to easy things up a little.

I guess it didn't.

I will revert to talking about pudding then.

No harm done I hope.

[AllenLowe]

well, I like pudding, too - and to understand my cranky reaction to your post, you should realize that it was a bit insulting -

and I've long been concerned by the fact that it's next to impossible to find a decent custard anymore -

[couw]

-_-

[ghost of miles]

This is somewhat anecdotal, based on my experiences working in several local CD stores for seven years & perusing articles, jazz radio charts, etc., but there is a brand of jazz--the brand that dare not speak its name--that continues to be somewhat popular & esp. with African-Americans, and that is the dreaded smooth or "urban" jazz. So where does that leave us? I can't stand it, musically speaking (in any form of speaking), but that's the kind of jazz that younger and middle-aged African-Americans tended to buy in the places where I worked. It was mostly the older crowd that bought the music that's talked about here. Lots of white folks buying it as well, and they were all buying it for pleasure (cue the cable-movie sex scene). We can say that bad taste knows no boundaries, racial or otherwise, but I think that's a condescending attitude. "Pleasure," listening-wise, is such a subjective way to frame the discussion of how we approach the "worth" of music... One of my co-workers was a middle-aged black woman, and we used to jibe each other about our respective tastes in jazz. She'd grimace while I was playing Sonny Rollins in the overhead--"That's just so skronky!" (and we're talking the Prestige sides) and then throw on Dave Koz. She hipped me to some early Grover Washington, and I thank her for that, but she also liked lots of later Grover that, uh, well, the friendly jibes continued flying.