Jump to content

Anyone know anything about this Coltrane book?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Got that one & one called Ascension which is an easier read than Porter's.

Porter's book is very good, but I agree it is not that easy to read. I am not a musician, and a great deal of the book is taken up with an analysis of his muisc, and musical knowledge I am sure would help. It seems to have been written to appeal to musicians, rather than lay people like me!

Che.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This book not only details Coltrane's strengths and weaknesses [...]"

Musical weaknesses? By '57 (even by '56), what weaknesses?

/

The Lewis Porter book is top notch. Eric Nisenson, on the other hand, is the most godawful jazz writer I've ever read.

I have read Nisenson's book on Sonny Rollins which I think is a little better than the Coltrane book.

Che.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Fitzgerald,

I thought about adding something like that. It really is sad that the state of jazz writing is so poor. I guess that decades ago jazz was not usually thought of as serious enough to write about with the intelligence as classical music and other art forms, even film. And, in general, jazz writing has still not caught up. One contributor to this problem is that so many entrenched jazz writers actually argue that jazz writing doesn't need to be better than it is. Yet, what's so often written in books and in the jazz magazines is just garbage.

Edited by Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rollins book is another piece of trash - the contributions that Rollins himself made are of some value but forget everything else. Paraphrases straight from the Grove Dictionary of Jazz, huge omissions, faulty assumptions, etc. - this is NOT quality writing.

I don't really get the idea that people should find something "easy to read". These are books about music. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that music will be discussed. If you need to improve *your* background knowledge of the subject, do it - don't complain about it or expect someone to dumb things down. Things that are "easy to read" don't teach you much. Please see also "easy listening".

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have read Nisenson's book on Sonny Rollins which I think is a little better than the Coltrane book." [Che]

How could it be worse? Wait, it could be worse by being Blue: The Murder Of Jazz. That's got to be the most sophomorically bad writing about jazz ever. Then, there's Ben Ratliff...but that's another dark corner perhaps best left undisturbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's okay that people want some easy reading. But it's intolerable that writers themselves don't demand a standard of themselves, and intolerable that good, detailed, and intelligent writing about the music is actually discouraged for being "arcane", "technical", "elitist" and all the rest. The dumbdownedness of jazz journalism and jazz writing makes me want to scream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rollins book is another piece of trash - the contributions that Rollins himself made are of some value but forget everything else. Paraphrases straight from the Grove Dictionary of Jazz, huge omissions, faulty assumptions, etc. - this is NOT quality writing.

I don't really get the idea that people should find something "easy to read". These are books about music. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that music will be discussed. If you need to improve *your* background knowledge of the subject, do it - don't complain about it or expect someone to dumb things down. Things that are "easy to read" don't teach you much. Please see also "easy listening".

Mike

I have read all three books mentioned and many more books on jazz, and a lecture from you is not helpful to anyone. You have your opinions try and articulate them in a way that brings many more people into this discussion. There are many on this board who may not have the knowledge that you do.

Che.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's okay that people want some easy reading. But it's intolerable that writers themselves don't demand a standard of themselves, and intolerable that good, detailed, and intelligent writing about the music is actually discouraged for being "arcane", "technical", "elitist" and all the rest. The dumbdownedness of jazz journalism and jazz writing makes me want to scream.

There are many people who join forums like this because they have discovered jazz for the first time, want to improve their knowledge of jazz or just like to have conversations etc etc.

So they read two books that you do not like, well maybe they do and maybe they have some opinions different from yours. Then they see the strong views, the swear words, the personal comments on anyone that has a different view and I wonder do you think they will want to post a response?

Che.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - apparently I touched a nerve there.

Perhaps you would like it better if I dumbed down my response. How about something like "Gee, you're absolutely right." If it makes you feel better, you can assume that's what I said.

I guess you know all you need to know from reading those books on jazz and if you didn't understand what Lewis Porter is writing about in his Coltrane book, then it must have been HIS fault and not yours. I apologize for presenting a dissenting view.

Sure, "easy reading" books on jazz are out there -

http://www.jazzhouse.org/library/index.php3?read=gourse1

but let's not confuse them with serious books by qualified authors.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - apparently I touched a nerve there.

Perhaps you would like it better if I dumbed down my response. How about something like "Gee, you're absolutely right." If it makes you feel better, you can assume that's what I said.

I guess you know all you need to know from reading those books on jazz and if you didn't understand what Lewis Porter is writing about in his Coltrane book, then it must have been HIS fault and not yours. I apologize for presenting a dissenting view.

Sure, "easy reading" books on jazz are out there -

http://www.jazzhouse.org/library/index.php3?read=gourse1

but let's not confuse them with serious books by qualified authors.

Mike

Mike.

We do not know each other but I suspect you have formed an opinion of me already.

I am not concerned with what you said, but the way you said it and how helpful this is in creating continued discussions. Your tone is aggressive and now you are patronizing.

The book by Lewis was very good, but the pages he spent trying to analyze Coltrane's music, as a non-musician made it difficult to read and follow. This is a critique of his book that others have commented on.

So how about we try and stick to debate, without the aggression etc?

Che.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't happen to see what is aggressive in pointing out that people who have deficiencies in their musical knowledge should work on improving this area before reading a detailed musical biography addressing the style and innovations of a major figure written by someone who is a performer and a college professor (with a Ph.D. - earned for a dissertation on Coltrane's A Love Supreme). Obviously (well, to me it's obvious), those lines and dots are there for a reason and the words and symbols on the facing pages probably are as well. Until you can *decipher* what is there on the page, how can you expect to come to any kind of educated opinion on whether the analysis is accurate, convincing, etc.? It's like reading a book that contains a lot of vocabulary you have never encountered before. If, once you understand what has been written, you then have issues with it - great. Those should be addressed.

Or was it my pointing out that the Rollins book is a piece of trash? You are under no obligation to agree with me on this matter either. I'm not running for office and trying to collect votes. I do not express my opinions in hopes to "bring many more people into this discussion" - I express them to express my opinions.

In any event, I really have no interest in debating you, so please don't worry yourself. Apparently there are some who do find my comments in this thread of value. I'm not looking for their votes either.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This probably isn't the thread to ask this in, but maybe it is -- and here goes...

Michael, I understand the need for both scholarly significance, but also for books that are "readable" (for lack of a better term). I'm curious if you've ever read any of the Phaidon books on 20th Century Classical Composers (there are about 20 of them, last time I checked, maybe closer to 25 -- and I own about 15 total). The whole serious was supposed to be something like 50 books long. (Haven’t seen any new ones in ages, though. :unsure: )

bkphaidonsib.jpg0714831743.jpg0714837954.jpgJaffe_Prokofiev.jpglawson.gif

Phaidon · 20TH CENTURY COMPOSERS · Series

Jean Sibelius

Hindemith, Hartmann and Henze (scroll down a bit)

György Ligeti (scroll down a bit)

Sergey Prokofiev

Carl Nielsen (scroll down a bit)

(Many more in the serious, but these were some that had images and mini-reviews I could easy post links to here.)

I'm wondering (Michael) what you think of them, generally, in terms of their value (not financial value, but value as books - as resources, but also as something the public can read).

Personally, I find them (meaning this particular Phaidon series) to be as good as any I've seen, in terms of both 1) readability (having a narrative style that draws one in, and tells what could easily be a very dry story, in an interesting way); and 2) schollarly value (assuming they are factually accurate, which I'm assuming they are - though I don't have anything to back that up one way or another). The musical analysis isn’t the most technical, but it isn’t vacuous either. A nice, happy, medium :) – and it serves a need in the marketplace.

Isn't there room for some kind of happy medium like this??? - where some scholarly needs can be met, but without the result being a doctoral thesis?? I realize that there's a place for doctoral theses, and I'm not knocking them one bit. But there's a place for good writing too (yes, that’s factually accurate, sure!!), but that also helps draw the reader in, and that doesn't bore them to tears.

Ideally, I'm looking for BOTH. Hard to find, I know. But that's the optimum solution, in my book (pun intended)

Edited by Rooster_Ties
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take away the musical analyses from Porter's book and you're still left with a superb work. The "I couldn't get anything out of it because it was too technical" line I've heard some people use with this book is bogus. If in-depth research is not what you're looking for in a Trane bio, say so, no biggie. I've got a few Greatest Hits albums myownself, so I can relate to the concept. But don't blame Porter for doing and presenting first-class work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take away the musical analyses from Porter's book and you're still left with a superb work. The "I couldn't get anything out of it because it was too technical" line I've heard some people use with this book is bogus. If in-depth research is not what you're looking for in a Trane bio, say so, no biggie. I've got a few Greatest Hits albums myownself, so I can relate to the concept. But don't blame Porter for doing and presenting first-class work.

Yep no issues with that here.

Che.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I have not read any in that series, so I cannot comment.

I do take issue with the term "readable" - Lewis Porter's Coltrane book is absolutely readable, eminently readable, to me, and to many others. I would place Porter (who I note, is a friend) as one of the clearest writers working on jazz today. So we do need a better term than "readable".

And heavens! The Porter book is NOT like a doctoral thesis - man oh man - there are people out there who are writing stuff that is unbelievably detailed and complex: the folks who deal with Schenkerian reduction, etc.

Can there be books that are designed to be "introductory"? Sure. At this point, the classical field has an immense head start. Firstly, the score (not the recording) is the prime document - one can see all the relationships laid out. In jazz, one would need to transcribe all the solos, all the accompaniment in order to speak in the same level of detail. An introductory book would probably deal with shallower levels of analysis. I do this all the time when working with students. In the classical field, the "serious" biographies have been written and the "introductory" biographies are probably based largely on them, without new research - the "reader's digest condensed" versions. In jazz, the research hasn't been done. Not even for Duke Ellington - there is still a huge amount to be studied and digested and presented. Jazz musicology is a very young area. Classical musicology has been around for centuries.

Anyway, the big problem I see is where the "blame" is transferred:

"the pages he spent trying to analyze Coltrane's music, as a non-musician made it difficult to read and follow"

I would say the following is more accurate: "as a non-musician I had difficulty reading and following the pages he spent analyzing Coltrane's music".

It's not the writer's fault, it's the reader's fault. And "trying to analyze" implies to me that the analysis was perhaps unsuccessful and since the reviewer is a non-musician, how on earth could he make that assessment?

Books that purport to deal with musical analysis need to do so. And musical analysis demands musical notation. Most publishers are scared of this (and it helps perpetuate the viscious cycle - readers don't see notation, they think they don't need it, then they run into it and get scared because they haven't bothered to learn it because they have gone so long without seeing it).

As a music educator, I try my best every day to help create a population that is not musically ignorant, nor musically illiterate.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be fair, I guess that the poster Che was not so much blaming the author as noting that the technical passages are in fact difficult for some people.

As to happy mediums, I unhappily view the balance already so far on the lite [sp intentional] side that the too infrequent stiff shots of technical and substantively musical material are just a start toward bringing us toward the medium.

Edited by Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I need to get a moderator between you two? ;)

I like the Porter book, and I always go for the more in depth bio on a musician or group I like, but I also buy more than one book on an artist/group if I don't want to read the in depth one at that time. I'm aware there are errors, but thankfully don't care although I agree authors need to get the facts straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I will add that there are many good jazz books that are not technical and that can be read by the lay reader- funny this should come up tonight because I was thinking of starting a thread about good, readable music books (because I think many books on music are un-readable - not because they are technical but because of bad writing and editing, and the mysterious inability of some academics to actually deal with the MUSIC) -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...