Anyone know anything about this Coltrane book?

[Chuck Nessa]

"Readability" is a huge factor for any book. It has little to do with the technical aspects but has tons to do with the words/style of the writer. You can write an important (history/chronicle/etc.) and lose the reader 'cause it's a "slog" to get through the words. Style and technique have a lot to do with it.

[Cornelius]

Why are so many writers so unwilling to deal with the music?

They tell you it's because they don't want to lose the readers. Perhaps there's some truth in that; that general readers can't absorb too much technical discussion. But it seems to me that so many writers go so far in the opposite direction - utterly inane tripe, including cliche apocrypha, "lifestyle" portraits (some people are actually proud that that's all they write about - People Magazine style), etc. And when musical content is included, it turns out incorrect - pretentious doubletalk.

Meanwhile, I suspect that these jazz writers don't want to tackle the details of the music itself because they don't know much about it. It's a lot of homework to learn about chord changes and things like that. Why bother when you can slide by without it?

Okay, some of the esteemed scribes have managed without knowing the mechanics of the music. But I don't see that they wouldn't have been even better writers if they had. Hentoff wrote a column a month or two ago in which he defended himself from his own conscience about this. I found the article to be transparently self-vindicating rationalization.

[AllenLowe]

well, I'm not crazy about Hentoff's music writing, but for other reasons - but there are numerous writers who deal directly with the music without getting technical, and who do it well: Dick Hadlock, Larry Kart, Giddins, Francis Davis, Bob Blumenthal, Michael Fitzgerald (who does both well - technical and non-technical approaches), Dick Katz, (a musician who writes brilliantly about the music and manages to be both technical when needed, but always accessible), Greg Tate (good writer for the most part), Charles Wolf (country music), Paul Oliver, Dan Morgenstern, Whitney Balliet (who can be annoying and way off base in his descriptions but quite good when focused) -

Edited March 17, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Chalupa]

Slightly off topic..... Has anyone here ever read anything by Charles Rosen?? His best known book is "The Classical Style". I saw him give a performance/lecture on Mozart about 6 or 7 years ago. A real "Renaissance" man.

Edited March 17, 2005 by Chalupa

[Guest che]

One of the best books I have read on jazz was that by Randi Hultin " Born Under The Sign Of Jazz",

She was a Norwegian Jazz Journalist, who over the years met and talked with many Jazz greats. Many stayed at her house and the book comes with a CD of some rare recordings.

Che.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Heavens, Allen - what am I doing on that list?

I think there is a big difference between people who know music and who write non-technical things (most of my writing) and those who don't know music. Of course, the worst case is when the latter try to write about technical things (many times even the simplest concepts elude them).

Obviously, having a background as a musician informs all of what one does as a music writer. Apart from Katz and the undersigned (and I don't put myself in his class), are any of the others musicians? Part of what makes Morgenstern so good is that he keeps within his limits (but even as a "mere listener", he can identify sets of chord changes, etc.) and builds everything off his huge body of experience.

Mike

[JSngry]

Why are so many writers so unwilling to deal with the music?

They tell you it's because they don't want to lose the readers. Perhaps there's some truth in that; that general readers can't absorb too much technical discussion. But it seems to me that so many writers go so far in the opposite direction - utterly inane tripe, including cliche apocrypha, "lifestyle" portraits (some people are actually proud that that's all they write about - People Magazine style), etc. And when musical content is included, it turns out incorrect - pretentious doubletalk.

Meanwhile, I suspect that these jazz writers don't want to tackle the details of the music itself because they don't know much about it. It's a lot of homework to learn about chord changes and things like that. Why bother when you can slide by without it?

I know a fair number of lay film buffs who can comprehend the basics of lighting, editing, etc. Same with photography afficiandos who appreciate things like framing. shutter speeds, etc. Many amateur appreciators of classical music understand the rudiments of form, tempo, etc. And so forth.

so why do so many jazz fans recoil, almost in horror, whenever faced with things like ii-V changes, turnarounds, specific instrumental techniques, etc? It's not like these are exotic things that you have to join a secret cult to comprehend. It's fundamental music-making, nothing more. Part of the music is indeed soiritual/emotiional, but just as much of it is technical. The instruments don't play themselves, and a lack of skill will be readily apparent to almost everybody. So why the resistance to learning what goes into the making of that which one loves? Appreciation should be enhanced by such knowledge, not diminished!

I wonder how much of this aversion to the nuts-and-bolts is rooted, even subliminally, in the romantic notions that many fans have about the music's ethnic/cultural roots. I mean, the image of the passionate, oppressed, free-spirited rebel who spews forth intuitive brilliance certainly holds more novelty and sociological appeal to many than does that of the passionate, oppressed, disciplined craftsman who spends years of hard work dedicated to learning how to play an instrument well enough to present considered expression.

Just a thought...

[Larry Kart]

The musical analysis in Porter's excellent Coltrane biography is particularly strong because it's not merely a verbal/notated account of what most anyone with ears can already hear (Hans Keller: "What usually goes by the name of analysis is nothing of the sort. Most critics have never grasped the essential difference between analysis and description"). Rather, Porter identifies and zeroes in on the essential musical issues at stake. For a good example, check out his discussion on p. 228 of Coltrane's motivic thinking.

[AllenLowe]

a smart thought, Jim - the best writing has a good balance and does not get bogged down in the technical, but uses tech knowledge as a way of expanding on the non-technical - I put Mike in that list because the Gigi Gryce book is a model of good jazz writing -

Edited March 17, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Thank you Jim - every day I teach students tone production, reading notation, compositional/improvisational skills, etc. These kids are then better equipped to deal with music, not only as players, but as listeners. If my fourth graders can learn notation, it should not be feared by adults. As Lewis Porter explains, music notation is just a graph - and we see graphs in newspapers and on TV every day.

Now, as for "soiritual/emotiional" - I wish you would stop using these technical terms. I tried looking them up and couldn't find them in the Harvard Brief Dictionary, nor in the Webster's Collegiate.

Mike

[JSngry]

Now, as for "soiritual/emotiional" - I wish you would stop using these technical terms. I tried looking them up and couldn't find them in the Harvard Brief Dictionary, nor in the Webster's Collegiate.

I didn't know that Harvard had a dictionary of underwear!

And as for Webster's, you gotta look at Ben, not Miriam.

[bluesForBartok]

I also agree that the Porter book is a wonderful and informative read. It was a perfect balance of biography and analysis and frankly I wish there were more books out there like it.

The books I have a problem with are attempts at over intellectualizing the art of jazz such as this one:

Anyone read this? I guess it falls into the Critical Theory bag. There is a pretentious air to these essays that just left me cold and sometimes a bit irritated. I just don't see how this sort of writing provides any insight into the art of jazz.

[JohnS]

I don't have this book nor have I read it.

But I have read Derek Ansell's essays and reviews in Jazz Journal were he mainly writes on hard bop issues. I find his writing rather lightweight and it rarely adds anything to what is already known. My guess is that this will be an easy and rather superficial read concentrating on recordings. I doubt that it will cover anything not covered more than adequately elsewhere.

[Rooster_Ties]

I wonder how much of this aversion to the nuts-and-bolts is rooted, even subliminally, in the romantic notions that many fans have about the music's ethnic/cultural roots. I mean, the image of the passionate, oppressed, free-spirited rebel who spews forth intuitive brilliance certainly holds more novelty and sociological appeal to many than does that of the passionate, oppressed, disciplined craftsman who spends years of hard work dedicated to learning how to play an instrument well enough to present considered expression.

I definitely think this is a factor, Jim, and thanks for mentioning this.

People forget (or never choose to realize it in the first place), that musical performance has technical demands, that are often very demanding. Whether the player himself (or herself) can read music or not, or explain their art in eve the most minimarl technical terms --- the music itself demands technical ability to perform.

Edited March 17, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[dave9199]

So, back to the original question: Does anyone know if the Coltrane book is a heavy or a light read?

[Rooster_Ties]

So, back to the original question: Does anyone know if the Coltrane book is a heavy or a light read?

Threadjack!!! Threadjack!!!!!

[Christiern]

I think one needs to distinguish between musical analysis and history/biography. While I have listened to the music for well over half a century, I have never studied it formally, so I am not equipped to write analysis, but I do work on getting my facts straight.

When writing Bessie, my biography of Bessie Smith, I felt (and here I may be rationalizing) that analyses of her music would have been inappropriate. I did go into some detail on a handful of her recordings (especially in the revised 2004 edition), but in very superficial terms, mainly describing what I hear. Here is a case where all the recordings are readily available, as are books that focus on the music.

Apropos dissecting music, I am reminded of Gunther Schuller's analysis of Bessie's "Jailhouse Blues," which I used (with permission) in my Bessie Smith Songbook (Schirmer's). I read it to Ruby (Bessie's niece) because I was curious to see her reaction to such detailed examination. When I got to "because Bessie is heading for the tonic," Ruby remarked, "Bessie didn't drink no tonic."

It has always amuses me how confused/amused many artists are by analyses of their own performances.

As for books dealing with jazz/blues history or biography, there is a sorry wealth of trashy ones out there--the genre is the low fence over which uninformed, uncaring "writers" jump.

[Guest che]

I think one needs to distinguish between musical analysis and history/biography. While I have listened to the music for well over half a century, I have never studied it formally, so I am not equipped to write analysis, but I do work on getting my facts straight.

When writing Bessie, my biography of Bessie Smith, I felt (and here I may be rationalizing) that analyses of her music would have been inappropriate. I did go into some detail on a handful of her recordings (especially in the revised 2004 edition), but in very superficial terms, mainly describing what I hear. Here is a case where all the recordings are readily available, as are books that focus on the music.

Apropos dissecting music, I am reminded of Gunther Schuller's analysis of Bessie's "Jailhouse Blues," which I used (with permission) in my Bessie Smith Songbook (Schirmer's). I read it to Ruby (Bessie's niece) because I was curious to see her reaction to such detailed examination. When I got to "because Bessie is heading for the tonic," Ruby remarked, "Bessie didn't drink no tonic."

It has always amuses me how confused/amused many artists are by analyses of their own performances.

As for books dealing with jazz/blues history or biography, there is a sorry wealth of trashy ones out there--the genre is the low fence over which uninformed, uncaring "writers" jump.

I tried to get a copy of you book at the time it came out, It proved difficult here in the UK, so I have still not read it. Perhaps it will be easier now, I recall it had some good reviews.

Che.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Chuck Nessa Posted: Mar 17 2005, 02:44 AM 

"Readability" is a huge factor for any book. It has little to do with the technical aspects but has tons to do with the words/style of the writer. You can write an important (history/chronicle/etc.) and lose the reader 'cause it's a "slog" to get through the words. Style and technique have a lot to do with it.

I definitely agree with this. I think in academic writing especially, there comes a point where form and substance DO meet. The substance of an idea (especially a new or at least unusual one) is unlikely to be understood if the style is too dense. Poor style can obscure ideas either partially, with the result that they're misunderstood, or wholly, with the result that they go unnoticed at all.

[relyles]

So, back to the original question: Does anyone know if the Coltrane book is a heavy or a light read?

I think JohnS' post above was related to the Coltrane book.

[AllenLowe]

are we talking John, Ravi, or Alice?

[dave9199]

John. Did you see the link at the beginning of the thread?

[jpmosu]

Anyone read this? I guess it falls into the Critical Theory bag. There is a pretentious air to these essays that just left me cold and sometimes a bit irritated. I just don't see how this sort of writing provides any insight into the art of jazz.

Equating "critical theory" with "pretentious" doesn't seem quite fair. Gabbard, whose background is in literature and literary criticism, has edited two anthologies for people interested in the intersection of jazz and other areas of the humanities. And, he's writing for a largely academic audience who understand the "language" that he and his contributors speak. In the end, it either communicates to you or it doesn't, but "pretentious" seems like such a knee-jerk phrase to dismiss a book that *has* found its own niche (I've used it in my own writing and research, btw).

So many of these criticisms about books fail to consider the question of audience. Not every book is for every reader, right? I know that's stating the obvious, but sometimes that idea seems to have become lost in this thread.

john

[Dan Gould]

While its true that not all books are for all readers, that's not how they get organized in the book store: Pretentious Crap for Non-Jazz Lovers; Non-Technical Biography For Jazz Fans Without Music Degrees; Heavy Technical Analysis ...

Perhaps "pretentious" is a poor choice of words, but I know I'd be damn disappointed if I found myself spending money for a book that had no serious interest in jazz or the musicians who make it and just use jazz to hang some currently "hip" academic theory off of.

[JohnS]

John. Did you see the link at the beginning of the thread?

Yes, I don't believe you'll find anything new. Just my opinion.