Gittin' To Know Y'all: Improvised Music....

[Lazaro Vega]

http://repository.lib.uoguelph.ca/ojs/view...=28&layout=html

"Gittin' To Know Y'all: Improvised Music, Interculturalism, and the

Racial Imagination" by George E. Lewis

[JSngry]

Is that the George Lewis?

[Chuck Nessa]

Absolutely. Can't wait for his book.

[JSngry]

Yep.

[gslade]

Thanks for posting that Lazaro

A very interesting read

[Man with the Golden Arm]

I've always wondered in the back of my mind about his "Homage to Charlie Parker" record.

? edit: - neophyte asking a question of the boys.

Edited April 25, 2005 by Man with the Golden Arm

[Alexander Hawkins]

Enjoyed that - thanks for the link!

Didn't understand the : is that Hommage... one to pick up?

Count me in as another excited about the book.

[Lazaro Vega]

How soon "we" forget:

Besides a critical stance toward media, the trademark AACM solidarity is also on display in this interview. Leo Smith’s reply to a question concerning the meaning of “the tradition – the blues, for example,”21 by asserting that “We want to integrate all forms of music [. . .]. Everything and anything is valid. Why differentiate what is tradition from what isn’t? That separation serves no purpose.”22 When Mitchell is asked for his opinion about Smith’s comment, he replies, laughing, “Leo just said what I could have said [. . .] Why repeat it?”23 This exchange in turn prompts Jarman to reassert the full mobility of the AACM project of “original music”: “We play blues, rock, Spanish music, gypsy, African, classical music, European contemporary music, voodoo [. . .] anything you want [. . .] because, in the end, it’s “music” that we play: we create sounds, period” (Caux 18).24

This exchange illustrates the extent to which the early AACM notion of “original music” was unbound by strict adherence to free improvisation, notated composition, constructed notions of blackness, or any other fixed notion of method or tradition. Rather, as Lester Bowie asserted not long after the dawn of postmodernism, “We’re free to express ourselves in any so-called idiom, to draw from any source, to deny any limitation. We weren’t restricted to bebop, free jazz, Dixieland, theater or poetry. We could put it all together. We could sequence it any way we felt like it. It was entirely up to us” (qtd. in Beauchamp 46)."

[Lazaro Vega]

Regarding Charlie Parker, he is addressed a couple of times in the essay, including:

By articulating notions of genre mobility and by actively seeking dialogue with a variety of traditions, these musicians [AACM] had placed themselves in an excellent position to recursively intensify and extend Charlie Parker’s emancipatory assertion: “Man, there's no boundary line to art.”

[Lazaro Vega]

From Malachi Thompson via the Chicago Improv list:\

Hey Lazaro: Thanks for making this essay available to the general public. As

a scholarly work or historic overview of improvised music or free jazz, I'm

disappointed with George's essay. Improvised music did not begin in Chicago with

the AACM or with European musicians in the mid 60's. George failed to mention

Sun Ra's residency in Chicago in the late 50's prior to the formation of the

Experimental band or that fact the collective improvisation was always a part

of the New Orleans music tradition. Both evolved out of the African American

community. Perhaps this was by design since it was first published in German,

was it commissioned by the Germans also? The essay can be easily twisted to

support the claims of European supremacy in so called "free jazz." Having said

that, the essay is informative, as far as understanding the European jazz

artists mind set. Do they still consider themselves jazz musicians? The essay

suggest that they have appropriated what they could from the African American jazz tradition and now want to divorce themselves from the Black jazz continuum. But on the otherhand they want to present themselves as the foremost exponents of "free Jazz." You can't have it both ways.

Also George failed to mention the European improvisation tradition enfolded in classical music called the cadenza. Europeans musicians could embrace their own roots and liberate their own music which has become crystallized in form. European classical music precedes jazz by a few hundred years, they wouldn't have to be bothered with jazz or the black community at all, which some European musicians admit they'll never be able to match the abilities of black jazz artists. This is even a question among black jazz artists who admit that the works of Trane, Diz, Miles & Bird may never be surpassed.

Now my question to Europeans and Europeans in America is this, why do you abandon your own culture and play jazz, a music that comes out of the Black cultural experience? I have a degree in music composition and have studied and learned from this great art form. I acknowledge and respect the works of the great French, Italian, German and Russian composers. Coming out of the AACM, we have Great Black Music. However you have Great White Music. This way we can avoid the racial politics that George discusses in his essay. To take it a step further, Europeans have democratic systems of government that are more advanced than what we have here in America. Socialized health care, better education systems, better public transportation systems, greater tolerance of different ethnic groups and Europeans support their artists and artforms to a greater extent. Just look at the new jazz venue in Holland. Americans can learn a lot the European experience.

Malachi Thompson >>>>>peace

[Lazaro Vega]

Marguerite Horberg wrote (via Chi Improv):

However in neoliberal economies, advanced capitalism, free markets and the

advent of the EU the pressure for the social democracies in Europe to scale

back on social programs has resulted in huge cuts to cultural

funding -interesting as the playing field becomes more level with the US and

the subsidized glory days of the 70's, and 80's which saw so much European

activity becomes a dim memory- This is particularly interesting to us

presenters who could not compete with fees parcelled out by European clubs

and festivals who were already so heavily subsidized let alone all the other

accoutrements ( beautiful printed posters, catalogues, media coverage, CD

labels, etc) There was a trope going for many years that jazz was more

"respected in Europe" because of the ability to produce it based on all

these added/ government resources. In didn't matter that they had 30 folks

in the audience - the scene had no relation to economic realities...

[Lazaro Vega]

And this from Chicago drummer Damon Short (via Chi Improv):

with all due respect, i have always felt the jazz relationship with

europe is more intertwined. after all, jazz uses nearly all european

instruments and the basic pitch systems are european, as is much of the

harmony. my feeling is that the entire basis of jazz seems to be a

interchange between african, american and european music systems, and

and since at least the latter half of last century, creating new models

as well as exploring other existing systems from other cultures.

of all the great jazz bassists wilbur ware is the only one without

classical training (i was listening to him today with rollins, what a

great player!). jelly roll morton, parker mingus, miles davis, duke,

the mjq, brubeck, braxton and onward all had interest/involvement in

the classical traditon.

europe also has closer proximity to africa, we should remember

brotzmann's wonderful trio with south africans louis moholo and harry

miller.

john butcher's early influence was mike osbourne with the same rhythm

section, fuchs is still working with some of dophy's innovations and so

on.

i think a larger problem is that many still define jazz as a single

rhythmic unit and a some licks we have come to hear as "bluesy". i see

jazz as an interchange of music and cultures, with kowald's global

village right in that tradition.

i saw the wayne shorter quartet last month. that band was on fire. it

had little to do with conventional definitions of jazz. wayne said in

the program notes that he wanted to to get to a place of "just music

like stravinsky". as an aside if you get a chance to see wayne's

quartet with pattatucci, danilo perez and brian blade, do it. the

concert i saw was just amazing. i was expecting well played "jazz" ,

what i got was monumental creative music.

anyway just another way to consider things.

damon

[AllenLowe]

as I read the Lewis essay I find many things wrong; first of all, comparing AACM to the entire Euro free jazz community is silly; too broad a field here - what about Jutta Hipp's early work wth the Europe Tristanoites? How about Martial Solal, who was beginning to take things apart by the 1950s? How about Hodeir's use of electronics and avant garde compositional techniques? and how scientific is it to cite Brotzmann's estimate that there are only 15 players? And I'm still reading, but what of other Euro jazz movements? Where does he talk about Django, or the effects on the Europeans of the early visits of Coleman Hawkins, Benny Carter, and Louis Armstrong, which had a major impact on Euro jazz? and let's not forget Spike highes. Also, the independent, non-American compositional style of Lars Gullin - there is too much left out of this essay. For an article that purports to correct certain a-historical assumptions it is shockingly a-historical.

Edited April 26, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Lazaro Vega]

I don't read this as a denial of a continuum but a comparison of a particular point in the continuum with musicians who share, on the surface, certain musical aims and goals -- yet on closer inspection are often moving with different impetus.

Saying, Well you're talking about King Oliver but haven't mentioned ragtime or Sousa misses the point that we're talking about King Oliver: as much as jazz was influenced by other things, it became a "thing" unto itself at some point, and that musical style recombines those influences in a manner which allows it to stand on its own and be discussed on its own.

The history under discussion is not a broad one, but the specific period of the 1960's when these two styles developed and, in reality, met. It does not seem essential to discuss Tristano's first recordings of free music in the context of this article anymore than it would be to talk about other paths to freedom in European music.

Those other things would be welcome, but it would be a different essay then.

For my money the way the Europeans push against composition toward a collective improvisation and the way the Chicagoans embrace composition in a balance with improvisation is one insightful and well articulated insight into the period under discussion.

Edited April 26, 2005 by Lazaro Vega

[Lazaro Vega]

From Aram Shelton via Chicago Improv:

Hey Malachi,

Sorry to respond so slowly (and if someone else mentioned this,

there's alot of talk about this on the list right now), but I don't think you should be so disappointed with the essay.

George Lewis doesn't state that the AACM & European improvisers

created improvised music, or were the ones to begin the tradition. What he says is they were "two experimental music communities which emerged at around the same moment". It's in the article in the first paragraph of the secton titled "the Two Avant-gardes"

As chance had it, I was in New York a few weeks ago and had a chance

to see George Lewis give a presentation on this article. He got through the first

half of the essay in about an hour. He also played some musical examples for the

non-musicians in the audience. It was a nice way to spend an afternoon.

I don't think his mission in writing this essay was to give any sort of creedence to any concept of European "free jazz" supremacy, and it's not solely about improvisation - if George wrote about that, I think it would take a looooong time to read. I think the essay is about a couple of things: it's a primer on the AACM & the first wave of European improvisers & the differences between those groups; it's about how when someone had the idea of getting these groups together, it didn't really work out as smoothly as they would have liked, and the aftermath of that meeting.

Just one chapter in the historical documentation of two groups of musicians, one of which he's a part of.

I know that he's doing his best to make sure there is some written historical record of this music by the folks who lived it.

It's such a long article and covers so much ground, maybe we should

all read it again, i'm going to -

http://repository.lib.uoguelph.ca/ojs/viewarticle.

php?id=28&layout=html

yours,

Aram

[Chuck Nessa]

Can't believe the amount of crap posted by folks for whom I previously had some respect.

George is talking about one group of musicians interacting/or not with another group of musicians in an important time frame.

I suggest a few of you need to go back and read what George actually wrote and understand what he it saying. I really think some folks have not read the ma

This is a 40 year old argument for me and I do not want to spend much time on it but SHIT!

I was really bummed by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Lowe. I expected better.

[GregK]

I want to read the entire book. ASAP

[AllenLowe]

well, Chuck...what can I say? I just feel, reading through, that Lewis (for whom I have great respect as a musican) has fallen into a very basic academic trap - he's come up with a theory and than had to struggle to make the facts fit the theory - yes, he is talking about a particular interaction. But, as an academic, he has felt that he has to contextualize the whole thing, and that's where he has faltered. If he had just left it to the interactions of those musicians, well, than it probably would have made complete sense - but he, not I, has opened himself to historical criticism by making these interactions a function not just of a particular time and place, or of particular musicians, but of the whole Euro jazz/free jazz scene. And, in that context, there are problems with his presentation-

[Chuck Nessa]

Nothing more to add.

[Chuck Nessa]

but he, not I, has opened himself to historical criticism by making these interactions a function not just of a particular time and place, or of particular musicians, but of the whole Euro jazz/free jazz scene. And, in that context, there are problems with his presentation-

Did his context involve Jutta Hipp, Lennie, Django, Solal, Carter, Hawkins, Armstrong, etc. These are your suggestions for discussion of the "Euro jazz/free jazz scene"?

You are playing games not worthy of yourself - at least my impression of you.

[Larry Kart]

I had high hopes for Lewis's book; this essay increases those expectations a lot. The let's-get- into-it/on-with-it compactness and density, the (as far I can tell) accuracy and makes-you-really-think shrewdness of this account, and its relative freedom from modish academic jargon -- hope I'll still be around when the book comes out. Have a friend who is or was editorially involved with the book at the U. of Chicago Press who said that Lewis was, perhaps understandably given the dimensions of his task, a good bit behind schedule, though I believe that's not uncommon in the publishing trade. In any case, if this essay is representative, Lewis sure isn't phoning it in.

[AllenLowe]

Chuck - all I am saying is that he put the article in an historical context, and discusses, very specifically, not just the Euro free scene but the question of Euro jazz as an independent entity - without mentioning anyone but AACM and the group of musicians they encountered in that year. He describes (citing others) Euro jazz of the time as suffering from " epigonal Americanism," as being like "an exotic plant in barren soil." Well, I think that soil was a bit richer than he notices (and I haven't even talked about the British hard-bop scene of the 1960s, which was quite vital). Thus my mentioning of those musical predecessors. This is, to my way of thinking, odd and somewhat representative of a kind of academic tunnel vision -

Edited April 27, 2005 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

he also refers to American "hegemony" over the creation of jazz until this point - which would have been a good time to mention Euro alternatives to American-style music, like Lars Gullin, Hodeir, and Django. Also, it would have been interesting to examine the effect of Eddie Sauter's appearance at the Berlin Jazz festival in, I think, the late 1950s - look, Chuck, I know you're angry at this criticism, but if we can't engage Lewis's article here, in serious terms, than we can't engage it anywhere -

[Larry Kart]

Allen: Of course Gullin, Django et al. are unique and great, but there just aren't many connections ASFAIK (Lewis speaks of a key one, A. Mangelsdorff, perhaps the exception that proves the rule?) between notable Euro jazz figures of previous generations and the Euro jazz generation that Lewis is dealing with in relation to the AACM. To my mind, Lewis correctly reads the first generation of the Euro jazz avant garde as a kind of double rebellion/upheaval -- against "American" influence and against previous norms of jazz practice in general, with the those two impulses obviously, even unavoidably, overlapping quite a bit, though I'm sure that not every notable player there felt the against-the-American-way of-doing-things thing THAT strongly or consciously (yet it was in the air).

A Hodier footnote: Advanced as his music was or may have been (don't care for it myself), his response as a critic to both the American and Euro jazz avantgarde was one of near-total repulsion.

[AllenLowe]

Hi Larry - I agree that the specific connections between this generation of avant gardists and prior Euro progressives, et all, may have extremely limited - but, in a way, that's my point. They may not have been as limited as Lewis indicates, but there's no sign that he ever really inquired. At any rate, even if these movements were parallel, without personal or musical contact, that is history - understanding connections and non-connections made between contemporary figures, understanding that events don't necessarily occur in a linear fashion. On the other hand - there may be much more here than meets the eye relative to the early contacts of Euro jazz musicians with more traditional musicans - who knows? It would certainly be relevant to a paper that makes such sweeping judgements about the barren state of Euro jazz prior to this time. And, yes, I know about Hodeir's condemnations, which remind me of things Johnny Carisi use to say to me - he hated the "avant garde" and represented, to me, a much different strain. And, yet, I would always include Carisi if I were trying to draw a picture of the times and the progressive musicians who operated both within and outside of the new modernist movement -

Edited April 27, 2005 by AllenLowe