Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Larry Kart

Ratliff's "Coltrane"

73 posts in this topic

Just got Ben Ratliff's "Coltrane: The Story of a Sound" from the library and began skipping around. May not be able to finish, though, 'cause my b.s. detector is almost broken already. Did you know, for example, that Johnny Hartman "had a deep, rich tenor voice..." (Try baritone.) Or that '[o]ne of the general listener's major misperceptions of jazz is that when improvisers work at their best, they pluck ideas out of the sky, channeling heaven." (Ratliff's next sentence is, helpfully: "No.") Or that bebop "came to be associated with ... chord harmonies inspired by Stravinsky, Debussy and Bartok." (Ah yes, chord harmonies -- my favorite kind.) Will attempt to move on in the hope of saving lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading this also and am finding it a frustrating and vapid read.

There scores of examples like the ones that Larry states above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad!

Who the @#$% edits books nowadays?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad!

Who the @#$% edits books nowadays?

Who writes them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this clown writes for the New York Times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ratliff...

He's the "Ratliffiest."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad!

Who the @#$% edits books nowadays?

Who writes them?

Well, yeah, that's where the problem starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have read Ratliff's NYT stuff with some regularity, as I have, Larry's assessment should come as no surprise. I have said this before, he is undoubtedly the worst jazz writer the paper has had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised, so much, having read him on occasion myself.

Just appalled that an assertion that Johnny Hartman had a tenor voice, for example, could get into a published book!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised, so much, having read him on occasion myself.

Just appalled that an assertion that Johnny Hartman had a tenor voice, for example, could get into a published book!

you'll see that assertion more often from now on... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got Ben Ratliff's "Coltrane: The Story of a Sound" from the library and began skipping around. May not be able to finish, though, 'cause my b.s. detector is almost broken already. Did you know, for example, that Johnny Hartman "had a deep, rich tenor voice..." (Try baritone.) Or that '[o]ne of the general listener's major misperceptions of jazz is that when improvisers work at their best, they pluck ideas out of the sky, channeling heaven." (Ratliff's next sentence is, helpfully: "No.") Or that bebop "came to be associated with ... chord harmonies inspired by Stravinsky, Debussy and Bartok." (Ah yes, chord harmonies -- my favorite kind.) Will attempt to move on in the hope of saving lives.

Larry - You evidently have more patience/tolerance for b.s./time to waste than I do. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently spoke by phone with Ben Ratliff about this book and will undertake to transcribe the interview here. (After working hard on a recorded phone interview with Muhal Richard Abrams for radio broadcast only: a two hour program running Sunday, October 13th from 8 to 10 p.m.).

I did challenge him on the assertion that it was Lester Young who started the "cult of the solo" with mention of Louis Armstrong. Also on the phrase from the Intro that asserts there wasn't much form in jazz after late Coltrane. He admitted, after I mentioned it, that Roscoe Mitchell's music, for instance, was full of form. Muhal and Braxton were two others I brought up to counter the idea.

The idea that on-going evolutionary change is jazz is a “hippy myth” is something I disagreed with on the grounds of the pioneering New Orleans jazz musicians and how they put in the music a tendency to want to push against the given – I mean, from blue notes to the invention of the drum set to the outright creation of the music in general. Johnny Dodds didn’t roll hippy.

The idealization of the Classic Quartet leads Ratliff to assert that Eric Dolphy's presence in the Vanguard sessions and the European tours somehow takes the band's focus away, that there's a diminution of band's sound because of Dolphy's different approach. He stood by that in the interview. Miles Mode, Spiritual, India…these pieces are more for Dolphy, imho.

Given the second half of the book's purpose, to show Trane's on-going influence and try to explain it, it was a surprise to learn he hadn't heard the Electric Ascension record by OrkestRova, one of the most "updated" versions of Coltrane's later sound that we're likely to hear for some time, Ratliff’s reference to Iggy Pop notwithstanding.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have read Ratliff's NYT stuff with some regularity, as I have, Larry's assessment should come as no surprise. I have said this before, he is undoubtedly the worst jazz writer the paper has had.

I'm pretty familiar with Ratliff's Times stuff, but usually I stop reading a particular piece or review after a short while -- once the fact that it exists has been established, schadenfreude would the main reason to continue, and that's not a healthy emotion, or so I tell myself. If the Times or the NY jazz community won't off Ratliff, who am I to make a fuss? Actually -- and Chris may know chapter and verse on this -- the advent of Nate Chinen might amount to a discreet verdict on Ratliff, though I suspect that it mostly reflects Ratliff's desire to retreat some from the front lines and assume elder statesman (!!) status. There's ample precedent for this among Times critics over the years. In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm puzzled as to why there's a need for another general Coltrane book right now, unless the author has some really hot new angle or information to present (please, not that Coltrane dropped acid a few times). I'd rather see Lewis Porter revise his previous work--with additional chapters about the Coltrane/Dolphy axis (which gets scant attention in the current version) and 1965 (ditto).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm puzzled as to why there's a need for another general Coltrane book right now, unless the author has some really hot new angle or information to present (please, not that Coltrane dropped acid a few times). I'd rather see Lewis Porter revise his previous work--with additional chapters about the Coltrane/Dolphy axis (which gets scant attention in the current version) and 1965 (ditto).

Porter is working (as a writer and an editor, with Chris DeVito, David Wild, Yasuhiro Fujioka, and Wolf Schmaler) ) on what promises to be a vast new tome, "The John Coltrane Reference Work" (Routledge). It's scheduled for 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would seem to confirm my pet theory that the more books on a given subject, the worse most of 'em are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny Dodds didn’t roll hippy.

:tup:tup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BookForum

Sept/Oct/Nov 2007

À LA MODAL

Ben Ratliff delivers a critical biography of Coltrane’s sound

By RICHARD B. WOODWARD

Coltrane: The Story of a Sound

by Ben Ratliff

Never underestimate what a “tragic” death can do for an artist’s reputation. Who knows whether the romance of Jackson Pollock as cowboy existentialist would be intact if he had survived that car crash, entered AA, and continued to drip paintings while the art world tuned into Warhol and Koons. Or imagine a seventyfive-year-old Sylvia Plath on her third marriage, exhausted after thirty years of leading poetry workshops, reciting “Daddy” on Fresh Air. Autumn Rhythm and “Ariel” would rank as masterworks even if their creators had enjoyed a fuller measure of years. But by dying precociously, neither had to face the inevitability of cultural backlash or declining mental acuity. Athletes who died young, they remain forever poised in midstride, still clearing hurdles.

John Coltrane was in top form—still taking giant steps, if you will—when he died of liver cancer in 1967 at the age of forty. This fate spared him many quandaries. He never had to figure out where he stood vis-à-vis rock, funk, disco, or hip-hop. Nor did he have to confront his own looming influence over jazz or choose sides in the war over his legacy. Were he alive, would he still be allied with his once-numerous, now-scarce free-blowing acolytes, those guided by his post-1965 sonic adventures? Or would he have judged this path to be a dead end and, like so many young antiquarians today who have modeled their groups on his early-’60s quartet, reverted to his “classic” sound in hopes of winning back the diminished jazz audience?

We’ll never know, but the image of an eighty-one-year-old Coltrane being wheeled onstage to reprise A Love Supreme at a JVC Jazz Festival is hard to conjure. Not because this sight would be sad and undignified— that’s what becomes a jazz legend most these days—but because it would dissolve the aura of Coltrane as tireless explorer of new musical worlds.

In his astute and unorthodox biography, Coltrane: The Story of a Sound, New York Times critic Ben Ratliff pays as much attention to Coltrane’s haunting absence over the last forty years as he does to his brief decade of renown. The first half of Ratliff’s book traces the phases of Coltrane’s career through a careful record-by-record analysis of his “sound,” which Ratliff defines as the “full and sensible embodiment of [Coltrane’s] artistic personality, such that it can be heard, at best, in a single note.” Ratliff hears Coltrane’s distinctive musical voice as “large and dry, slightly undercooked, and urgent.”

The second half looks at the posthumous apotheosis of Coltrane, a musical god whose followers by now rival even Charlie Parker’s in numbers. (Ratliff speculates that more poems have been written in memoriam to Trane than to any other jazz musician.) As attentive a reader as he is a listener, Ratliff charts the rapid expansion of the mythology in various, often contradictory tropes: the humble music student and theorist who never stopped practicing and learning, the Christian into Eastern religions for whom pride was a far graver sin than wrong notes, the wordless spokesman for black civil rights and revolution, the unbounded thinker who tripped across inner and outer space. (Coltrane favored cosmic imagery in titling cuts on his later records, and the arc of his fame coincided with the rise of psychedelic culture and America’s race to the moon.)

Although a little too aware of popular critical attitudes and how to strengthen his own position by asserting himself against them, Ratliff aims in these chapters not to deflate the veneration of Coltrane but to understand why he has maintained such a hold over generations of musicians and listeners. Having heard far too many imitators in New York clubs during the ’80s, Ratliff was wary of being seduced himself. “It seemed that you could go in there and not be able to find your way out,” he says of the music on Coltrane’s Live at the Village Vanguard, from 1961. The book is Ratliff’s struggle to acknowledge a unique, vital force in music now while trying not to succumb to the common view of Coltrane as a musician who could not err, the “perfect academic subject.”

Much of the first part of the story is familiar. Except for a five-year period of drinking and heroin addiction in his late twenties, Coltrane led a fairly uneventful life. His blinkered focus from high school forward was jazz. Ratliff glides over his subject’s youth in North Carolina, where Coltrane grew up in a deeply religious AME household, in order to introduce us to him as a US Navy man trying in vain on a 78-rpm recording from 1946 to master the changes on Tadd Dameron’s “Hot House.” Coleman Hawkins and Dexter Gordon were Coltrane’s chief role models during his years of apprenticeship in Dizzy Gillespie’s big band, with R&B leaders Earl Bostic and Gay Crosse, and in Johnny Hodges’s front line.

Lewis Porter’s 1998 Coltrane biography is the foundation for a lot of the musical analysis here. That valuable book has more than a hundred musical examples; this has none. Ratliff more than compensates with a darting prose style, his own set of ears—he notes how Coltrane favored three-beat compositions when he played soprano sax—and extensive interviews with former colleagues, as well as with many musicians born after his death. Ratliff finds echoes of Coltrane’s Big Bang in everyone from Terry Riley and Steve Reich to the Grateful Dead, the Byrds, the Doors, and Iggy Pop. The pleasures of working in a group with Coltrane are brought out in choice quotes. “For a drummer to play with Coltrane is just to accompany the guy,” said Roy Haynes. “With others, you gotta hold down the fort. With Coltrane, I could do things I had dreamed about.”

While charting the development of Coltrane’s sound in recordings for Prestige and Atlantic and the glory years (1961–67) with Impulse, Ratliff drops in micro-bios of Elvin Jones and McCoy Tyner, from the quartet, and of crucial, less permanent figures, such as saxophonist Albert Ayler. Jazz critics present at the time have long cited 1957, when Coltrane played for six months with Thelonious Monk at the Five Spot in New York, as decisive. Ratliff is one of the first to benefit from a live recording, made at Carnegie Hall on November 29 of that year and released in 2005, to back up these claims. “Mostly, he is executing beautifully, leagues beyond the anxious, fractured feeling of his long solos from only a few months before,” he writes about the playing on this “magic record, mellifluous in its provocations.”

Coltrane was not yet a marquee name, however; his off-and-on years with Miles Davis in the late ’50s, especially his solos on Kind of Blue, had raised his profile, but not above that of other midlevel tenor men. In the critics’ polls in the major jazz magazines in 1957–58, he never ranked in the top three: Hawkins, Sonny Rollins, Stan Getz, and Zoot Sims were the top vote getters. Even at the height of Coltrane’s prominence, in the mid-’60s, the critics Martin Williams and Gunther Schuller were respectful but cool about those endless choruses over a modal drone, preferring to champion the trickier formal experiments of Ornette Coleman and Charles Mingus. Other musicians were also skeptical. Wes Montgomery played with Coltrane’s quartet only briefly, leaving when the time between solos grew longer than the time between sets.

Stardom arrived with the March 1961 release on Atlantic of “My Favorite Things.” In retrospect, it was shrewd to piggyback on the current success of The Sound of Music, but no one guessed that when its thirteen minutes and forty-one seconds were cut down to fit on a 45-rpm record it would become that most incongruous of avantgarde creations: a radio hit—on soprano sax, no less. Not long after, Coltrane became the first artist signed to Impulse. Soon, the producer Bob Thiele and the company’s main attraction were happily exploiting each other until, by 1966–67, Impulse was releasing four Coltrane records a year.

From all reports, celebrity altered Coltrane’s habits and behavior very little. As Ratliff points out, except for divorcing his first wife, buying a white Jaguar, and moving to the Long Island suburbs, Coltrane never exhibited star behavior. He spoke constantly to reporters eager to interview him. However much critics remain divided about his increasingly bruitous later recordings, after he had disbanded the quartet and begun to incorporate a new cast of characters, Coltrane’s sincerity was never in doubt. “There is no evidence anywhere that Coltrane ever tried to be provocative,” writes Ratliff. No one charges, as many do with Davis, that he changed styles in pursuit of money. Quite the opposite.

The book emphasizes Coltrane’s up-tempo technical feats. “He had taught musicians a new flat, high plane of delivery; the playing wasn’t as dynamically varied as jazz used to be,” writes Ratliff. “Now the pieces of music began strong and stayed strong.” He cites the importance for contemporary jazz practice of the ripsnorting “Chasin’ the Trane,” as heard on the 1961 recording at the Vanguard, calling it what “free jazz and straight-ahead jazz—Lower East Side, post-hippie, ragged blow-out jams, and Branford Marsalis— have in common.”

But the enduring popularity of Coltrane with audiences (and not just musicians) is surely thanks as much to his ballads. His improvisations at slow tempi adhere to the line of the melody, in the style of Hodges and Billie Holiday. No saxophonist except maybe Wayne Shorter has composed so many heartrending standards—“Naima,” “Alabama,” “After the Rain,” “Central Park West,” “Crescent,” “Equinox,” “Dear Lord,” “Welcome”—and no player before or since has been able to suggest bottomless wells of despair along with their antidote through the catharsis of performance and listening. The extreme weight of Coltrane’s mature sound, the high-pitched wail and chthonic moan, the roughness and the flaws, was always grounded in the corpus of the human cry.

More than anything else, Coltrane’s musical purity makes him a beacon. “Rock had started to eclipse jazz as a young thinking people’s music,” writes Ratliff about the final years. “But within jazz, Coltrane’s jazz took monolithic precedence as the model for what noncommercial jazz should be. It had a bully pulpit of morality—virtue was so scant in popular music. . . . Only Coltrane had momentum: the possible authority to lead listeners back to jazz as music.”

In 1966, Coltrane was asked at a Tokyo press conference what he wanted to be in ten years. “I would like to be a saint,” he replied. No one laughed, perhaps because they suspected it was already true.

Edited by 7/4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this sort of books remind me of tribute albums.

that book money would be better spent on a couple trane cd's.

who needs a tribute when you can hear the real stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BookForum

Sept/Oct/Nov 2007

À LA MODAL

Ben Ratliff delivers a critical biography of Coltrane’s sound

By RICHARD B. WOODWARD

Coltrane: The Story of a Sound

by Ben Ratliff

Never underestimate what a “tragic” death can do for an artist’s reputation. Who knows whether the romance of Jackson Pollock as cowboy existentialist would be intact if he had survived that car crash, entered AA, and continued to drip paintings while the art world tuned into Warhol and Koons. Or imagine a seventyfive-year-old Sylvia Plath on her third marriage, exhausted after thirty years of leading poetry workshops, reciting “Daddy” on Fresh Air. Autumn Rhythm and “Ariel” would rank as masterworks even if their creators had enjoyed a fuller measure of years. But by dying precociously, neither had to face the inevitability of cultural backlash or declining mental acuity. Athletes who died young, they remain forever poised in midstride, still clearing hurdles.

. . . . . .

More than anything else, Coltrane’s musical purity makes him a beacon. “Rock had started to eclipse jazz as a young thinking people’s music,” writes Ratliff about the final years. “But within jazz, Coltrane’s jazz took monolithic precedence as the model for what noncommercial jazz should be. It had a bully pulpit of morality—virtue was so scant in popular music. . . . Only Coltrane had momentum: the possible authority to lead listeners back to jazz as music.”

In 1966, Coltrane was asked at a Tokyo press conference what he wanted to be in ten years. “I would like to be a saint,” he replied. No one laughed, perhaps because they suspected it was already true.

Don't know if Woodward is reading a lot into the book, but Ratliff certainly seems to be making big enough points to distract us from the pedantic. I really don't care if Ratliff mistakenly refers to Hartman as a mezzo-soprano. Who cares? What I'd like to know is what he really has to say in the book, not in a catalog of his trivial errors. Granted they ought not be there, but one ought really be able to read past them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said, I've been reading this book and am almost done.

Sure, you can read what you want in what Ratliff writes, but as this point in my jazz life, I'd like to learn some reality, some substance, and bypass intellectual bullshit.

Regarding Coltrane saying he wanted to be a saint in 10 years... he was saying he wanted to be pure in thoughts and actions not that he wanted to be deified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a distinctive interpretation.

Mistakes make comprehending the larger point of the work more difficult and chip away the statue of credibility until things are mishapen beyond recognition.

Larry Ochs has a considered opinion on late Trane, and when he wants to can channel the spirit of Archie Shepp in the 1960's. He's the only other artist besides Coltrane to tackle "Ascension," twice, and this second time showing were the legacy of late Trane is in this decade. "Eletrik Ascension" is a not a what if, it is a what is. Ochs is a Californian -- maybe this is why he was overlooked. That's not to say Ratliff's inclusive lists in the second half of the book aren't helpful, or the letters between Don Ellis and Charles Moore aren't worth quoting, or drawing attention to Frank Lowe's early playing experience isn't worthwhile. That was all enlightening to me. It just seems there's more to the story in the music of today as relates to Coltrane in a less imitative but no less serious or appreciative influence.

I wondered how the author could say the music of the AACM is "everyday." Who's day is that? What he meant, he explained, was more towards Henry Threadgill's Hubcaphone, or Braxton's Garbage Can Machine, a sort of everyday objects amid the little instruments. The little instruments allusion often isn't enough. What were they used for in the wake of Coltrane? That they opened the forms up, gave the music the widest possible dynamic range and continued widening paths Yusef Lateef and Don Cherry saw as workable in jazz -- Afro-EurAsian eclipse in free form is a tangent, but at least it is musical one related in reaction to the same time period.

Muhal Richard Abrams response to the question of whether the music of Ornette, Ayler, Coltrane, Taylor made possible some of the music developments he undertook in the early 1960's I hope makes for good radio. It is insightful as narratives held so dear are not often a significant thread in a musician's story we thought we knew. Next Sunday. With two albums out this year he's only given interviews to Signal To Noise, Downbeat, and All About Jazz New York. He agreed to the Blue Lake phone interview because it will support the Edge Fest Concert on Oct. 20th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muhal told me, "I don't do interviews." He made an exception to promote the concert, though. He's basically a "let the music speak for itself" musician. At this point in time, too, he's only allowing me to use the interview we did for radio broadcast to promote the Ann Arbor concert, not for transcription and wider dissemination.

As far as a f the media point of view he's just not like that. In fact, Muhal is one of the most diplomatic musicians I've ever had the pleasure of encountering. He welcomes a multiplicity of reactions to his work and views them all, because of his strong belief in the validity of the individual, with an "I'm O.K., you're O.K." attitude.

And he challenged just about everything I said, or the basis underlying the questions. Hard conversation in the moment, but now editing it into 9 individual segments (we spoke for an hour) this is just rich in his ideas. "Outside of expectations" is a way of life as well as a way of music.

If you can, please tune in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link to the review.

It has been ages, it seems, since Muhal issued two records in the same year. Yet for a time he was well documented and it seemed his new recordings were a regular reminder of his part in the mix. That seemed to slow down in the mid-1990's or thereabouts until now. He's been performing that entire time, and no doubt composing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.