Eric Alexander vs Joshua Redman

[A Lark Ascending]

Yeah, well, people still listen to Wagner today, but who goes around still writing like him?

It was fun while it lasted, right?

And why bother having new productions of Shakespeare or Tennesse Williams plays when we've got enough on video performed by past masters?

[JSngry]

Why indeed.

Have we not "gotten it" by now? Is there nothing else to invest in? Is investment in perhaps imperfect creation (or not so imperfect) so unimportant that consuming "name brands" trumps all? Are we becoming such devout consumers that we would prefer consuming ourselves to (re)creating ourselves? Is this the best we can do? Or even more to the point - why should I waste my time (and all that comes with it) going to see Shakespeare or Williams unless there's going to be something of value added? Going just to be "seeing Shakespeare" is ok enough, but at some point, if I can see Olivier doing Hamlet on video or some "competent, well-trained, thoroughly versed" actor doing Hamlet in the flesh, it's like, DUH, warm up the VHVD, right? Doing it just for the same of saying you've done it after you've already done it, that's hardly a recommended lifestyle, eh?

Although, the jazz equivalent would be having people play "interpretations" of actual solos, which is more or less what a bunch of this type thing boils down to.

If that's anybody's idea of a "good time" - interpretations of improvisations posing as improvisations played for people who either can't tell the difference or else don't want to know the difference or else just flat out don't care what they;'re listening to so long as it sounds like what they think they should be hearing because they want to hear something that sounds like that - far be it from me to impede the pursuit of happiness. I mean, it can be "fun" and all that, but so is masturbation.

I'd hardly advocate building a sex life around masturbation. Just because people do it because it's the best they can get at any given moment doesn't mean it's "the best way to go"...

Then again if it's that or nothing, hey. But really, c'mon....it's over. At this point, what Mr. Stryker said earlier is pretty much true - it's all history. I get a boner listening to the old records (when I still do, which is less and less...I mean, a few, yeah, but...why?) for the same reason I get one listening to Beethoven or some such. It's the real deal as far as life goes, at least in my realm, and the real deal excites me.

But damn if that makes me want to go out and pay some whore to sit on my lap and do it and then I leave thinking I've "made love". That's the province of 17 year olds, at least ones with money...

Edited January 10, 2010 by JSngry

[A Lark Ascending]

Although, the jazz equivalent would be having people play "interpretations" of actual solos, which is more or less what a bunch of this type thing boils down to.

Not at all.

In a Shakespeare play, they'll (usually!) stick to the text but then personalise it through delivery, phrasing, production etc. And there's a frisson gained by a contemporary audience seeing people of their own time doing it, no matter what some critic says about Olivier's peerless performance in 1953.

Similarly, there is an excitement gained by a contemporary audience in experiencing a performance of Mahler 9 by a contemporary orchestra in a concert performance or recording. Of course, there will be those who insist that they only listen to Walter's 1938 recording and cannot see the point of listening to Rattle or Tilson Thomas (though I'll be mischievous and suggest that even though they think they are establishing their superior taste in such a statement, they are actually revealing that they are equally susceptible to recording company marketing techniques...you must hear this historic performance, rather than you must hear this latest electrifying version).

Someone like Alexander plays within a particular set of stylistic boundaries, uses the same tunes (or originals modelled on them), follows a pattern of improvising from that time. But he is a live human being and the notes are coming out different. If you are not haunted by the ghosts of the past then having a live player doing that can be very appealing. And for most of us it amounts to nothing more than hearing the musician on the radio or in concert, deciding we liked it, buying and playing the record and enjoying it.

If you've grown up with much of the history of jazz then I can see why contemporary performers who choose to perform within a style of the past will not appeal (I grew up with the rock music of the 70s; I've no desire to go and see or buy records of Re-Genesis or the Australian Pink Floyd...but I can see why others do).

And you can have both worlds - I enjoy listening to the music made in the past and reading about why it mattered and accept that in historical terms it takes precedence. But I also enjoy hearing it revisited by contemporary musicians, fully aware that no envelopes are being pushed back.

What I don't care for are the two extreme reactions - the past is the source and everything must reference that source; and the past is over and done with, everything today must be totally different.

Strikes me that there are two types of listener. Those who accept that there exists a multiplicity of narratives, you can't get your head round them all and so select what suits you and respect those that don't do it for you; and those who feel that there is a single narrative that they understand and that everyone else must be made to understand.

[JSngry]

Nice justifications, real nice, and they prove Chuck's earlier point - the game has irretrievably changed. What "jazz" "was" and what it now "is" (or is in the process of becoming) ain't the same thing.

It was fun while it lasted, believe me. For those whom it continues to be, follow your bliss.

Or your justifications.

[JSngry]

I mean, what you really seem to be saying is that it's fun to hear "Eric Alexander" (quotes used becuase it's not about him, there's literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of "Eric Alexander"s all over the world, but especially in New York, with unlaquered Selmers and vintage Links stuck on them) becuase he makes music that sounds like what jazz "should" sound like or that if you come to jazz with no real experience in the music it sounds as good as anything else, so why not like it.

Nostalgia or inexpereience.

I can't argue against either of those, but I can - and will - state that the history of humanity shows that although these are neither preventable nor undesirable traits in and of themselves, they do not make for a healthy & sustainable environment over the long haul.

Soooo....

After reviewing the play, the "Eric Alexander"s of the world are making "jazz" into a high quality labor of love tourist attraction, which although a legitimate and no doubt inevitable evolution is not what the music they present "used to be". The Jim Cullum analogy is both apt and perceptive.

The ruling on the field stands!

[JETman]

Surprised nobody's mentioned David Binney. He's certainly more original than any of the aforementioned, and his compositions are quite inventive. He plays alto, not tenor. Maybe the focus here is on tenor for some reason?

[A Lark Ascending]

Is that a football or baseball ref? And when did the rules of baseball/football become standardised? Late 19th/early 20thC?

So why on earth are thousands of people still turning out playing to those same rules? Surely they should have moved on.

The reality is, of course, that when a team hits the field it might play within certain parameters established a century or so ago, but the possibilities for creating a situation of excitement and interest within the time span of the game remain infinite.

Which has never stopped the emergence and evolution of other form of entertainment; or the possibility that many people might go to a football game on Saturday and then go snowboarding on Sunday.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[Brad]

I'm not sure it's an apt comparison because in certain pursuits we expect things to be unchanged such as sports. In music, we don't necessarily expect that and music has shown that there's always inventions and new developements taking place. Some would prefer to stop time on its head or turn hardbop into something like classical music where what a past master has done must be slavishly copied. Well, I can't hear how Bach originally did it since there wasn't recording technology at the time but I can hear how Hank or Blakey did it and I would prefer to hear them. As Don Byas said to Bird, and it applies here, "you ain't showing me anything new on that horn."

[papsrus]

Small point (which doesn't, I don't think, really negate Bev's larger point) -- they're constantly tinkering with the rules. Even in baseball, a game that is beholden to history perhaps more than any other.

In fact baseball and jazz are a lot alike. ... Are we in the equivalent of the steroid era in jazz?

[JSngry]

More like the Strat-O-Matic era...

I can't hear how Bach originally did it since there wasn't recording technology at the time but I can hear how Hank or Blakey did it and I would prefer to hear them.

As a rule, and with rare exceptions,

Edited January 10, 2010 by JSngry

[A Lark Ascending]

So, let's have a scale of 1 to 10. With 1 as jazz hero and 10 as jazz villain.

Now the jazz player who absorbs the jazz past and then uses it to play within that tradition is clearly a 10.

And the listener who mainly listens to that type of jazz an 8 (though you might want to reverse those placings as the listener could be acussed of encouraging the player).

The jazz player who absorbs the past and then uses it to create something totally fresh gets a 1.

The listener who goes out of their way to follow and support the innovative player a 2.

So, my question.

Where, on that scale, do we put the listener who decides there is nothing in todays music as good as there was in the past and so buries himself in Blue Note LPs or Mosaic reissues?

(maybe we could reset the 'reputation' function buttons to do this)

**************

My own woolly-minded liberal take is that there's a place for all those things and that they are all happening. And many people happily inhabit several of those responses without any sense of debut-de-siecle angst.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

You know, if all you want to hear is "good players", well, hey, fair enough. There will always be "good players" and you can always be happy. And happy is good, sure. I like happy myself.

But there's a differnce between happy that knows what & why it is and happy that is pretty much some vague, Chauncey Gardiner-esque acceptance of whatever comes alon as grounds for delight.

I'd never say that Eric Alexander is not a good or serious musician or that people who like him are wrong or stupid or uninformed or whatever.

I would, however, say that about anybody who tries to tell me that Eric Alexander is doing the same thing in his music that George Coleman did in his. George Coleman is in no way a "top-tier player" (as Chuck would put it), but he's a damn fine player who worked his butt off to develop a truly personal voice (and all that that implies, and if you have to ask...by all means do - but only if you want to hear the answer!). Eric Alexander is a damn fine player who worked his butt off to play a style of music as well as he could play it (and all that that implies, and if you have to ask...by all means do - but only if you want to hear the answer!).

For some, that distinction has no relevance. Well, ok. But it's an insult to everybody involved to claim that the difference does not exist, and to not recognize that as much as it doesn't matter to those for whom it doesn't matter, it matters every bit that much for those to whom it does matter.

I mean, let's have some self-respect here!

[Guest Bill Barton]

Playing along with the "jazz as horse-race or boxing match" concept of the thread I'd say that both Alexander and Redman are talented craftsmen but neither one is fit to shine the shoes of Vonski or Fred Anderson (or Billy Harper for that matter.)

[JSngry]

debut-de-siecle angst.

Angst? HA! I'm glad to see it coming to an end! Time to move on!

What bugs me is the whole "OH DEAR GOD NO WE CAN'T LET IT DIE, WE'LL DIE WITH IT!!! angst. That's when you start arguing Eric Alexander vs Joshua redman like either one of them matter (now or ever) outside of the fishbowl. Hell, George Coleman himself doesn't matter that much (now or ever) outside of the fishbowl. And I'll go to the mat for George, I'm just saying, waiter, reality check, please.

Evolve or die, and no I don't claim to have any special take of who what the "evolver" is. but I do know a lost cause when I see one.

Edited January 10, 2010 by JSngry

[Jim Alfredson]

It's only music, folks.

Jazz has changed. Whether for better or worse... well, that's personal opinion. The spectrum is much wider now than it was; there are less "giants", but more workers doing good things. I think part of the problem with the "jazz is dead, it's been dead for a long time, all the new guys are posers" crowd is that they've been listening to the music for too long, in a relative vacuum. Time to step out, maybe get into a completely different bag.

Like my ambient / electronic album! Only $25 for a limited edition signed copy! 100 copies printed! Get yours today! From Jim-co productions!!!

Butt seriously, I can't see Art Blakey. So if I want to experience that kind of music live, I'll go see Eric Alexander's group. Is it the same? Of course not; but that's what I'm left with. Recordings were never meant to replace live performance, right? I would never replace my recordings of Blakey with those of Alexander, but I would certainly go see him if I could and enjoy his music. And I have seen him live and he and the band kick ass.

I can't see Jimmy Smith. So if I want to experience that kind of music live, I'll go see Joey DeFrancesco. Is it the same? Of course not; but that's what I'm left with. He can be mighty impressive live and is obviously a monster on the B3. I'd never throw out my Jimmy Smith LPs in place of Joey's, but they each have their place.

Otherwise, I guess I might as well hang it up right now because what's the fucking point? I've spent the last 16 years of my life learning this instrument, but it'll never be 1950 again and I'll never be Jimmy Smith so I guess that's the be-all end-all and there's no point in pretending I'm doing something valuable. I'd rather know now, since I'm already leaning that way and every month is a fucking struggle to feed my three kids. Lots of hard work for nothing. Sweet!

[Peter Friedman]

I am not sure why there has to be an "either/ or" answer. New developments may continue to change the shape of jazz, while at the same time some musicians will prefer to play within styles that were formed in the past. This sort of thing is nothing new. As each new jazz development came into being there have always been many who chose to not pursue the "new" direction.

In some respects Jim's argument can lead to identifying a very tiny handful of jazz greats who made a powerful mark on the music and only listening to them.

So, Louis, Bean, Rabbit, Pres, Bird, Rollins, Trane, and a dozen others are the legitimate group. Why listen to Stitt is we can hear Bird, why listen to Brew Moore

when recordings by Pres are available.

I don't buy it. As Bev indicated, each musician brings something of him or her self to the music. There will always be a limited number of MAJOR innovators and performing artists, but there is much musical enjoyment to be had from those not at such a lofty level.

[Larry Kart]

It's only music, folks.

Jazz has changed. Whether for better or worse... well, that's personal opinion. The spectrum is much wider now than it was; there are less "giants", but more workers doing good things. I think part of the problem with the "jazz is dead, it's been dead for a long time, all the new guys are posers" crowd is that they've been listening to the music for too long, in a relative vacuum. Time to step out, maybe get into a completely different bag.

Like my ambient / electronic album! Only $25 for a limited edition signed copy! 100 copies printed! Get yours today! From Jim-co productions!!!

Butt seriously, I can't see Art Blakey. So if I want to experience that kind of music live, I'll go see Eric Alexander's group. Is it the same? Of course not; but that's what I'm left with. Recordings were never meant to replace live performance, right? I would never replace my recordings of Blakey with those of Alexander, but I would certainly go see him if I could and enjoy his music. And I have seen him live and he and the band kick ass.

I can't see Jimmy Smith. So if I want to experience that kind of music live, I'll go see Joey DeFrancesco. Is it the same? Of course not; but that's what I'm left with. He can be mighty impressive live and is obviously a monster on the B3. I'd never throw out my Jimmy Smith LPs in place of Joey's, but they each have their place.

Otherwise, I guess I might as well hang it up right now because what's the fucking point? I've spent the last 16 years of my life learning this instrument, but it'll never be 1950 again and I'll never be Jimmy Smith so I guess that's the be-all end-all and there's no point in pretending I'm doing something valuable. I'd rather know now, since I'm already leaning that way and every month is a fucking struggle to feed my three kids. Lots of hard work for nothing. Sweet!

Jim -- IMO, though you and Organissimo have your models, you also have developed your own thing, and it's of value.

[papsrus]

All of this is a little bit like saying that no scientist today is ever going to be an Einstein or a Newton, so why bother with science?

I'm listening to a William Parker disc now. It's really enjoyable, filled with what sounds like some very skilled musicianship and wonderful compositions. ... Not sure how to stack it up against Mingus though.

[A Lark Ascending]

Over Christmas I read a book about Britain from 1964-70. Now we all know these were the Swinging Sixties with no end of revolutions - technological, sexual, musical etc. But what the writer brings out is how a retrospective concentration on 'change' obscures the experience of most people of 'continuity' (two concepts that obsess historians). And that squares with my recollections - I lived in four different places in that time period and, yes, we had a deep freeze and the music was all very exciting but by and large life went on as normal, with gradual changes beyond the surface glitter.

I notice the same in writings on 20thC classical music - read most textbooks and it's all about Mahler-Stravinsky-Schoenberg-Webern-Boulez etc. But what were most people actually listening to (rather than the opinion makers)?. I think you'll find far more continuity there than the textbooks suggest. When people write about the past they select and interpret and 'change' makes a better story.

And I'd suggest that the history of jazz is written in that way too. A focus on the big changes so it becomes a story of 'permanent revolution' (thank you Trotsky) or 'perpetual change' (thank you Yes). Yet below the glitzy surface I suspect you are looking at far more continuities.

And I'd suggest that Eric Alexander is a part of the continuities that are equally a part of the music as the revolutionaries.

I do understand JSngry's position and can see why he must feel so frustrated, especially as a musician devoted to doing new things. I'm equally frustrated by the way I see my own job being whittled away as history is replaced by more 'relevant' and 'vocational' opportunities.

But I have to say that when I read him (and others) explain why I should listen to a particular artist or recording I'm enthralled; when I read him (and others) telling my what I shouldn't be listening to I raise my eyes to heaven.

As Peter says, there does not have to be an either/or answer. Which has been my point all along.

[JSngry]

Again - nobody's saying you shouldn't be listening to (or enjoying) anything. All I'm saying is that it is a good thing to know what you are listening to and not get fooled into thinking that it is anything other than it is.

That's not just true for music either. It's true for everything in life.

[JSngry]

s it the same? Of course not; but that's what I'm left with.

Weak. Very weak.

What you are left with is yourself, and you are making yourself yourself.

Be proud about that and don't make excuses for those who are not doing what you are doing.

[A Lark Ascending]

Again - nobody's saying you shouldn't be listening to (or enjoying) anything. All I'm saying is that it is a good thing to know what you are listening to and not get fooled into thinking that it is anything other than it is.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but when I listen to an Eric Alexander CD I assume I'm listening to someone working inside a long estabished tradition and not breaking any new ground...and doing it beautifully.

Doesn't stop me wanting to listen to a Stan Getz or Ben Webster or Lester Young CD at another time. In fact, it's more likely to encourage me to do just that.

[clifford_thornton]

Reminds me. .. I need to go see Jim Cullum's excellent band again soon!

Indeed, they are very enjoyable. The new(er) drummer isn't quite up to snuff, though. Not Ed Torres, anyway.

[thedwork]

The new(er) drummer isn't quite up to snuff, though. Not Ed Torres, anyway.

sebastian left the group, eh? good for him. whatever group he becomes part of will be lucky to have him. very creative and talented drummer.

as for the whole old vs. new, innovate or die, yada yada yada discussion: giant YAWN. these threads are snowballs to hell. getting preoccupied w/ this "debate," whichever side you're on, is a waste of time and energy. listen to what you like, and play what you feel. if you're an 'innovator,' it'll come out. ain't much use forcing it. reminds me of a brief graph i wrote about this kinda thing in a review a few years ago. i'll substitute redman and alexander for the artist/record reviewed:

"The media affair regarding [Redman/Alexander] is well underway. [They] may lead some critics to celebrate the arrival of the 'future of jazz,' or cause others to feel compelled to refute such claims. But the reality is not so black and white. Those who are preoccupied with finding an artist to label the 'future of jazz' can't see the trees for the forest. Innovation is sometimes incremental and often not easy to detect. It's all a continuum. We need faith that the pursuit of excellence supplies the energy to keep jazz moving forward. Innovation need not always be a 'change of the century.' It often hides in the shadows, tucked into a brilliant corner like a precocious child smiling to himself with a secret."

[JSngry]

Again - nobody's saying you shouldn't be listening to (or enjoying) anything. All I'm saying is that it is a good thing to know what you are listening to and not get fooled into thinking that it is anything other than it is.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but when I listen to an Eric Alexander CD I assume I'm listening to someone working inside a long estabished tradition and not breaking any new ground...and doing it beautifully.

We have different definitions of beauty then, that's all I can say. Which is, I suppose, as it should be.

But I mean, fucking your grandmother is weird enough. But making love to her, man, that's really jacked!