Bill Dixon Soul Note Box

[JSngry]

...and you will be rewarded with a rare banquet of clarity, focus, and room to think.

Unless you won't be, in which case, never mind.

Bill Dixon is one of the most...patient players/composers this music has known. And patience is a virtue.

This is beautiful music with a strong moral fiber. C'mon in.

[BFrank]

OK.........I'm intrigued.

[jazzbo]

Believe.

[clifford_thornton]

[Stefan Wood]

You have to be real patient. To this day Vade Mecum and Sisyphus just don't do it for me the way Intents and Purposes has.

[Joe]

NOVEMBER 1981 is probably my favorite out of all these recordings: a quartet with bassists Mario Pavone and Alan Silva, plus drummer Laurence Cook.

Now that they've been collected, are these titles no longer available as single discs?

[paul secor]

NOVEMBER 1981 is probably my favorite out of all these recordings: a quartet with bassists Mario Pavone and Alan Silva, plus drummer Laurence Cook.

Now that they've been collected, are these titles no longer available as single discs?

Cadence (klompfoot) still has a number of the individual titles available.

Edited April 6, 2011 by paul secor

[clifford_thornton]

You have to be real patient. To this day Vade Mecum and Sisyphus just don't do it for me the way Intents and Purposes has.

Bill always said that he was both aware of the rather human tendency to compare the various works of an artist, and that in no way were his individual works to be compared. Each is considered a totality in itself, and each piece or set of pieces is relational only by way of the person who did the work. That being said, Bill was a frequent re-appropriator and elements that were successful in previous works would find themselves conjured or reflected from time to time in later projects. This is all to say that, listener's taste aside, in his mind no work superseded another.

All four of the recordings you mention are excellent. I've seen the scores for some of the pieces on Intents and Purposes. They are densely-written - there are a lot of parts which are through-composed - and this differentiates the music on that album quite significantly from later work. What you might be responding to in terms of preference is the clear hand of the composer/writer, which is different from the airy sketches of Vade Mecum I and II or Son of Sisyphus.

[Stefan Wood]

You are right about responding to one aspect over the other.

While Bill might argue that no work supersedes another, are they equal in quality or as successful in conception and execution? I'm not putting down some of his Black Saint/Soul Note material; there are some excellent moments, but I won't pull them off the shelves to play them as often as some others.

[clifford_thornton]

You are right about responding to one aspect over the other.

While Bill might argue that no work supersedes another, are they equal in quality or as successful in conception and execution? I'm not putting down some of his Black Saint/Soul Note material; there are some excellent moments, but I won't pull them off the shelves to play them as often as some others.

To put taste of the listener aside, in his mind they are equal in quality and successful in terms of what he wanted to do. A fine axiom of Bill's that bears repeating: "everything I could do was ALL I could do."

I always approach those recordings with that in mind. But I wouldn't disagree that some are more quickly evocative or strike certain emotional chords with more immediacy (to me) than others. The Firehouse 12 set for one - I was just immediately in love with it. Contra Thoughts, which I don't listen to quite as often. It had some problems with the levels/balance on the production end, though with the volume cranked to 12 or 1 o'clock, I don't notice it. Obviously that doesn't reflect the intent/validity of the contents, rather the label's quality control.

So yeah, there are multiple sides to the story as well as how one processes the work, but he always did what he sought out to do with recordings that were intended for release. Those that were not initially intended for release but have been or will be uncovered are going to be more of a window into the process, but with intent intact.

Obviously I can't totally speak for Bill, but I can try to give you a window into his thoughts about these very matters, resulting from many hours of conversation.

[ep1str0phy]

Listening to Vade Mecum right now. Like Impulse Coltrane, Braxton, the Atlantic Ornettes, Blue Note Andrew Hill, and early Art Ensemble, listening to post-70's Dixon is a completely immersive experience for me. Even if the recordings are meant to be taken each as a piece, there's a general sonic territory to the music on the Soul Note Box that makes for excellent sustained listening--it's the sort of terrain I could be happy to live inside of.

[colinmce]

Listening to Vade Mecum right now. Like Impulse Coltrane, Braxton, the Atlantic Ornettes, Blue Note Andrew Hill, and early Art Ensemble, listening to post-70's Dixon is a completely immersive experience for me. Even if the recordings are meant to be taken each as a piece, there's a general sonic territory to the music on the Soul Note Box that makes for excellent sustained listening--it's the sort of terrain I could be happy to live inside of.

Ditto Joe McPhee's Po Music series.

[AndrewHill]

Listening to Vade Mecum right now. Like Impulse Coltrane, Braxton, the Atlantic Ornettes, Blue Note Andrew Hill, and early Art Ensemble, listening to post-70's Dixon is a completely immersive experience for me. Even if the recordings are meant to be taken each as a piece, there's a general sonic territory to the music on the Soul Note Box that makes for excellent sustained listening--it's the sort of terrain I could be happy to live inside of.

Ditto Joe McPhee's Po Music series.

Joe's Hat albums are intense!!!

[colinmce]

Some of the most incredible and under-heard creative music of the last 30 years on those records and one of the best groups ever (the triad of McPhee, Jaume and Boni that is). I wish Werner X would do more to keep his core 80s-early 90s catalogue in print: the McPhees, the Braxtons, the Hemingways, the Koglmanns.

[AndrewHill]

Some of the most incredible and under-heard creative music of the last 30 years on those records and one of the best groups ever (the triad of McPhee, Jaume and Boni that is). I wish Werner X would do more to keep his core 80s-early 90s catalogue in print: the McPhees, the Braxtons, the Hemingways, the Koglmanns.

Yup! Couldn't said it better myself.

[Kyo]

Listening to Vade Mecum right now. Like Impulse Coltrane, Braxton, the Atlantic Ornettes, Blue Note Andrew Hill, and early Art Ensemble, listening to post-70's Dixon is a completely immersive experience for me. Even if the recordings are meant to be taken each as a piece, there's a general sonic territory to the music on the Soul Note Box that makes for excellent sustained listening--it's the sort of terrain I could be happy to live inside of.

Now you've piqued my interest!

Edited April 16, 2011 by Kyo

[ArthurSchopenhauer]

Listening to Vade Mecum right now. Like Impulse Coltrane, Braxton, the Atlantic Ornettes, Blue Note Andrew Hill, and early Art Ensemble, listening to post-70's Dixon is a completely immersive experience for me. Even if the recordings are meant to be taken each as a piece, there's a general sonic territory to the music on the Soul Note Box that makes for excellent sustained listening--it's the sort of terrain I could be happy to live inside of.

Right on. This is a beautiful collection. Nothing like an Atlantic Omelette, though.

[Kyo]

Got it today. The nine discs come in simple cardboard slipcases with minimal liner notes on the rear. No booklet or anything, but I really can't complain - 9 CDs for 30 Euro is almost ridiculous. And best of all, I liked what I heard so far. So thanks for this thread, JSangry!

[MomsMobley]

Dixon had nice hats

Some of the most incredible and under-heard creative music of the last 30 years on those records and one of the best groups ever (the triad of McPhee, Jaume and Boni that is). I wish Werner X would do more to keep his core 80s-early 90s catalogue in print: the McPhees, the Braxtons, the Hemingways, the Koglmanns.

Edited May 15, 2014 by MomsMobley

[JSngry]

That might have relevance to me if I had any interest in Dixon as a "composer" to begin with. However, I don't. Like "artist", it's a term/concept that's outlived any currently feasible meaningful execution.

[ep1str0phy]

To Moms--yes, but but as an architect of improvisational concepts (both in terms of solo instrumental technique and group dynamics), Dixon was a master. There's a lot that he brought to the table that is clearly distinct from the usual devices of his more celebrated peers (Ornette, Trane, Sun Ra, Cecil, etc. etc. info that everyone already knows), particularly Dixon's treatment of rhythm (esp. the role of percussion) and space (not quite EAI, not quite AACM-ish--a really unique space). "Uniqueness" and a coherent improvisational identity are clearly not enough to make one a great composer, but weighed inside of the progress of Afro-American music (progress as it was, an I acknowledge there is no clear linear motion to that chronology), he's as strong a conceptualist as anyone inside of jazz who might merit and easier comparison with any number of romantic or serialist composers (etc. etc. again).

The problem is that people are far more likely to compare Dixon to Webern, Berg, Schoenberg, et al. than they are Ornette to, say, Feldman or something (read the interesting but really quite jumbled liner notes to "November, 1981," for example). The in process-established discourse on Dixon, and, moreover, the liminal space that Dixon seems to occupy in the music (the prejudicial strain that had Dixon branded too white for black people and too black for white people) have made comparisons to the Anglo classical canon really prevalent. I don't think this is necessarily fair, and (of course someone like Clifford could speak to this better than I, having talked to the guy so much) I get the sense that Bill would have wanted to have been taken on his own merits, canon be damned. Besides--his music never promised to operate under the procedures of something is rigorous as strict seralism, so who cares if he's a "composer" in that sense?

So, anyway, superlatives suck. There's something there, and that's enough for me.

[clifford_thornton]

This I agree with. I think Bill Dixon was simply not that great a composer. He had ** some ** compositional ideas, a sound concept on his horn but it's silly to pretend there's much or even anything 'profound' about the later farting around-- technique (Dixon's, Oxley's, anyone's) isn't COMPOSITION. Wagner is a composer. Bartok. Szymanowski.

re: Werner X. the guy's a crank. And he wouldn't have done what he did otherwise but esp. keeping all that McPhee and John Cage out of print is absurd. Slap 'em in a cardboard cap box w/ newly commissioned essay and let those smelly dingoes run. Now the only one getting a damn thing from 'em are ebay sellers and other dealers.

Listen to the music of Vaughan Williams, Harald Saverud, Enesco, Skalkottas, George Walker, William Bolcom, Anton Webern and then Bill Dixon-- again, the difference between a real composer and whatever mix of mostly interesting, sometimes dull things Dixon was.

Dixon had nice hats, I'll give him that!

Some of the most incredible and under-heard creative music of the last 30 years on those records and one of the best groups ever (the triad of McPhee, Jaume and Boni that is). I wish Werner X would do more to keep his core 80s-early 90s catalogue in print: the McPhees, the Braxtons, the Hemingways, the Koglmanns.

Spoken like someone who has little interest in the subject. The work is there, so you can take it or leave it.

Speaking as someone who was around during his last years, who listened to what he had to say, spent much time with his music, looked through the scores, read his notes, spoke with his students and watched him give advice to musicians (I hesitate, now, to use the word "lessons"), and to trust him to have done the things he said he did or wanted to do, I know that he was/is both a composer and an instrumentalist of a very high caliber. And for me, personally, his music means as much (if not in some instances more) as anyone else's. Nobody else has to have their lives changed by the work for it, and him, to have changed MY life for the better.

[AndrewHill]

This I agree with. I think Bill Dixon was simply not that great a composer. He had ** some ** compositional ideas, a sound concept on his horn but it's silly to pretend there's much or even anything 'profound' about the later farting around-- technique (Dixon's, Oxley's, anyone's) isn't COMPOSITION. Wagner is a composer. Bartok. Szymanowski.

re: Werner X. the guy's a crank. And he wouldn't have done what he did otherwise but esp. keeping all that McPhee and John Cage out of print is absurd. Slap 'em in a cardboard cap box w/ newly commissioned essay and let those smelly dingoes run. Now the only one getting a damn thing from 'em are ebay sellers and other dealers.

Listen to the music of Vaughan Williams, Harald Saverud, Enesco, Skalkottas, George Walker, William Bolcom, Anton Webern and then Bill Dixon-- again, the difference between a real composer and whatever mix of mostly interesting, sometimes dull things Dixon was.

Dixon had nice hats, I'll give him that!

Some of the most incredible and under-heard creative music of the last 30 years on those records and one of the best groups ever (the triad of McPhee, Jaume and Boni that is). I wish Werner X would do more to keep his core 80s-early 90s catalogue in print: the McPhees, the Braxtons, the Hemingways, the Koglmanns.

Spoken like someone who has little interest in the subject. The work is there, so you can take it or leave it.

Speaking as someone who was around during his last years, who listened to what he had to say, spent much time with his music, looked through the scores, read his notes, spoke with his students and watched him give advice to musicians (I hesitate, now, to use the word "lessons"), and to trust him to have done the things he said he did or wanted to do, I know that he was/is both a composer and an instrumentalist of a very high caliber. And for me, personally, his music means as much (if not in some instances more) as anyone else's. Nobody else has to have their lives changed by the work for it, and him, to have changed MY life for the better.

Word Clifford. I was thinking about what Mom's said a day ago and I think Bill Dixon's music is so much more than that. It is a unique combination of composing, improvising and the moment it was done in. Bill's music has touched me and I know that is a subjective statement; but, I suppose, what else matters? At least for me, its how the music strikes you, and Bill's music strikes me just right.

[David Ayers]

So often on this board we pass over into hype. We want to say Dixon was a great composer, comparable to Webern. For that to be the case we need to be able to point to the compositions (publically circulated) and their performance tradition (other than by their author) and we need to be able to construct an argument explaining in what way Dixon formulated compositional concepts that went beyond the things of which he was a contemporary and inheritor (Boulez, Stockhausen) to the same extent that Webern went beyond (say) Mahler and Zemlinsky, or Schoenberg. Once we have that argument in pace we can discuss it, but until we do there is nothing to talk about. On this board attempts to open such a discussion generally end in abuse and 'ah but you haven't heard such-and-such a CD'. It's like The Wire: everyone who blows a trumpet is Webern; everyone who plays electronica is Stockhausen. In the end the merely good are damaged by this hype.

Edited April 26, 2011 by David Ayers

[paul secor]

So often on this board we pass over into hype. We want to say Dixon was a great composer, comparable to Webern. For that to be the case we need to be able to point to the compositions (publically circulated) and their performance tradition (other than by their author) and we need to be able to construct an argument explaining in what way Dixon formulated compositional concepts that went beyond the things of which he was a contemporary and inheritor (Boulez, Stockhausen) to the same extent that Webern went beyond (say) Mahler and Zemlinsky, or Schoenberg. Once we have that argument in pace we can discuss it, but until we do there is nothing to talk about. On this board attempts to open such a discussion generally end in abuse and 'ah but you haven't heard such-and-such a CD'. It's like The Wire: everyone who blows a trumpet is Webern; everyone who plays electronica is Stockhausen. In the end the merely good are damaged by this hype.

I don't recall anyone here comparing Bill Dixon to Webern until Moms did. Also don't recall anyone comparing Dixon to Boulez or Stockhausen until you did. Bill Dixon did what he did - take it or leave it. And it's your right to do the latter if you choose. For me, comparing music from different genres is a waste of time. In the end, there's good music and music that's not. For me, Bill Dixon's falls into the former camp. Others may feel differently.