Coltrane, Jazz aesthetics, etc.

[John C]

And just where the hell do these philosophers get off on dissing pigeon fanciers? Good enough for Chuck Darwin good enough for me.

John

[Joe G]

OM might be Rolling Stone, brownies made with clarified butter, but INTERSTELLAR SPACE is definitely not TV Guide.

the mantra, the clarified butter and tiny purple fishes

Where's the thread that started all this?

[7/4]

the mantra, the clarified butter and tiny purple fishes

Where's the thread that started all this?

My sig has little to do with this thread!

It's a combo of Om text and a Cream lyric.

I think it all hit the fan at the same time!

Edited January 19, 2004 by 7/4

[Chrome]

I'm an unabashed relativist, and these kinds of threads always reinforce my beliefs ... as JSngry said: "it still comes down to whether or not you 'like' the results."

One person finds transcendence in 'Trane, one in Kenny G, others in pigeons, and I defy anyone to prove that any of the three is "more" transcendant than they other two.

JSngry's comment about how learning about technique, etc., provides more fertile ground for good discussion is telling ... "technique" is an artificial construct, if you will, in which everyone agrees on the parameters. That's what makes it easier to discuss w/o argument.

[couw]

"technique" is an artificial construct, if you will, in which everyone agrees on the parameters. That's what makes it easier to discuss w/o argument.

it allows to distinguish facts. And arguments with respect to facts can be solved, whereas those dealing with preferences hardly ever can but by compromise.

[Joe G]

One person finds transcendence in 'Trane, one in Kenny G, others in pigeons, and I defy anyone to prove that any of the three is "more" transcendant than they other two.

Reminds me of a saying from the East: If one is ripe, even the sight a falling leaf will do it. If you're not, the whole tree can fall on you and nothing will happen at all!

[JSngry]

JSngry's comment about how learning about technique, etc., provides more fertile ground for good discussion is telling ... "technique" is an artificial construct, if you will, in which everyone agrees on the parameters. That's what makes it easier to discuss w/o argument.

Well, I'll have to disagree that "technique" is an artificial construct, at least as how I meant it. There's nothing at all "artificial" about cellular units of construction, motivic developement, etc., to say nothing of the fingerings used to produce altissimo notes and mutiphonics, all of which figure quite heavily in the music of late-period Coltrane. These are all quite specific devices consciously executed by the musicians involved. Nothing at all artificial about it - it's real, and it's what the music consists of, absent of anybody's (including the players') subjective "emotional" and/or "spiritual" projections. The instruments don't play themselves, dig?

But in another way, I agree with you - even if you DO have an at least fundamental grasp of these concrete techniques, you're STILL left with appraising the music on how it reaches YOU, and that includes judgement as to how well the techniques are executed, and to what end. Which is why I can't take all this "decline/destruction of civilization" talk seriously as it pertains to late-Trane - I JUST DON'T HEAR IT! I hear a man taking conventional "Western" music as far as it can be taken w/o it becoming something else, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, and I also hear his "spiritual" triumph when he succeds (or at least gets close) and his frustration when he doesn't - in spite of whatever external projections Trane placed on the music, it was always, ALWAYS, "music first" with him, even when he placed it in service of his "quest", which, it can be argued (and quite well, I believe) was in place LONG before the 1965-66 period that apparently distresses so many people so intensely. It all seems like a natural and inevitable personal and musical (SO important, that one is!) evolution to me. Therefore, I DON'T hear "narcissism" or vague air-headed notions of "cosmic love" and such. But somebody else does. So what does that "prove"? Nothing, one way or the other, absolutely nothing.

I will, however, entertain debates about the relative merits of the various recordings of late-period Trane, provided that it is on the terms of acknowledging and having at least a basic knowledge of the existence and validity of the techniques involved. INTERSTELLAR SPACE is ne plus ultra, imo, OM is fun but ultimately disposable, and there's much in between. But again, even THAT is subjective, so we're back to square one, albeit on a higher plane. And if you want to argue that that plane itself being "higher" is what's artificial, rather than the actual techniques involved in the making of the music, go ahead. I'd be hard-pressed to disagree!

[Dr. Rat]

Just to address Chuck Nessa's last: I don't think I wrote anything even at all disrespectful of anyone prior to his post about drunken dorm-room conversations.

I'm not particularly thin-skinned, but I'm not happy being characterized as a drunken college student, either. Pretty much all of my aggressive or "insulting" languauge has been other people's aggressive or satirical language turned back on them, which I think is fair game.

Personally, I took it all to be in good fun. I certainly have no axe to grind with Chuck Nessa, but if you are going to be satirical or "insulting" (i wouldn't use that word) with me, you aren't going to get a free ride. On the other hand I don't take it personally. Just part of the fun of discourse with creative, intelligent and sometimes prickly people. Certainly no disrespect intended on my part.

Anyhow, I did look over the prior posts, and that's how I feel about them. I am open to criticism from others, however.

--eric

[Chrome]

What I meant by "artificial construct" was the following:

One can take a saxophone and "play" it by hitting it with drum sticks. Or someone could learn the "fingerings used to produce altissimo notes and mutiphonics" and play like Coltrane.

The difference between the two is artificial ... most people have decided using one's fingers on the keys and blowing into the mouthpiece is the preferred method. However, there is no natural law that says that's the only way to do it. So it's artificial in that sense.

I meant kind of what couw said about "facts" vs. "preferences." If there is a generally accepted standard about how to do certain fingerings, an argument about who is accomplishing these fingerings is resolvable.

[JSngry]

What I meant by "artificial construct" was the following:

One can take a saxophone and "play" it by hitting it with drum sticks. Or someone could learn the "fingerings used to produce altissimo notes and mutiphonics" and play like Coltrane.

The difference between the two is artificial ... most people have decided using one's fingers on the keys and blowing into the mouthpiece is the preferred method. However, there is no natural law that says that's the only way to do it. So it's artificial in that sense.

I meant kind of what couw said about "facts" vs. "preferences." If there is a generally accepted standard about how to do certain fingerings, an argument about who is accomplishing these fingerings is resolvable.

Ok, I gotcha.

[Dr. Rat]

Wanted to thank everybody who has made the effort to grapple with this "game" (I'll accept that) I got rolling here.

I wanted to ask a few questions about JSngry's posts which, to some extent move the grounds for discussion to technique, where there is a fair deal of consensus.

I hear a man taking conventional "Western" music as far as it can be taken w/o it becoming something else, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, and I also hear his "spiritual" triumph when he succeds (or at least gets close) and his frustration when he doesn't - in spite of whatever external projections Trane placed on the music, it was always, ALWAYS, "music first" with him, even when he placed it in service of his "quest", which, it can be argued (and quite well, I believe) was in place LONG before the 1965-66 period that apparently distresses so many people so intensely. It all seems like a natural and inevitable personal and musical (SO important, that one is!) evolution to me.

So at least for you Coltrane's accomplishments come down to more or less defining the limits of conventional music. I wonder how you would compare this sort of accomplishment to, say the accomplishment of Garry Kasparov (or, say, some future computer) in defining the limits of what may be done within the rules of chess. (Let's imagine that some sort of limit is being defined there, even if it isn't really)

Would these sorts of accomplishments be on a level with each other? If not, what differences do you see?

--eric

[JSngry]

Sorry, but I don't follow chess.

Not trying to be funny. I really don't. so I feel unqualified to respond.

But - I do, subjectively, see much more to Coltrane's "accomplishments" (a word the usage of which I understand, but the implications of which are too "labor-centric" for me to fully embrace in this particular matter, although I will stipulate that it is appropriate to some degree in the face of Coltrane's well-documented "work ethic") as more than "more or less defining the limits of conventional music. This might, and I stress MIGHT, have been a result of his work, but for me, the visceral thrill of the music comes from, not the abstract appreciation of "boundaries being broken" or some such (my words, not yours), but from the sense of personal struggle, frustration, and triumph, something that I think we can all relate to in some manifestation or the other, if not this particular one. The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and all that.

It's a very HUMAN feeling I get from this music, and "fully" human in a way that a lot of more "focused" music isn't, at least not to me. Here you have a guy who saw an opening into a "new" realm of possibilities, felt that he had the tools to tackle the challenges it presented, took it, and never looked back after doing so. There were both triumphs and failures along the way, but that's the nature of the beast, right?

No doubt there are those who prefer music that has already answered its own questions beforehand, and I can respect that, enjoying quite a bit of it myself. I can even enjoy music which has no question to answer because it asks none to begin with. It really is "all good" to me, at least in principal. The specifics are a bit thornier, however...

But in late Trane, I get: the vicarious thrill of watching somebody else tackle that which I am nowhere near equipped to tackle directly myself, at least not to the extent that he did; direct "personal" guidance to what to look for when/if I am as well as what to do or not to do when/if I do; and the "detatched" appreciation of a man playing the saxophone as "well" as it can be played in the context of some really thorny musical(objective) and metaphysical(subjestive) "issues".

I suppose it would be rather easy for somebody who has no affinity for this music to interpret that as "worship" of some kind, but I see it as no such thing. Coltrane's "quest" might have had implications toards the "divine", but they were also firmly rooted in earthly, human, techiques and methodologies. I admire him to no end, respect him as much as I do anybody (and more than most), but in no way do I worship him.

Which is why pieces like McDonough's, pieces that drip with "baiting" remarks about this whole alleged diefication of Coltrane (a phenomenon that certtainly exists, but is in no way the primary reason for the esteem in which he is held by so many) fall totally flat with me. By making veiled (or not-so-veiled) mocking comments about the alleged nature of the man's fans, they fail entirely to deal with the music on its own terms, as well as the man's personal qualities, both admirale and questionable. It's a "no win" game men like McDonough play, and I strongly suspect they do it to call attention to themselves and/or their personal musical/social/whatever agendas much more than they do to stimulate a SERIOUS discussion of the music itself. Where there's no room for ambiguity, or a sincere admission of uncertainty in any regard, or, especially, the admission of "realtive" merits as it concerns parts of a whole, I seriously doubt there's any room for "forward progress". It all comes down to "I'm right, You're wrong" on both sides, and like I said waaaaay earlier, I ain't got time for THAT.

Edited January 19, 2004 by JSngry

[Dr. Rat]

Picking up from JSngry (and moving closer to Wittgenstein?):

You may not know chess, but I think you picked up my drift: There are other very important elements to the appreciation of late Coltrane aside from admiration of his technical "accomplishment."

It's a very HUMAN feeling I get from this music, and "fully" human in a way that a lot of more "focused" music isn't, at least not to me. Here you have a guy who saw an opening into a "new" realm of possibilities, felt that he had the tools to tackle the challenges it presented, took it, and never looked back after doing so. There were both triumphs and failures along the way, but that's the nature of the beast, right?

I don't have enough knowledge of the music to really follow Coltrane through this process of discovering new possibilities and having a go at them and succeeding or failing--I don't "hear" this in any direct way, though since you do know about them, I acknowledge that they are there, and I'd be interested in knowing more about them, though this message board is probably not the place to undertake that project.

But anyhow, I imagine that even if I did find out about what Coltrane was up to from a technical standpoint, I probably still wouldn't be able to hear the music and image Coltrane as a protagonist in the way that you do (Granted, this is not worship--I imagine other musicians (Coleman Hawkins, say) in much the same way--people taking risks and resolving them in various affecting ways and I don't think of it as worship).

A few posts back JSngry questioned the ability of those who are technically unequipped to understand Coltrane to critique him. I wonder if there is reason to question the ability of the technically unequipped to appreciate Coltrane.

Of course I don't know very much about Ellington's harmonies or voicings, but I can hear them just fine. But Coltrane, it would seem to me, raises the stakes a fair deal, to the point where I think it may be highly questionable whether the musically uneducated may be (generally -- there will be gifted exceptions) unable either to understand or even appreciate what's going on.

--eric

[JSngry]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as if when the "unequipped" DO appreciate late-Trane on a "non-technical" level that they are condemned (if not by you, then by others) for "worship", or some other "bait"-type term.

Then, you (or if not you, then somebody) turns around and call into question the validity of the music (or at the least, the validity of any/all positive response to it) because you (or if not you, then somebody) CAN'T appreciate it on a non-technical level. The grounds you (or if not you, then somebody) use to make a claim for the legitimacy of your disapproval are the same that you (or if not you, then somebody) use to make a claim for the illegitimacy of other's approval. The inconsistency of this (and I'm not trained in formal "logic", so I'll not use that word here out of respect for/fear of those who are...) seems more than obvious to me, but perhaps I am missing something. To me, it seems as if you (or if not you, then somebody) are assuming "Correctness" straight out the gate and virtually DEFY anybody to prove you (or if not you, then somebody) wrong. That's a sucker bet if ever there was one.

To me, this seems like you (or if not you, then somebody) seem to feel a sense of "entitlement", like it's your (or if not yours, then somebody's) inalienable RIGHT to apprecitate ALL "jazz" (if not all music), and if YOU (or if not you, then somebody) don't "get" it, then the problem lies entirely with the music itself, and if OTHER people get something out of it that YOU (or if not you, then somebody) don't then they must be delusional, or uncritical, or SOMETHING, because if there really WAS something there then you (or if not you, then somebody) would get it, and BY GOD, YOU (or if not you, then somebody) DON'T!!!

Which, to me, is so much nonsense. Nobody "gets" everything, and big whoop about that! If somebody doesn't "get" late-Trane, they don't get it. Period, end of story. And if somebody DOES "get" it, they get it. Same period, same end of story. Of course, it's human nature for birds of a feather, etc., but that's really jsut so much so much. Besides, tastes are mutable, and just as I've known people who have come around to this music after despising it, I've known people who have gone the opposite route. Not many, in either direction, but some, which would seem to disqualify the notions of "none" and "never", thereby opening up the realm of variability and uncertainty, and ain't THAT some fun to be getting into now, dontcha' just LOVE it!

Now, as a person and as a musician who is inspired by this music for both personal and musical reasons, of course I'm going to look kindly upon those who feel likewise. But NOT unanimously! People who only like this kind of music get on my nerves pretty quickly, just as do people who only like one kind of any music.

And it's really not even about "how much" or "one kind". It's about "open"ness and personal "honesty". I have plenty of good personal friends and musical accquaintances who are either ambivalent or dis-inclined to late-Trane. But they don't rag on about it. They simply say "not for me" or "I just don't get it", which is fine by me. I feel the same way about some of the things that THEY feel quite strongly about. I'm willing to admit that I DON'T "get" everything, and I DO remain open to the possibility that either A]someday I will get what others don't; or/and that B]I may NEVER "get" some of it, and that it will be my loss, no doubt.

But life is short, and we all make decisions about what to include, and in what proportion. I see no sense in knocking others for their choices if they otherwise show some semblance of "good taste" (now there's a can of worms for you, got your fishing license? ) or something akin to it, and I see no sense in feeling "superior" because of mine, assuming that the same parameters are met. And of course, I think that they are!

Really, why should anybody feel the right to understand EVERYTHING? And why the need to get "defensive" when they don't? Hell, understanding Trane is a LOT more easy for me than understanding THAT!

Edited January 19, 2004 by JSngry

[chris]

But in another way, I agree with you - even if you DO have an at least fundamental grasp of these concrete techniques, you're STILL left with appraising the music on how it reaches YOU, and that includes judgement as to how well the techniques are executed, and to what end.

Gee, didn't we already cover this earlier?

You can't say I didn't warn you!

[JSngry]

But in another way, I agree with you - even if you DO have an at least fundamental grasp of these concrete techniques, you're STILL left with appraising the music on how it reaches YOU, and that includes judgement as to how well the techniques are executed, and to what end.

Gee, didn't we already cover this earlier?

You can't say I didn't warn you!

Indeed.

Hey - chores are beckoning. What can I tell you?

[Dr. Rat]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as if when the "unequipped" DO appreciate late-Trane on "non-technical" level that they are condemned (if not by you, then by others) for "worship", or some other "bait"-type term.

Then, you (or if not you, then somebody) turn around and call into question the validity of the music because you (or if not you, then somebody) CAN'T appreciate it on a non-technical level.

My question is this: If Coltrane cannot be adequately criticized from a non-technical standpoint, can he be properly appreciated from a non-technical standpoint? My suspicion is that Coltrane's music is complex to the point that it is a muiscal form of esotericism, that its appeal is not immediate for the vast majority of listeners, and that the statement "I like this music" may be best interpreted as "I would like to be seen as someone who likes this sort of thing, but, truly, I neither understand nor enjoy this music."

I am not cocksure about this, I put it out as a proposition to be considered. Is it arrogant to think I may know better about what people like and why they do thinigs than they do? Perhaps, but in my experience people don't really have a great grasp for why they do things and why they like things.

A for instance: If you ask people whetehr they will participate in a sorted recycling program you get numbers that are all over the map vis-a-vis the participation you actually get. If you ask them whether thay think other people will comply, your yes number is generally very close to actual compliance. Or ask people why they buy an SUV and you'll get all kinds of absurd answers which are essentially rationalizations of the real reason they bought it.

So, sometimes it may be right to be a little arrogant in these situations. Not necessarily this time, but . . .

As far as the "bait-type terms" go. Those were McDonough's terms, not mine. McDonough was interesting to me because he brought up many of the very general terms that I thought ought to be at play in a discussion like this--music, emotionalism, religion, transcendance, delusion, social groups, inclusionary & exclusionary practices, blah blah blah.

I'm not really too anxious to start throwing around invective or heaping scorn on anyone. And I'm not defensive about my tastes vs. those of others I'm just questioning how these things are thought to work in general.

Not getting Coltrane is not my personal tragedy or anything. But I think how we answer these sorts of questions has important implications for how we think about art and jazz and where they're going.

--eric

[chris]

My question is this: If Coltrane cannot be adequately criticized from a non-technical standpoint, can he be properly appreciated from a non-technical standpoint? My suspicion is that Coltrane's music is complex to the point that it is a muiscal form of esotericism, that its appeal is not immediate for the vast majority of listeners, and that the statement "I like this music" may be best interpreted as "I would like to be seen as someone who likes this sort of thing, but, truly, I neither understand nor enjoy this music."

[...]

Not getting Coltrane is not my personal tragedy or anything. But I think how we answer these sorts of questions has important implications for how we think about art and jazz and where they're going.

Perhaps you need to reflect more closely for yourself rather than for everyone else. It is incredibly arrogant to presume that those who are not musically trained must not really be enjoying Coltrane when they claim they are. I'm sure there are poseurs in jazz just as there are poseurs in every audience for every art (I've certainly met more than a few people who ostentatiously place Finnegans Wake or Aristotle's Metaphysics on their bookshelves for others to see, but they are a pretty small minority. The much larger group have the books, have read them, and may not understand them, or not get particular nuances of the relationship between, for instance, Plato, Aristotle, and modern offshoots from the same sources such as Camus and Heidegger, but they aren't lying when they say they appreciated the volume nonetheless.

It sounds like you are looking for some kind of conspiracy to justify something that is at once a lot simpler and much more complex-- a disagreement in aesthetics that springs from thousands of different sources and influences that can't be charted.

Personally, the minute someone starts using reason as a cudgel to either denounce the taste of others or elevate their own (whether that taste be positive OR negative), most productive outcome in the conversation has long been lost... because most of the time, people that make the request to be more precise and "objective" only want to do so to make or disprove a point-- which is hardly what it's all about!

[JSngry]

My question is this: If Coltrane cannot be adequately criticized from a non-technical standpoint, can he be properly appreciated from a non-technical standpoint?

What is "proper" appreciation?

I can kill a flower just by looking at it, but I love them anyway. Forget about me actually raising one, though. Ugly. Pure-D UGLY! My wife, otoh, has the proverbial green thumb, but I doubt that she knows a pistil from a stamen, which I do. So who's got the "proper" appreciation of THIS form of life? I think we both do, in our own way, but SHE'S the one who needs to have the garden. Even though we both can derive genuine satisfaction from it, it is no doubt a "different" satisfaction that we each receive.

It's the same w/Trane. People DO appreciate it. Why they do is a question with many different answers, I'm sure, and some of them would include the "I say I like it becasue I'd like to like it type". But you're right -to assume that all, or even most, would fall into this category IS smug, and moreso than perhaps you realize.

Nothing personal, honestly, but this kind of thing (why do other people REALLY like what they say they like and do they in fact REALLY like it) seems to concern you much more than it does me. I will, for now anyway, respectfully (which, yes, is a change from my previous position) withdraw from the discussion, because I don't think that I will ever have "answers" to the questions you raise. Do you talk to many experienced musicians and/or many highly-experienced, veteran listeners, or do you just talk just to relatively novice-level "fans"? Your sampling might be severely skewered. And honestly, there'a vaguely voyeuristic quality to the whole question that makes me feel slightly (and undefinably) uncomfortable. But that's just me.

I will say this though - thinking about art and jazz and where they're going never actually GOT them anywhere. It's the DOing that gets the GOing accomplished, and that's a process that will never be perfect until the going gets to where it needed to get, at which point the whole thing's over, and it's time for the next trip to begin. "Perfection" is an end, literally, not a process.

Have a nice day, and perhaps some other time we can continue.

[Dr. Rat]

Perhaps you need to reflect more closely for yourself rather than for everyone else. It is incredibly arrogant to presume that those who are not musically trained must not really be enjoying Coltrane when they claim they are. I'm sure there are poseurs in jazz just as there are poseurs in every audience for every art (I've certainly met more than a few people who ostentatiously place Finnegans Wake or Aristotle's Metaphysics on their bookshelves for others to see, but they are a pretty small minority. The much larger group have the books, have read them, and may not understand them, or not get particular nuances of the relationship between, for instance, Plato, Aristotle, and modern offshoots from the same sources such as Camus and Heidegger, but they aren't lying when they say they appreciated the volume nonetheless.

Man, what's your sample size of people you've met that've read both or either of these books! You must travel in exalted circles!

The people who say they bought the SUV because it was safer aren't really lying, either. It's not really a question of lying.

The fact that someone might read what I wrote as arrogant I've already acknowledged. But I have no trouble acknowledging that my doctor knows more about my gallbladder than I do (to get back to the innards theme), I see no reason to object absolutely to the notion that someone might know more about why I like things than I do.

And what I'm talking about here is a hypothesis, nothing more.

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

My question is this: If Coltrane cannot be adequately criticized from a non-technical standpoint, can he be properly appreciated from a non-technical standpoint? 

What is "proper" appreciation?

I can kill a flower just by looking at it, but I love them anyway. Forget about me actually raising one, though. Ugly. Pure-D UGLY! My wife, otoh, has the proverbial green thumb, but I doubt that she knows a pistil from a stamen, which I do. So who's got the "proper" appreciation of THIS form of life? I think we both do, in our own way, but SHE'S the one who needs to have the garden. Even though we both can derive genuine satisfaction from it, it is no doubt a "different" satisfaction that we each receive.

It's the same w/Trane. People DO appreciate it. Why they do is a question with many different answers, I'm sure, and some of them would include the "I say I like it becasue I'd like to like it type". But you're right -to assume that all, or even most, would fall into this category IS smug, and moreso than perhaps you realize.

Nothing personal, honestly, but this kind of thing (why do other people REALLY like what they say they like and do they in fact REALLY like it) seems to concern you much more than it does me. I will, for now anyway, respectfully (which, yes, is a change from my previous position) withdraw from the discussion, because I don't think that I will ever have "answers" to the questions you raise. Do you talk to many experienced musicians and/or many highly-experienced, veteran listeners, or do you just talk just to relatively novice-level "fans"? Your sampling might be severely skewered. And honestly, there'a vaguely voyeuristic quality to the whole question that makes me feel slightly (and undefinably) uncomfortable. But that's just me.

I will say this though - thinking about art and jazz and where they're going never actually GOT them anywhere. It's the DOing that gets the GOing accomplished, and that's a process that will never be perfect until the going gets to where it needed to get, at which point the whole thing's over, and it's time for the next trip to begin. "Perfection" is an end, literally, not a process.

Have a nice day, and perhaps some other time we can continue.

That's cool.

Just to answer your parting questions:

I've had the opportunity to talk to both musicians and fans on this general topic, but have found musicians generally aren't particularly comfortable talking about aesthetics (this voyeuristic feeling you get? I don't know).

What I do get from musicians seems to lend credence to the esoterism argument: they like Coltrane becasue he works at a pretty exalted level of technical sophistication which they can understand and appreciate in much the same manner as you describe yourself appreciating him earlier.

By an large, though, I don't find that musicians have a very good idea of why non-musicians ought to like Coltrane, are vaguely resentful when they do not, and are pretty unreflective in putting forward Coltrane-influenced ideas of "progress" and "pushing limits" as aesthetic standards for younger performers.

Fans, on the other hand, seem to like him for a variety of reasons that I've heard, for many he seems to be conceived as vicarious primal scream therapy or as an example of the absolute outer limits, and admirable as such.

On thinking/doing/going: How does one know if one is doing the wrong thing and going in the wrong direction if someone isn't thinking?

PT Barnum once said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. In a way, an increadibly arrogant smug statement. But one with an important grain of truth to it, I'd say.

That grain of truth make me think that something seeming arrogant or smug is a bad reason for thinking it untrue.

[Lazaro Vega]

JSangry and Rimshot, thanks for your contributions to the musical content of this post.

What's additionally irksome about McD's ideas is that they're used to divorce the music of John Coltrane from the jazz tradition.

To say this artist divorced himself from his earlier training is to misunderstand his entire artistic life and how it related to his later years -- because in the end, they are all of a piece.

Furthermore, it divorces him from the time his music occurred within. All jazz, it seems to me, comes from the community of artists active at the time. Where would Armstrong be without Oliver, Ory or Bessie, Fate Marable or Fletcher Henderson? Where would Goodman be without Jimmy Noone or the direct influence of the first wave New Orleans musicians living in Chicago?

Similarly where would Trane be without Philly, the Navy, Dizzy, his time with Miles, or his life alongside of John Gilmore, Ornette Coleman, Albert Ayler and the many musicians who played in his bands? To the verification of his inroads by the AACM, who picked it up. All of these experiences feed into the stream of his musical imagination, and a river called the blues runs through it.

To try and appreciate jazz without understanding, at least partially, the difference between chordal based improvisation and modal based improvisation, whether from the point of view of a musician or more involved "fan," then you're going to miss a lot of significance in the music.

[rockefeller center]

Click

Edited January 20, 2004 by rockefeller center

[Jazzmoose]

I must admit I'm curious about the put downs WNMC is getting here, with the implications that this is a silly discussion topic not to be bothered with. Out of curiosity, exactly where on the silly/seriousness scale does this topic rank? Is it above or below the Babe thread? Higher or lower than Hello Kitty? Just wondering, but I certainly understand no one wishing to bring sophomoric discussion to such a serious and scholarly place as the Organissimo Bulletin Board!

[chris]

Man, what's your sample size of people you've met that've read both or either of these books! You must travel in exalted circles!

The people who say they bought the SUV because it was safer aren't really lying, either.  It's not really a question of lying.

The fact that someone might read what I wrote as arrogant I've already acknowledged. But I have no trouble acknowledging that my doctor knows more about my gallbladder than I do (to get back to the innards theme), I see no reason to object absolutely to the notion that someone might know more about why I like things than I do.

And what I'm talking about here is a hypothesis, nothing more.

--eric

The point isn't how many people claim to have read those books-- it isn't many, just as there aren't many people (relatively speaking) who claim to like Coltrane. The world at large ignores jazz. The point I am making is that of those who DO, the number of poseurs is pretty small, so claiming that they are really saying (to quote you, and your claim IS CLEARLY that they are lying: "I would like to be seen as someone who likes this sort of thing, but, truly, I neither understand nor enjoy this music" seems like particularly misguided way to rationalize the fact that others have a different aesthetic than your own.

The analogy between a doctor knowing your gallbladder better than you do and others being able to understand your aesthetic position better than you is pretty flawed for the simple reason that the aesthetic sphere is much different than the factual sphere of medicine. Certainly, we don't even ourselves know and understand all the reasons we might like one piece and not another, which leaves room for others to help us discover any of that myriad of influences that makes up a negotiated individual ethics, but this is a very different proposition than you are laying forth so far.

Your approach seems to be very binary, a kind of either/or proposition that isn't well in keeping with the way people actually work. It seems doomed to failure to not-- at some point-- accept that people's aesthetic apprehension differs for reasons that are not easily (and perhaps at all) illuminated, and that this might even be a GOOD thing!

Further, you are conflating two different issues. By choosing an artist like Coltrane the real issue gets obscured, because there is a more fundamental challenge that goes unresolved by getting sidelined on the issue of the complexity of his playing and composition. That more fundamental issue is what allows non-musicians to appreciate and enjoy Coltrane (despite your skepticism of the same-- for instance, my son's two friends from across the street asked me about a song that happened to be Coltrane and spoke unprompted that it was "pretty cool"-- were they being disingenuous?).

Stripped down to the core, this question is as simple (and unanswerable) as facing off on, say, the melody of a few standards. I bet we could find a few that we disagree on, perhaps even vehemently. How can one of us prove to the other that our chosen one is good or that the other is bad?

Of course we CAN'T, but until that argument has been won, confusing the issue by layering more on top of it doesn't do any good at all-- and believe it or not, even non-musicians can honestly appreciate and enjoy (and dislike and despise) the melodies of various songs, just as they can appreciate or not things in coltrane they don't consciously note or understand.

And for the record, I'm not putting WNMC or anyone else down. But it is very clear that these kinds of issues come down to so far irresolvable question of very simple aesthetics... which quickly grows old. You might as well try to convince me that I should like the taste of mayonnaise by explaining how it is made or the history of the condiment!