Coltrane, Jazz aesthetics, etc.

[Rimshot]

I am reminded of a story about famous 20th century realist painter, Edward Hopper. He was invited to speak at a civic center somewhere in a small American suburban community and the person introducing him was going on and on about how this one painting of his:"The House by the Railroad Tracks" was an expression of the lonely feeling of rural Americans, the battle between the oncoming industrialization of America and the relics of the past standing nobly but threatened, etc.,etc.

When Hopper began speaking he said: "Really all I was trying to do was an excersize in color to paint a picture of a white house without using any white paint."

So why should anyone else be interested in Hopper's attempt to paint a white house without using white paint? While Hopper's explanation might be totally lacking in academic BS, it's also totally lacking in any reason to be interested in his work.

So you are implying that because of one single person's misinterpretation (apparently not very well informed) in the introduction to Hopper's speech at a civic center somewhere in a small American suburban community, you are saying that all his work is nothing more than doing excercises in color to paint pictures of white houses without using any white paint.

Him clarifying that this was just an exercise is a reason not to be interested in his work? If his fame was based on misinterpretations, why did he even bother to clarify that the painting was nothing more than an exercise? Cynisism?

It doesn't really matter what Hopper thought he was doing. What matters is what the work is. If it wasn't "an expression of the lonely feeling of rural Americans, the battle between the oncoming industrialization of America and the relics of the past standing nobly but threatened, etc.,etc." or something of that sort, no one would give a damn about it, Hopper wouldn't be famous, and his painting would probably be competently executed eye candy in a hotel room somewhere.

Based on one misinterpretation you are excluding any of Hopper's accomplishments. Incredible.

Actually,Most entirely missed the point of my Hopper reference. I was not saying anything about Hopper. He's a fine well respected and deservedly so artist. The point is that a work of art can be appreciated on so many different levels, and on levels that may not have been consciously intended by the artist. That doesn't mean that they're not there, it just means that it wasn't primary to them at the point of conception. This in no way detracts from the artists work. It points out the foolishness of those that would ave ALL artsts qualify and document every aspect of their work, to explain and justif all facets like some sort of mathematical equation. The creative spirit just DOESN'T work that way!

Although I am a working musician and have been for many years, I am always a backman playing behind others...and I love it. I have written some charts and done some arranging, but I will always just be the guy that they call in to provide the percussion (though creative and I do have my chops) on pieces. I am however highly qualifed to talk on the merits of visual art as my day job is as a visual artist and for the past 20 years as a profesor of art history and studio art at a NY community college. I deal with colleagues all of the time that expound in great length on all of the philosophies of art, while most practicing artsts mostly talk to each other about good buys on paint and rents on loft space.

Most musicians talk about gear and gigs.

Same thing.

Does that mean that musicians don't have phlosophical thoughts? Of course not. They already said it in the music. Why do they have to spell it out for you?

If you are liking it "even for all the WRONG REASONS " you're still liking it, and who's to say you're wrong?

There are times when someone compliments me on a set and starts telling me what they thought I was doing and I'll say "thank you". All I might remember is that I was fantasizing about nailing the babe with the great set of cans sitting at the front table.

[Lazaro Vega]

Eek Eric, the CPB funding coming to Blue Lake is not much. We operate on a budget of around 700,000 plus annually, with a full time staff of 8, I think. The money for live radio hits and the like does not come from the station's budget but from my hustling it from corporate or individual sponsors (such as myself), or by interfacing with The Urban Insititute For Contemporary Arts in Grand Rapids, Grand Valley State University's music program, Hope College, etc. But if you were thinking we're all richies at Blue Lake, wow. Wish it were true. We do all right because we have a good audience who supports what we do. Almost half our budget comes from them during on-air funders, and, of course, we're primarily a classical station with 100,000 watts at 90.3 and a repeater at 88.9 in Grand Rapids, which means we serve a large population than what you potentially have up there in heaven on earth.

Getting a live audience together that can support around a $1,000 hit isn't that crazy a challenge. It's 100 folks at $10 a head. With the mass media at our disposal, well, as in the music, anything is possible. Just saying, if you really want to see this stuff come off the page, put a crowd in front of something such as Kahil/Joseph Bowie/ Ernest Dawkins doing their thing for Black History Month and see how it goes.

Right now I'm working on bringing Kalaparush into Grand Rapids in April, and have a live hit this Sunday with a band of young guys from Portland/Vancouver BC and Chicago...The Rob Scheps/Zack Brock Quintet who are out on the road (crazy kids! Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan by CAR in January!). So my funds/energy are committed. Otherwise I may have taken you up on that.

But what about yourself? I mean, an interface with the school, Interlochen, Dennos Museum -- it would just add another layer to the music happening up there in paradise.....

[JSngry]

An Edward Hopper exhibit, THAT's the ticket!

[Dr. Rat]

So are people's positive misinterpretations of Hopper's work more valid than positive misinterpretations of Coltrane's late work, or should both be viewed suspectly?

First (full disclosure), I think I'm biased in favor of "social realist" style interpretations, even if they are (as is the case with the Hopper painting, apparently) a misinterpretation. This because I was raised a socialist and I'll probably always prefer social explanations for everything. (God help me! As you might imagine, I am a difficult man to live with: "you're only saying that because . . .")

Second, these sorts of misinterpretations seem to have very little "feedback" effect on artists. Hopper's response seems to be pretty typical. He just doesn't care about this "academic BS" and I doubt it had any effect on his work. (Though I might be wrong, knowing little about Hopper.) If we lived in the old Soviet Union, I suppose this sort of misinterpretation would be much more dangerous. People with guns might have made Hopper paint "about" boring suburbia.

On the other hand, I think the Coltrane phenomenon has had a lot of effect on how jazz gets created. I think a taste for "advanced" forms of jazz gets encouraged amongst musicians, that musicians who attempt to play "advanced" kinds of jazz get more respect than musicians who, say, try to improvise in the style of Lester Young; and that an important part of the validation for this way of thinking is the at least somewhat questionable reverence given to the late work of John Coltrane by musicians and fans.

In our discussion earlier the point being urged on me was that the taste for late Coltrane was like any other taste, you either have it or you don't, it isn't provable that Coltrane is good or bad and we move on. But the jazz world is not a world where the taste for Coltrane is on an equal footing with other tastes. I think it is very much an inculcated taste, a priviliged taste, while other tastes are generally looked upon with contempt.

My idea is that this is bad rather than good for the music over the long run.

The preceding are impressions. I have placed no wagers on the truth of any of these statements, nor will I. They were written in a normal tone of voice, though I may have been talking too fast--I did drink another coffee since having been warned off caffeine. One thing I just can't take is good advice.

--eric

Edited January 21, 2004 by WNMC

[Lazaro Vega]

OK Eric. We're 6 employees, and our directive is to do as much local programming as possible, not hand it off to Minnesota Public Radio. The only syndicated jazz programming we have is Piano Jazz, Riverwalk, and from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. Saturday morning and from Midnight Saturday to 7 a.m. Sunday, Jim Wilke's wonderful program "Jazz After Hours."

For what it's worth I do enjoy Harry Goldson's music, and play his records down here, as well as Jeff Haas and Bill Sears. The Sutton's Bay Jazz Fest has been a great success musically and materially.

Sorry to hear about your struggles vis a vis Interlochen Public Radio.

And givin all that, you still get better promo service on jazz that Blue Lake.

What's up with that?

Hold the fort, bud. I'm not the one to talk to about the dissemination of funds or administration of Public Broadcasting. But using the mass media as a platform for understanding the many strata of jazz, historically, currently or otherwise, oh yeah. Let's go!

[rockefeller center]

But the jazz world is not a world where the taste for Coltrane is on an equal footing with other tastes. I think it is very much an inculcated taste, a priviliged taste, while other tastes are generally looked upon with contempt.

My idea is that this is bad rather than good for the music over the long run.

The preceding are impressions. I have placed no wagers on the truth of any of these statements, nor will I. They were written in a normal tone of voice, though I may have been talking too fast--I did drink another coffee since having been warned off caffeine. One thing I just can't take is good advice.

--eric

Check out the "what are you listening to" thread. People do listen to all kinds of different music. One could accuse them for being eclectic hipsters.

[Dr. Rat]

And givin all that, you still get better promo service on jazz that Blue Lake. 

Hey, we ain't got money, but we got plenty of jazz (53 hours!)

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

Check out the "what are you listening to" thread. People do listen to all kinds of different music. One could accuse them for being eclectic hipsters.

And I bet they are!

I'm not saying that jazz musicians don't listen to other stuff, but that the aesthetic standards are influenced to what I would say is too great an extent by those created in the 1960s and by the direct inheritors of the 1960s giants (e.g. Zorn).

So that someone who puts out a good organ trio record seems ready to apologize for it ("At home, I listen to Stockhausen" or "We'd like to play Ornette Coleman, but . . ." or "What we'd really like to do is play so loud that people's ears would bleed and OSHA would come shut us down (if there still was an OSHA), but then they wouldn't give us this gig anymore) and claim allegience to something more challenging and "artistic."

--eric

[rockefeller center]

So that someone who puts out a good organ trio record seems ready to apologize for it ("At home, I listen to Stockhausen" or "We'd like to play Ornette Coleman, but . . ." or "What we'd really like to do is play so loud that people's ears would bleed and OSHA would come shut us down (if there still was an OSHA), but then they wouldn't give us this gig anymore) and claim allegience to something more challenging and "artistic."

--eric

I don't share your opinion. Let's see if "Organissimo" would like to take this as an opportunity to apologize for being an organ trio.

[JSngry]

I think the Coltrane phenomenon has had a lot of effect on how jazz gets created.

Well, uh...yeah. So did the Armstrong phenomenon & the Parker phenomenon. That's....kinda the way things work.

I think a taste for "advanced" forms of jazz gets encouraged amongst musicians, that musicians who attempt to play "advanced" kinds of jazz get more respect than musicians who, say, try to improvise in the style of Lester Young;

Well, uh...yeah. If you saw a tenorist chasing Hawk in, say, 1952, or an altoist patterning himself after Hodges in, say, 1959, you would be seeing an extreme abnomaly. And the Pres-disciple thing was pretty much no longer "hip" by 1957-58 or so. Time marches on, even if things don't get fully finished before it does, and some good stuff sometimes gets lost in the shuffle. Happened to Ruby Braff. But some other stuff HAD to happen, like the REST of the 1950s. That's....kinda the way things work. Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.

In our discussion earlier the point being urged on me was that the taste for late Coltrane was like any other taste, you either have it or you don't, it isn't provable that Coltrane is good or bad and we move on. But the jazz world is not a world where the taste for Coltrane is on an equal footing with other tastes. I think it is very much an inculcated taste, a priviliged taste, while other tastes are generally looked upon with contempt.

Dude, I don't know what "jazz world" this is, but if I had to inhabitsuch a world, I'd get the hell out of Dodge. Granted, I get a little put off by those who insist that Trane's later work (and I'm assuming that late-Trane is what you mean when you say "Coltrane") is bogus, but I get just as put off by those who can't hang w/all the greatness that came before it either. I know people whoa re like that, but frankly, they're in the minority. At least amongst thoise that I know, and I've been around the music and its various facets for several decades now.

You don't like the music, which is fine. But for whatever reason, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about those who do. SEEM to. Yeah, the whole snob thing exists, and I hate it AT LEAST as much as you do, because I play the stuff and have to deal with it in a way that you probably don't ("OOOOOH! You guys are so FREAKY! I LOOOOVE it" followed a few minutes later by "Eh, you guys are all right, but it's a bit 20th century, don't you think?" when all we're really trying to do is just PLAY SOME FUCKING MUSIC breeds neither confidence nor contempt towards those who say such things, just thermonuclear indifference ). But if you're not going to admit that there are a good number of people who just LIKE the stuff for the same reasons that ANYBODY likes ANYTHING ("Hey guys, good set, felt really good" DUDE - can I buy YOU a beer?) then you're not only begging the question in a MOST obvious manner, you're eliminating all grounds for serious discussion. Because there ain't no discussion, there's just two lectures going on at roughly the same time (a stereophonic monolog, perhaps?).

I'm sorry if you haven't met some of these people yet, the people who genuinely like this kind of music "just because", but frankly, it's possible that you have and just refused to see it because you refuse to allow for the possibilty that they exist. Not that this has anything to do with you liking the music or not, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with that. Like what you like and deal with the rest in no uncertain terms. Right freakin' on, and get in line. But afford others the same courtesies that you afford yourself, ok? Because you don't "understand" everything, including why some people like what they do. Ain't NOBODY got that much understanding, not even you and me combined.

That's....kinda the way things work.

Edited January 22, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

I'm not saying that jazz musicians don't listen to other stuff, but that the aesthetic standards are influenced to what I would say is too great an extent by those created in the 1960s and by the direct inheritors of the 1960s giants (e.g. Zorn).

So that someone who puts out a good organ trio record seems ready to apologize for it ("At home, I listen to Stockhausen" or "We'd like to play Ornette Coleman, but . . ." or "What we'd really like to do is play so loud that people's ears would bleed and OSHA would come shut us down (if there still was an OSHA), but then they wouldn't give us this gig anymore) and claim allegience to something more challenging and "artistic."

--eric

Dude, I say this with much love, but...

WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN????

Seriously, much love. But I just GOT to ask.

[Chuck Nessa]

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've stayed away for a while. BUT in I find these snippets from your posts to be ugly/arrogant for someone trying to open a discussion. You could have generated a discussion about the topic without the following quotes which I find insulting. My interpretation of these messages reflect an unhelpful and egotistical "academic" stance. That's where the "drunken dorm" image was hatched.

Here are the quotes:

“My own suspicion is that a lot of jazz fans and even musicians are pretty naive on the subject of aesthetics. What I've heard a lot of is "this is good" or "this is cool"….”

“The trouble with the attitude of "he's got his world, I've got mine and there's no point in discussing it" is that it drastically reduces the importance of music itself.”

“It's kind of funny that when people discuss totally inane things badly, no one seems to care, but trying to disuss anything serious (well or badly) always inspires someone to compare the discussion to a late-night dorm-room conversation.”

“Anyhow, ignoring John McDonough is one thing. Saying that a disagreement you have with him is of no real significance is another.”

“I can ignore McDonough because he's an idiot and can't see the truth I can see; the truth which I might then relate to thee.”

‘Saying we have opposite views and that both those views are all well and good says something about the object of the disagreement. It says it is insignificant.”

“We can avoid the dorm-room problem by a) not being drunk yet; and having a bit of care in writing and interpreting.”

Have a nice life.

[Joe G]

So that someone who puts out a good organ trio record seems ready to apologize for it ("At home, I listen to Stockhausen" or "We'd like to play Ornette Coleman, but . . ." or "What we'd really like to do is play so loud that people's ears would bleed and OSHA would come shut us down (if there still was an OSHA), but then they wouldn't give us this gig anymore) and claim allegience to something more challenging and "artistic."

--eric

I don't share your opinion. Let's see if "Organissimo" would like to take this as an opportunity to apologize for being an organ trio.

Fat chance. Greasy, funky, and proud of it!

[Chuck Nessa]

Another thought.

You can examine the arts, or any other subject, from a number of directions. For example, I feel the political/economic situation in the last days of the '70s and the '80s had a big influence on the ultimate direction of all arts (and much else) in America. Exchange and interest rates at the time had a more profound influence than individual tastes.

Aesthetics, and the perception of same, are affected by other outside pressures, not just "purity".

[Joe G]

thermonuclear indifference 

Dude--if you're not going to use this as a song title, I'll gladly give it a home!

[blue lake]

So, Eric, are the over 50 hours of jazz your station puts out available on the web? Are you world wide with it, or limited in bandwidth?

[danasgoodstuff]

I think that Jsngrey had a good idea a while back that kinda got passed over: Let's see if we can genrate some light and reduce the heat by discussing the relative merits of various items of late 'Trane. Interstellar Space has already been mentioned as an "Oh that's what this stuff's about" moment for lots of folks. I would like to draw attention to the, IMHO, equally revelatory (sp?) Stellar Regions. The relatively short tunes and quartet format put the focus squarely on the sorts of techniques Jim was talking about, in nice digestable chunks but without being in any way watered down. Any thoughts on these specific performances?

Edited January 22, 2004 by danasgoodstuff

[rockefeller center]

[rockefeller center]

[Chuck Nessa]

I suggest Rocky controls his balls from now on.

[rockefeller center]

I'll do my best!

[JSngry]

thermonuclear indifference 

Dude--if you're not going to use this as a song title, I'll gladly give it a home!

Be my guest, just treat it right.

[Jim Alfredson]

So that someone who puts out a good organ trio record seems ready to apologize for it ("At home, I listen to Stockhausen" or "We'd like to play Ornette Coleman, but . . ." or "What we'd really like to do is play so loud that people's ears would bleed and OSHA would come shut us down (if there still was an OSHA), but then they wouldn't give us this gig anymore) and claim allegience to something more challenging and "artistic."

--eric

I don't share your opinion. Let's see if "Organissimo" would like to take this as an opportunity to apologize for being an organ trio.

First we'd have to assume that our record is "good". Personally, I think it KICKS ASS but I'm a little biased!

Secondly, I'm hopped up on anti-biotics and Robitussen with codine because of this nasty bronchial infection I got (that has come back with a vengence after the long day and long night of giggin' I had Tuesday)... so I'm a bit in that "inter-stellar space" right now...

Thirdly, I have to concur with JSngry asking "What fuckin' world are you living in?" or some such thing. And I mean that in the nicest way.

I have never apologized for being an organist and playing in a funky, greasy organ trio. I don't lose any sleep over the guys doing other things. I don't lose any sleep over guys doing things similair to what I'm doing. Sure, Joey DeFrancesco can out-chop the shit out of me. Good for him! He's a monster! Sure, Larry Goldings has a much better understanding of classical music which winds it's way into his music and as such his compositions might be considered more "advanced" than mine. Cool! They sound great!

I would never apologize for what I'm doing or the records I put out unless I played music or recorded music that wasn't honest. Why do I play what I do? 'Cos the shit TURNS ME ON!! It gets me harder than that chick Rimshot was talking about in the front row "with the great set of cans". I love this stuff! I'm not trying to prove anything to anybody most of the time. I have to admit, when other musicians (especially keyboardists) come to the gig, I sometimes take it up a notch, but who doesn't? (Hey Joe, did you notice that when Paul came in last Tuesday? Sara's Dance was GROOVIN'!!!!)

I am probably just proving your statement that "... a lot of jazz fans and even musicians are pretty naive on the subject of aesthetics..." That's true, in my case. I don't give a shit. All I want when I listen to music is something that stirs me. It can stir me either intellectually, spiritually, or physically... it's all good!

And all I try to do when making music is get to that point where I close my eyes, and my hands and my brain are directly connected and I'm somwhere else and the shit is just flowin'.... if I get there even once a week, I'm a happy musician!

And finally, as a summary of this thread:

Outside looking in.

[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've stayed away for a while. BUT in I find these snippets from your posts to be ugly/arrogant for someone trying to open a discussion. You could have generated a discussion about the topic without the following quotes which I find insulting. My interpretation of these messages reflect an unhelpful and egotistical "academic" stance. That's where the "drunken dorm" image was hatched.

Here are the quotes:

“My own suspicion is that a lot of jazz fans and even musicians are pretty naive on the subject of aesthetics. What I've heard a lot of is "this is good" or "this is cool"….”

“The trouble with the attitude of "he's got his world, I've got mine and there's no point in discussing it" is that it drastically reduces the importance of music itself.”

“It's kind of funny that when people discuss totally inane things badly, no one seems to care, but trying to disuss anything serious (well or badly) always inspires someone to compare the discussion to a late-night dorm-room conversation.”

“Anyhow, ignoring John McDonough is one thing. Saying that a disagreement you have with him is of no real significance is another.”

“I can ignore McDonough because he's an idiot and can't see the truth I can see; the truth which I might then relate to thee.”

‘Saying we have opposite views and that both those views are all well and good says something about the object of the disagreement. It says it is insignificant.”

“We can avoid the dorm-room problem by a) not being drunk yet; and having a bit of care in writing and interpreting.”

Have a nice life.

With respect, I find absolutely nothing offensive in any of your snippets. I frankly can't imagine what makes you think this collection of snippets is an indictment.

Do they look academic? I suppose they might. Egotistical? On what basis? That they express a point of view? Should I be usuing more euphenism? Should I be endlessly qualifying what I say? Should I just agree with whatever you tell me to think? What would make these snippets less offensive for you? Do you want me to acknowledge that other opinions exist? I think that's a given. Do you want me to reassure you that I don't think you are a moron? Consider yourself reassured, because I don't.

I do think you are being unfair and unreasonable

[JSngry]

...I'm hopped up on anti-biotics and Robitussen with codine because of this nasty bronchial infection I got...

Where can I go to get a nasty bronchial infection and such a treatment for it?