Jump to content

Herbie Hancock Memoir


Recommended Posts

Hancock's actual words, since I'm not sure they've appeared verbatim in this thread. From the liners to The Complete Warner Bros. Recordings:

"One thing became apparent to me last year," he explained in a 1974 interview that explained the change in perspective that led to his ultra-funky and enormously successful Headhunters album. "I'd go to friends' homes and see my albums on the shelves with lots of other people's records, and they'd play all the others except mine. My intention at the time was to play music to be listened to with undivided attention; but how many people have the time to approach music that way? Before, I was so interested in spirituality that I didn't recognize that a person puts on a record with his hands and not his spirit." So the emphasis shifted from "heavy musical trips that try to expand people's minds" to "making people feel like getting up in the morning and going to work."

I think it's important to parse that Herbie never really rejected the Mwandishi music--I always got the sense, in fact, that there was a lingering affection on the part of the members, Herbie included, for the band and that era--more the principles upon which the music was created. Do you "expand people's minds" or "make people feel like getting up in the morning?" I think both notions are presumptuous to a certain extent, and it's ultimately, at least in this case, just as much a matter of the artist feeling comfortable with what he put into the music is it is a matter of what he knew people would get out of it--i.e., 'I don't really want my music sitting on someone's shelves.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, always be the center of your own universe. That's the ticket!

About the "always be of service" goal, as opposed to (if indeed it is) Pete C's "the only question an artist needs to ask is, 'Am I making something that would please me if somebody else had made it.''"

"Always be of service" would seem to call for one of two things (and maybe more): that the artist be able to read the audience's mind, or that he regard applause, ticket and recorded music sales, back-patting, etc. as the primary determinants of what he or she should be doing. And a secondary question: if the artist could read the audience's minds, how does he balance out, say, nine people who thought the results were so-so and one who thought they were life-changingly brilliant versus ten people who thought the results were good. Also, in that first sample, who is this tenth person? Is he Jim Sangrey? Chuck Nessa? Me? Charlie Parker? Duke Ellington? And who are the nine others?

I don't think my answer implied selfishness. The only aesthetic criteria that works for me with my own work is what I stated. The business of art is aesthetics, and as far as I'm concerned the best answer to whether my output works is: 1. Does this please me and 2. Have I avoided the kind of self-indulgence that would annoy me in the work of others. Outside of that any work or art, regardless of genre or form, is essentially about making pleasurable things (and pleasurable encompasses a wide range of emotions). I also give myself extra brownie points when I can say I've done it in a way that nobody else would do quite the same way, and hopefully that individuality of expression will resonate with my readership or audience. So, yes, only consider the audience as an abstract entity and simply strive to make art that expresses you and pleases you. If it's honest it'll find its audience, and on its terms it will "serve" that audience. I like Gertrude Stein's line: "I write for myself and strangers."

Where do you get "always" be of service, Larry? Don't think that was ever in the mix, "always".

Point being, the whole notion of pleasing yourself with your art can go many different ways, from total self-indulgence to total self-negation, depending on how you get your pleasure. Same thing with the notion of doing something that you think you would like if somebody else did it..I mean, WHAT? That can go a lot of ways too, up to and including the "I only like things that reinforce me, so anybody who does what I like is great, because I am great" bullshit that passes for "artistic awareness" in some circles in some places in some times.

You really, after all is said and done, can't help but be the center of your own universe, but it's never a good ideal to get to the point where you think that your universe is the universe, not for too long anyway. One way or another, that's just...not good over the long haul for either the art or the person, or the people involved with the art and/or person. Damaged goods are bad enough, but creating damaged goods...not the best possible outcome.

The notion of service, in some form or fashion, is not something to treat cheaply or lightly. You can abstract it out into infinity, good or bad, and you can nervously give lip-service to it. But at the end of your life, you've either left people/places/things better than you found them or you haven't.

It's really not all that complicated.

I think it's important to parse that Herbie never really rejected the Mwandishi music--I always got the sense, in fact, that there was a lingering affection on the part of the members, Herbie included, for the band and that era--more the principles upon which the music was created. Do you "expand people's minds" or "make people feel like getting up in the morning?" I think both notions are presumptuous to a certain extent, and it's ultimately, at least in this case, just as much a matter of the artist feeling comfortable with what he put into the music is it is a matter of what he knew people would get out of it--i.e., 'I don't really want my music sitting on someone's shelves.'

There's a time to decide to get to know yourself, and there's a time to decide what you want to do with yourself, and then there's a time to decide who you want to ultimately be.

Those are separate decisions that do not always get made at separate times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where my art is concerned my universe IS "THE" Universe. Anybody who wants to visit is more than welcome. And when I collaborate with others it's OUR shared universe.

I've made it clear that I can't connect with Kidd Jordan's music, but I have the utmost of respect for his integrity and his sticking with his vision for so long. And he does indeed have his audience without making any concessions. At the other end of the spectrum, I'm convinced that the artists who are truly successful in what many of us may consider trash, be it Kenny G or Danielle Steele (I'm dating myself), truly believe in what they're doing, do it with contextual integrity, and that's why they make work that connects with people who are looking for that kind of thing. When people try that stuff who really come from a different plane, the results are usually disingenuous, and the intended audience can generally tell. I think Herbie is an omnivore, and though I may not like many of his projects, I wouldn't damn them as disingenuous.

Edited by Pete C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same thing with the notion of doing something that you think you would like if somebody else did it..I mean, WHAT? That can go a lot of ways too, up to and including the "I only like things that reinforce me, so anybody who does what I like is great, because I am great" bullshit that passes for "artistic awareness" in some circles in some places in some times.

That's a rather glib and irrelevant response, as I never said I only like work that is akin to my own. I merely stated that when judging my own work I ask myself, would I approve of this if I were a third-party consumer of said work. And in that role, standing back, I can only speak for my own taste, nobody else's. I'm never going to sing like Jimmy Rushing, I'm never going to write fiction like Robert Penn Warren or Georges Simenon, because they inhabit a space that simply doesn't intersect with what I want to do or am capable of doing (in the case of Simenon, I'm not capable). But that doesn't stop me from loving the work, and it would be the rare narcissist who looked like your straw man.

While Jim and Allen may disagree on the question of Herbie, I think there's an underlying assumption to both arguments about some platonic ideal of "the artist's responsibility," which I reject. IMO, the artist's only responsibility is to make quality work by whatever definition of quality works for him.

Edited by Pete C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Jim and Allen may disagree on the question of Herbie, I think there's an underlying assumption to both arguments about some platonic ideal of "the artist's responsibility," which I reject. IMO, the artist's only responsibility is to make quality work by whatever definition of quality works for him.

Nah, I don't even believe in "artists", and only slightly more in "Art".

It's not an "artist" thing, anyway. It's a human thing. An "artist" has no more or no less "responsibility" than any other human. Thinking otherwise is the platonic notion.

Same thing with the notion of doing something that you think you would like if somebody else did it..I mean, WHAT? That can go a lot of ways too, up to and including the "I only like things that reinforce me, so anybody who does what I like is great, because I am great" bullshit that passes for "artistic awareness" in some circles in some places in some times.

That's a rather glib and irrelevant response, as I never said I only like work that is akin to my own. I merely stated that when judging my own work I ask myself, would I approve of this if I were a third-party consumer of said work. And in that role, standing back, I can only speak for my own taste, nobody else's. I'm never going to sing like Jimmy Rushing, I'm never going to write fiction like Robert Penn Warren or Georges Simenon, because they inhabit a space that simply doesn't intersect with what I want to do or am capable of doing (in the case of Simenon, I'm not capable). But that doesn't stop me from loving the work, and it would be the rare narcissist who looked like your straw man.

Please read again - I didn't say you were going there. I said that's one place where it could go. And has gone. Lots.

When people try that stuff who really come from a different plane, the results are usually disingenuous, and the intended audience can generally tell. I think Herbie is an omnivore, and though I may not like many of his projects, I wouldn't damn them as disingenuous.

And with that, sir, I believe you have hit the nail squarely on the head!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It's all human responsibilities, and we all have them, and they extend beyond our own self. I'm tired of some "artists" (real or pretend) thinking otherwise, never mind militantly justifying otherwise. I can dig wrong thing/right reason (and vice-versa), but there's gotta be an express/basic recognition of the imperfections therein rather than viewing it as some kind of "triumph" or "integrity" or whatever.

No. It's just another form of flawed human behavior. Yet another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks 'artists' are in a fancy-ass special category is plain delusional. They (we) are exactly like everyone else-only more so. That's where sensitivity comes in, to give a reading on what people might be feeling/thinking but don't have the time or talent to hone in that way. Creativity is an accident of birth, like beauty, and IMO creative types are WAY too taken with themselves. Art that gets past-matures and gets past the 6-year-old 'self-expression' stage I've personally come to detest along with the elitism that grows out of it like a fungus-can actually mean something to someone else-not that the othes kind can't. But put me down as being sick to death of the cesspool of narssicism (sp) the world of 'jazz'-a once-socially viable music and many of its practitioners have become. I see these 40 smthings giving manifestos and I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Musicians=people. Art and refrigerator repair are both needed in life. But the fridge guy doesn't cry when he's not 'appreciated'.

Anybody who thinks 'artists' are in a fancy-ass special category is plain delusional. They (we) are exactly like everyone else-only more so. That's where sensitivity comes in, to give a reading on what people might be feeling/thinking but don't have the time or talent to hone in that way. Creativity is an accident of birth, like beauty, and IMO creative types are WAY too taken with themselves. Art that gets past-matures and gets past the 6-year-old 'self-expression' stage I've personally come to detest along with the elitism that grows out of it like a fungus-can actually mean something to someone else-not that the othes kind can't. But put me down as being sick to death of the cesspool of narssicism (sp) the world of 'jazz'-a once-socially viable music and many of its practitioners have become. I see these 40 smthings giving manifestos and I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Musicians=people. Art and refrigerator repair are both needed in life. But the fridge guy doesn't cry when he's not 'appreciated'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for all time. I only have a shit cell phone, and can't control certain things. See, I'm just an unappreciated starving artist. Hey, WAIT A MINUTE!! Um, devil made me do that... THAT'S the friggin' ticket... (A person on a PC could've transcribed the goddamn Dead Sea Scrolls in the time it took to write this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come from a family of generals, judges, lawyers, doctors, and presidential candidates, so picking up music as a thing to do probably does strike some of my relatives as extraordinarily precious. I don't really need to justify this lifestyle to myself, but I've given up trying to justify it to the people around me--I'm sensitive to what they think/feel, but I've found that the people who know and care about me the most have already come to terms with the fact that I'm a musician.

That being said, I completely understand how anyone could/would take issue with being categorized as an "artist"; beyond the sheer psychological implications there is a sense that self-categorizing as an artist means that feeling, emotions, and sensitivity take up an extraordinary amount of one's own personal time. Yes--maybe for some, but I've met far too many working musicians to know that it's as much about craft, work, and (in most cases, sadly) money as it is about exploring the self. That doesn't mean that self-involvement and being a musician can't go hand in hand, only that there are a lot of other factors at play. Maybe Herbie is just a sensitive guy who also wants to express himself to others and also wants to turn a buck.

Roscoe Mitchell is one of the ultimate examples of someone who rides the artist/worker dichotomy with a vengeance. No one flipped/flips out when AACM musicians make more commercial recordings (see Lester Bowie), in part because doing essentially everything is publicly acknowledged as part of the AACM's postmodern wheelhouse. The interesting thing is that whenever commercial idioms enter into Roscoe's equation they're a piece with the other stuff; their presence is not necessarily a huge (or crass, for that matter) personal or public gesture. I spent enough time with that dude to know that the guy is more about the dichotomy between good music and bad music--making it work--than he is about turning a buck or being a starving genius. The more time passes, the more Roscoe's path seems like the "sane" thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's neither shame nor glory in being an artist-or anyway shouldn't be. It's what you are and do, like a motorman does his job. I guess this is the place to talk about it-cheaper than a shrink too. The self-absorption thing sure gets old though. Do it, don't talk about it-not incessantly anyway. Yesterday there was a NY Times show on CUNY TV. A comedy writer I never heard of-last name Cross-was interviewed. He was so self-absorbed and taken w/his cleverness that I changed the channel in frustration and out of tedium. You're a funnyman? Be funny. No oEat first, then you'll talk..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"it's not the pop dream but what you make of that dream that's important." - Stanley Kaufman

read the above quote (I'm addressing everyone who thinks Herbie's pop music sounds better than drek). And then go read writers like Peter Handke, or check out filmmakers like Wim Wenders - all ARTISTS who loved American pop culture, but who synthesized it into something personal and deep. We might also say the same of Burt Bacharach, though in a different way. Or of course the Beatles, in a different realm. Herbie just took a market survey and then tried (with market success) to play to it. But it's awful stuff, and sounds like an old guy's idea of young music.

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sez you. Gee, I didn't know you got to reside inside the guy's brain. Amazing! Did you buy a ticket from a hawker, take the tour then get spit out dazed on the Jersey Turnike with grass, shmootz, and the sports section of the Bergen Record all over you like in Being John Malkovich? Or are you gonna sit down at my gig, order a piece of fish (we'll make it gefilte, with a 'nice glass tea' , OK tatalah?) and charm me like Stanley Crouch when I challenged his views on Miles Davis. Stanley has a bitch uppercut in case charm failed me. But he backed up his statement at least. Any man that can finish that much fish in one sitting AND cite musicians he interviewed gets my full attention. Allen, you're way better than this. This entire thread you taunt, whine and accuse. Give me the fac's, ma'am! And the fish. Cite facts of Herbie working w/flow charts to made BS music accordingly. Or like Billy Crystal's hospital roomate in Throw Momma From the Train 'I'm not living w/you in hate. Get rid of it...or I'm leaving you'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"it's not the pop dream but what you make of that dream that's important." - Stanley Kaufman

read the above quote (I'm addressing everyone who thinks Herbie's pop music sounds better than drek). And then go read writers like Peter Handke, or check out filmmakers like Wim Wenders - all ARTISTS who loved American pop culture, but who synthesized it into something personal and deep. We might also say the same of Burt Bacharach, though in a different way. Or of course the Beatles, in a different realm. Herbie just took a market survey and then tried (with market success) to play to it. But it's awful stuff, and sounds like an old guy's idea of young music.

you're becoming very boring, repetitive, redundant and soap-boxey! you should really be able to do better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"it's not the pop dream but what you make of that dream that's important." - Stanley Kaufman

read the above quote (I'm addressing everyone who thinks Herbie's pop music sounds better than drek). And then go read writers like Peter Handke, or check out filmmakers like Wim Wenders - all ARTISTS who loved American pop culture, but who synthesized it into something personal and deep. We might also say the same of Burt Bacharach, though in a different way. Or of course the Beatles, in a different realm. Herbie just took a market survey and then tried (with market success) to play to it. But it's awful stuff, and sounds like an old guy's idea of young music.

Well it sure fooled the young people. Wasn't Head Hunters a big hit with them even if It wasn't with old guys like me? (I'm not sure I ever heard it.) And Rockit was all over MTV. The video is still considered ground breaking. Don't you mean to say "it sounds like an old guy's idea of young music to me."? Or is that to be presumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, Valerie KICK HIS ASS! I pledge to hold your coat! I mean why ruin my reputation as a gentleman? And just to sweeten the pot did you know Allen 1. Doesn't return library books (from the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!), 2. pulls the legs off salamanders-claiming it's OK, they're 'only newts'. (this horrible slander can be heard on the tape left over on the infamous 'Alec Baldwin Tirade', and 3. sickest of all THE SOB SAMPLES AT WHOLE FOODS!! Now GO GET HIM!! Um, wait a sec (ear to phone), no SHIT! Herbie did that stuff, not our Allen Lowe? Hey Valerie: Never mind (;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medjuck - it's not a question of fooling anyone - and truthfully, name me ANY young people who liked it. I was young when it came out and I hated it. And even if they did, well, many people accept counterfeit creations as the real thing, from paintings to jeans. Doesn't mean they are quality, or that people are not being fooled.

and Val - it's really not becoming to simply indulge in personal attacks because you disagree so strongly with me. Not once on this thread have I attacked you in any way, your motivation or your reason for holding your opinion, I simply disagreed, and I was only respectful toward you in our disagreement. You cannot say the same, sadly.

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was young when it came out and I hated it. And even if they did, well, many people accept counterfeit creations as the real thing, from paintings to jeans. Doesn't mean they are quality, or that people are not being fooled.

You should change your name to Gaius Petronius Arbiter. Either that or Theodor W. Adorno. Or Dwight MacDonald.

Which shirt should I wear tomorrow, oh sage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would accept Macdonald, whom I admire. As for tomorrow's attire, I am suspending judgment, since that apparently is what bothers people. Which means, of course, that we must also stop telling the American people that they are being fooled by Republicans and other political scammers.

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen: what about the young musicians who picked up on this stuff (I mean '70s Miles and HH). It eased their transition to jazz just when ennui with rock and R&B may have set in. I can't think of a parallel to HH off the top, but a recording w/musicians we both love like Buzzy Feiten-Full Moon-what's the long vamp on the intro of Selfish People but a love letter Miles and In a Silent Way. I remember that period. I was in my late teens getting into jazz-HH and Miles's kind right next to Charlie Christian, Bire, and Pres. There was an exciting electric feeling in the air a6ng young players. Since we're about the same age and both touched by other music and events then I wonder how we came to have such different views of certain people and what they stood for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...