Some Necessary Thoughts

[paul secor]

I guess I can be included with the dummies. I'm ok with that.

[AllenLowe]

I will get that paper, thanks Larry; I also think the general lack of an analytical approach to jazz performance has a very positive side to it, as a last vestige of the oral culture that is at the root of African American performance and hence jazz. The music comes from a very different place than European music, theater and literature. Which is a good thing; I just think that at a certain point it can take the burden of deep analysis.

Edited May 7, 2015 by AllenLowe

[johnblitweiler]

I'm very glad I'm seeing the band on their second night in NY:)

I liked your descriptions Mr. Litweiler. I do find Misha's pieces a bit more than ditties but it's not a bad descriptor. I do find great joy in their carnival nature.

Having not been that familiar with Breuker or his band save for one live concert, and my memory of the show was substandard drumming and rhythm. It left me with little interest to follow through to hear more. I found that their "humour" was not backed up by anywhere near the improvisors that you saw the other night.

As compared to the driving force of Bennink, Glerum and Honsinger which is a great strength of the ICP band.

Steve, the critic J.B. Figi described the Breuker band's rhythm section as sounding like "Dutch wooden shoes." I tend to agree and I think Bennink and Glerum slipped into the same thing last week - fatigue perhaps, though some other times I've heard Bennink so preoccupied with his showmanship that he didn't remember to swing. Yes, ICP offered the best improvisers - Mary played the best I've heard her play this time. Guus Janssen is now on the band, yay.

[Larry Kart]

I will get that paper, thanks Larry; I also think the general lack of an analytical approach to jazz performance has a very positive side to it, as a last vestige of the oral culture that is at the root of African American performance and hence jazz. The music comes from a very different place than European music, theater and literature. Which is a good thing; I just think that at a certain point it can take the burden of deep analysis.

At once complicating and potentially enriching things is that analysis of jazz (I'd prefer a phrase like "ways of talking about") often doesn't match up that well with previously familiar ways of talking about other music, even other kinds of art -- the upside being that if we can come up with ways to talk about jazz on its terms ( I know, what the heck does that mean? but I think we know we're doing it when we manage to do it) without turning our backs on previously familiar ways of talking about other music when those ways are useful, we may come up with ways of grasping how all music, even all art, works or can work that are as novel and useful as Ellington, Morton, and Monk are in relation to, say, Hemingway or Richard Strauss.

[Larry Kart]

I'm very glad I'm seeing the band on their second night in NY:)

I liked your descriptions Mr. Litweiler. I do find Misha's pieces a bit more than ditties but it's not a bad descriptor. I do find great joy in their carnival nature.

Having not been that familiar with Breuker or his band save for one live concert, and my memory of the show was substandard drumming and rhythm. It left me with little interest to follow through to hear more. I found that their "humour" was not backed up by anywhere near the improvisors that you saw the other night.

As compared to the driving force of Bennink, Glerum and Honsinger which is a great strength of the ICP band.

Steve, the critic J.B. Figi described the Breuker band's rhythm section as sounding like "Dutch wooden shoes." I tend to agree and I think Bennink and Glerum slipped into the same thing last week - fatigue perhaps, though some other times I've heard Bennink so preoccupied with his showmanship that he didn't remember to swing. Yes, ICP offered the best improvisers - Mary played the best I've heard her play this time. Guus Janssen is now on the band, yay.

Missed out on Saturday night's concert, but when I heard the ICP in spontaneous small group settings on Sunday night, Han was on fire. Also, of course -- or OTOH -- some of his swing is very straight up and down; "flow" is not the way he chooses to go by and large or maybe ever, in part I think because he wants every stroke to be heard as a stroke, as though he were saying "This wall is built of individual BRICKS, and don't you forget it." But how far removed, aside from the element of conscious choice (but not, for me, self-consciousness) is this from, say, Cozy Cole or Jimmy Crawford? I have more doubts about Glerum at times, not so much in terms of his time feel, which also is straight up and down, but lack of weight/volume/power. (Han certainly has no problems in that sphere.) OTOH, Glerum is a longtime part of the package, and I don't know what other kind of bassist would be more effective there, if any other kind would be.

[johnblitweiler]

Yes, come to me for deep intellectual understanding, only 5 cents per insight.

I believe I paid around $25 for Jazz In Search Of Itself. That would amount to around 500 insights, or an insight and a half per page. Actually, there are more insights than 1-1/2 per page, so your price must have increased since I bought the book.

[paul secor]

Yes, come to me for deep intellectual understanding, only 5 cents per insight.

OTOH, I think I know what Allen means, up to a point. There exists among and around jazz musicians by and large (but not always), and for perfectly understandable reasons, a sort of locker room culture that says, among other things, "Only we (and not all of us, for that matter) can understand, comment on, and judge the human and social circumstances and the artistic results of what we do.” And a lot of non-players, again for understandable reasons, buy into this jazz version of locker room culture, in part because the circumstances of their own lives make such attitudes and behavior seem necessary and attractive.

A perhaps relevant passage from my book:

‘The men and women who make jazz are just like everyone else in any number of ways--they have to put food on the table and roofs over their heads; function as children, parents, and spouses; orient themselves toward the world as best they can along political, social, and spiritual lines, etc. But they also, however varied their individual humanity, form a group apart.

'What kind of group, and “apart” in what ways and for what reasons, are questions that were brilliantly explored by sociologist-jazz pianist Howard Becker in his 1951 paper “The Professional Dance Musician and His Audience” (by “dance musician” Becker meant jazz musician), which later became the basis of two chapters in his 1963 book “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.” Becker’s basic insight, which stemmed from his own experience as a participant/observer in the field, is that while jazz musicians by and large, and with good reason, tend to think of themselves as artists, they belong functionally to a “service occupation”--that is, one in which “the worker comes into more or less direct contact with...the client for whom he performs the service…[and one in which the client] is able to direct or attempt to direct the worker at his task and to apply sanctions of various kinds, ranging from informal pressure to the withdrawal of his patronage …. It seems characteristic of such occupations,” he continues, “that their members consider the client unable to judge the proper worth of the service and resent…any attempt on his part to exercise control over the work.” And Becker drily adds, “a good deal of conflict and hostility arises as a result ….”

'Perhaps the situation that Becker describes didn’t--or doesn’t, or needn’t--always prevail, and certainly the nature of the lives that jazz musicians lead depends on a good many other things as well. But the social side of the music is directly shaped by the artist-for-hire and at the mercy of those who hire syndrome--and all the defenses, evasions, stresses, and accommodations that arise as a result.'

Me again, in the present: Becker’s original paper “The Professional Dance Musician and His Audience,” if you can get access to it, is just mind-blowing. Failing that, check out the more compact version in his “Outsiders.”

I find that there's another side to this, especially to your comment: "There exists among and around jazz musicians by and large (but not always), and for perfectly understandable reasons, a sort of locker room culture that says, among other things, 'Only we (and not all of us, for that matter) can understand, comment on, and judge the human and social circumstances and the artistic results of what we do.'"

There's a quote attributed to Barnett Newman which speaks to this: "Aesthetics is for the artist as ornithology is for the birds."

(Within the context of these forums, there's another, ironic, side to that quote.)

Newman wasn't speaking about critics but, in general, I think that musicians, writers, artists (of all kinds) tend to regard critics and criticism as a necessary evil. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. (I know there are writers who write criticism and reviews but, at least in certain cases, I think that's because they have to eat.)

I'm thinking of a quote attributed to the composer and teacher Andre Gedalge: "Critics make pipi on music and think they help it grow.”

Just my thoughts - or mainly the thoughts of Newman and Gedalge. Artists do what they do and critics do what they do. I'm much more interested what artists do.

Edited May 8, 2015 by paul secor

[Larry Kart]

Yes, come to me for deep intellectual understanding, only 5 cents per insight.

OTOH, I think I know what Allen means, up to a point. There exists among and around jazz musicians by and large (but not always), and for perfectly understandable reasons, a sort of locker room culture that says, among other things, "Only we (and not all of us, for that matter) can understand, comment on, and judge the human and social circumstances and the artistic results of what we do.” And a lot of non-players, again for understandable reasons, buy into this jazz version of locker room culture, in part because the circumstances of their own lives make such attitudes and behavior seem necessary and attractive.

A perhaps relevant passage from my book:

‘The men and women who make jazz are just like everyone else in any number of ways--they have to put food on the table and roofs over their heads; function as children, parents, and spouses; orient themselves toward the world as best they can along political, social, and spiritual lines, etc. But they also, however varied their individual humanity, form a group apart.

'What kind of group, and “apart” in what ways and for what reasons, are questions that were brilliantly explored by sociologist-jazz pianist Howard Becker in his 1951 paper “The Professional Dance Musician and His Audience” (by “dance musician” Becker meant jazz musician), which later became the basis of two chapters in his 1963 book “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.” Becker’s basic insight, which stemmed from his own experience as a participant/observer in the field, is that while jazz musicians by and large, and with good reason, tend to think of themselves as artists, they belong functionally to a “service occupation”--that is, one in which “the worker comes into more or less direct contact with...the client for whom he performs the service…[and one in which the client] is able to direct or attempt to direct the worker at his task and to apply sanctions of various kinds, ranging from informal pressure to the withdrawal of his patronage …. It seems characteristic of such occupations,” he continues, “that their members consider the client unable to judge the proper worth of the service and resent…any attempt on his part to exercise control over the work.” And Becker drily adds, “a good deal of conflict and hostility arises as a result ….”

'Perhaps the situation that Becker describes didn’t--or doesn’t, or needn’t--always prevail, and certainly the nature of the lives that jazz musicians lead depends on a good many other things as well. But the social side of the music is directly shaped by the artist-for-hire and at the mercy of those who hire syndrome--and all the defenses, evasions, stresses, and accommodations that arise as a result.'

Me again, in the present: Becker’s original paper “The Professional Dance Musician and His Audience,” if you can get access to it, is just mind-blowing. Failing that, check out the more compact version in his “Outsiders.”

I find that there's another side to this, especially to your comment: "There exists among and around jazz musicians by and large (but not always), and for perfectly understandable reasons, a sort of locker room culture that says, among other things, 'Only we (and not all of us, for that matter) can understand, comment on, and judge the human and social circumstances and the artistic results of what we do.'"

There's a quote attributed to Barnett Newman which speaks to this: "Aesthetics is for the artist as ornithology is for the birds."

(Within the context of these forums, there's another, ironic, side to that quote.)

Newman wasn't speaking about critics but, in general, I think that musicians, writers, artists (of all kinds) tend to regard critics and criticism as a necessary evil. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. (I know there are writers who write criticism and reviews but, at least in certain cases, I think that's because they have to eat.)

I'm thinking of a quote attributed to the composer and teacher Andre Gedalge: "Critics make pipi on music and think they help it grow.”

Just my thoughts - or mainly the thoughts of Newman and Gedalge. Artists do what they do and critics do what they do. I'm much more interested what artists do.

Some critics, yes, the good ones, no. What artists do and what good critics do are not mutually exclusive things. Again, I prefer to "analysis" or any term like that just "talk about."

You think plenty of artists don't talk about what they're doing and what other artists are doing? They do; I can show you plenty of terrific examples, and often it's real good "talk about" too -- although there are some who don't, but that's mostly a matter of personal temperament.

But the idea that there's some proud moral divide here between those who talk and those who remain silent and do nothing but "do" -- I'll make pipi on that for sure.

[AllenLowe]

I think a good critic is as much an 'artist' as an artist is, and I have learned as much from critics as I have from 'artists.'

[Larry Kart]

From the following piece by one Donald Brook, Emeritus Professor of Visual Arts in the Flinders University, South Australia:

“Almost everyone takes Barnett Newman’s remark that ‘Aesthetics is for the artist as Ornithology is for the birds’ to be insightfully true.

‘In spite of this the sense in which it is true is seldom clearly spelled out, and the sense in which it is not true is almost universally ignored despite the obvious ease with which it can be spelled out.’

http://www.aestheticsforbirds.com/2014/07/as-ornithology-is-for-birds-by-donald.html

To paraphrase Brook’s wryly literal-minded conclusion:

Ornithology might be influential on the behaviors of birds only if birds had the capacity to understand what ornithologists are saying about them. But birds can’t do that. Artists, however [quoting Brook directly now] “are generally supposed to be accessible to persuasive modification” by the words and ideas of other human beings — including aestheticians, critics, their spouses, their children, their friends, other artists, gallery owners, garbage men, landlords, waiters and waitresses, etc.

Aesthetics may, but does not necessarily, shape the behaviors and activities and beliefs of artists. Ornithology does not and cannot possibly shape the behaviors, the activities and the beliefs of birds.

[paul secor]

Logicians and literalists can capture logic and literalness while missing the spirit of things.

[Larry Kart]

Logicians and literalists can capture logic and literalness while missing the spirit of things.

But a good critic, by definition (i.e. my definition -- and I don't know any aestheticians), captures the spirit of things. Otherwise, why would one bother?

Now whether any of them actually does that -- there we can argue. But not to even try? Or to more or less repress such speech? Again, for me -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- to talk in some loving detail about about that which you love has always been a natural thing to do. Don't we do that all the time here?

[paul secor]

Logicians and literalists can capture logic and literalness while missing the spirit of things.

But a good critic, by definition (i.e. my definition -- and I don't know any aestheticians), captures the spirit of things. Otherwise, why would one bother?

Now whether any of them actually does that -- there we can argue. But not to even try? Or to more or less repress such speech? Again, for me -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- to talk in some loving detail about about that which you love has always been a natural thing to do. Don't we do that all the time here?

I agree with you completely there, Larry. I just find that too many critics in all fields end up sucking the lifeblood out of what they write about.

I should say that I've been trying to play the part of devil's advocate here (how well, I don't know) and that I wasn't in any way referring to you or John B. Both of you do "talk in some loving detail about that which you love" - a very well turned phase.

My favorite critic is/was Guy Davenport who did exactly what you said.

[Larry Kart]

Logicians and literalists can capture logic and literalness while missing the spirit of things.

But a good critic, by definition (i.e. my definition -- and I don't know any aestheticians), captures the spirit of things. Otherwise, why would one bother?

Now whether any of them actually does that -- there we can argue. But not to even try? Or to more or less repress such speech? Again, for me -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- to talk in some loving detail about about that which you love has always been a natural thing to do. Don't we do that all the time here?

I agree with you completely there, Larry. I just find that too many critics in all fields end up sucking the lifeblood out of what they write about.

I should say that I've been trying to play the part of devil's advocate here (how well, I don't know) and that I wasn't in any way referring to you or John B. Both of you do "talk in some loving detail about that which you love" - a very well turned phase.

My favorite critic is/was Guy Davenport who did exactly what you said.

Hey -- I commissioned a few book reviews from Davenport when I was the editor of the Chicago Tribune Books section. The one I remember was of a very good biography of Ben Jonson. I was looking at that book just the other day.

[king ubu]

After having finally read through this thread, just wanted to say thanks to Allen and to Larry for sharing their thoughts - very interesting!

Agree that Allen's projects of recent times are sui generis and definitely cannot be lumped with, say, ICP or Breuker (both of whom I enjoy). And fully endorse Larry's comment about having to at least try and talk about.

[AllenLowe]

I'll have to read that piece, Larry, but basically he seems to be saying that birds can't read.

though given some of the things I've seen parrots do and say, it may be more complex than that.

[JSngry]

Well, even if birds could read, were would they get books?

[Peter Friedman]

I have been listening to jazz continuously for more than 60 years, and reading jazz periodicals and jazz books for about the same number of years. The music has enriched my life in a way that it is impossible to describe. The things I have read by critics, reviewers, jazz historians and others has played a very significant role in the way I have learned to appreciate the music.

So for me, the music and the writings related to the music go hand in hand in the formation of a holistic experience.

[BillF]

I have been listening to jazz continuously for more than 60 years, and reading jazz periodicals and jazz books for about the same number of years. The music has enriched my life in a way that it is impossible to describe. The things I have read by critics, reviewers, jazz historians and others has played a very significant role in the way I have learned to appreciate the music.

So for me, the music and the writings related to the music go hand in hand in the formation of a holistic experience.

With you there, Peter, although I can only manage 58 years.

[Larry Kart]

I'll have to read that piece, Larry, but basically he seems to be saying that birds can't read.

Basically, yes. Nor can they understand human speech in any way, whereas most artists can do both of those things and chew gum at the same time.

Then there’s that old favorite “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture,” which apparently was originated not by one of the usual suspects (Frank Zappa, et al.) but by comedian and sometime painter Martin Mull, who in his version had “Writing about painting” instead of “Writing about music.”

Better yet, this seems to go back to a 1918 remark from an article in the New Republic:

“Strictly considered, writing about music is as illogical as singing about economics. All the other arts can be talked about in the terms of ordinary life and experience. A poem, a statue, a painting or a play is a representation of somebody or something, and can be measurably described (the purely aesthetic values aside) by describing what it represents.”

Interesting that the New Republic guy (the article apparently was unsigned) says that painting is one of the arts that can be written about but that music cannot be. This is because painting, in the view of this writer, “is a representation of somebody or something, and can be measurably described … by describing what it represents.” The existence of abstract art seems to have passed this fellow by.

Whatever, the answer to my mind is that all these “Writing about X is like [blanking] about Y” formulations are bullshit. Difficult though it is, writing well about X (whatever X might stand for) is always possible.

I’m reminded of Severn Darden’s solution to Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise:

'…I have discovered possibly the meaning for this paradox. I was reading recently a book called "Greek Pots In Polish Museums" by John Davidson Beasley. 8 vo., $9.75 and worth every penny of it. Big wide margins--er, I'm getting off my point.

'Anyhow, in there is a picture of a pot that has on it a picture of an archaic tortoise of the kind that Zeno would have known about. Now, it isn't a little, flat American tortoise. IT'S A LITTLE BULLET-SHAPED TORTOISE WITH LONG, SINEWY LEGS, ABOUT 4 FEET LONG, AND IT COULD RUN LIKE CRAZY!'

[AllenLowe]

Severn Darden! someone called him the greatest comic improviser ever; I remember seeing him in The President's Analyst.

he was second city, no?

[Larry Kart]

Severn Darden! someone called him the greatest comic improviser ever; I remember seeing him in The President's Analyst.

he was second city, no?

Yes.