_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
AllenLowe
-
Posts
15,395 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4 -
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by AllenLowe
-
-
55 minutes ago, Steve Reynolds said:
I always appreciate your honest commentary
I was at a gig last night. 3 short sets by 3 groups. Mostly very young. Incredibly loud and very energetic. First trio was Chuck Roth on guitar, Ron Anderson on electric bass & James Paul Nadian on drums. Best and loudest of the groups despite that the older dude who played last night was the weakest. Anderson is a fine bassist but Chuck & James brought the heat. But hard to really know the depth of this or the other sets. But seeing these sets is invigorating. Will be great to see them grow. Key is allow silence & softer passages. Usually happens with dedication. Will see more experienced musicians Thursday.
Nadien is a terrific drummer; I will be recording with him in January.
Very curious as to who the weak link was (older dude). It wasn't me.
-
sounds great. As this is Organissimo, I doubt a lot of members will show up (actually one showed up at our Kingston gig, which was really nice).
Would be there if I could.
-
Sounds more like Shrinking Ears. With some exceptions, they are really stuck in a rut, as is most of what we used to call the "New Music" scene.
Jon Batiste? Is he going to do one of his awful pop things?
-
1 hour ago, JSngry said:
I would think it possible that the sheer joy that Clifford Brown brought would be grounds for Max to keep a forward momentum as Bird went ahead to the exit lane.
I also think that there were those who had known him long enough for whom Bird's death was an inevitability, not an if but just a win.
As far as the film itself, my only real beef was the non-mention of the 70s quartets, especially the one with Billy Harper. There used to be live club footage of that band up on YouTube that was simply incendiary.
they don't discuss any of his groups in the '80s or '90s except M'Boom. And there are other errors, which didn't hurt my appreciation of the documentary, but which were significant and a bit shocking. The worst being that there is no real explanation of WHY his style was so revolutionary and important.
-
I am watching it gradually; on October 22 my quartet will be performing after a showing in New Haven. I will also, on that night, be co-moderating a panel on the film (the filmmaker will be there) -
So far, about one-third through, two things are bothering me - no mention of Jo Jones, who Max idolized, and, in the post-tragedy atmosphere of Clfford Brown's death, no mention of Bird's death just the year before. This must have had a huge impact on Roach - the two in near-tandem - and I know from the old beboppers I knew that Bird's death was cataclysmic for a generation of players who not only loved him but who were extremely dependent on his presence and creativity. From what I know, some were sent into a real personal tailspin, and I cannot imagine that the two deaths - not just the one, as the documentary mentions - were a terrible blow for him.
-
Just now, JSngry said:
I've come to learn some things about Max that are not at all flattering, so my "hero worship" that I long had has greatly dimmed.
But my reality-based ongoing experiences with his music, ALL of it, leaves me with an even greater admiration for those parts of his life, which as time passes are in some ways "larger than life", especially what passes for life these days.
Max, as Dan Morgenstern told me years ago "had psychological problems." In the early days he beat up people. Bill Triglia told me if he was walking down the street and saw Roach coming, he would cross the street rather than be shaken down for cash. And, Max did beat up Abbey Lincoln. Though from what I know he changed; when I met him he was just a very easy-going, nice person (we had a nice conversation about Dave Tough).
Musically-speaking, post-70s Max is a slog, at least for me. I think he lost his swing in his attempts to be "contemporary," and that last band with Pope and Bridgewater was deadly dull, to my ears. Max's playing was just like a hammer in those last years, and it swung as much. I admire his attempt to try, but he should have stayed with his original concept, which was contemporary as anything; steely, rock-like sound, and incredibly swinging. Not as earth-bound.
-
actually we don't say Quadrophonic any more. It's now "Sys Audio x 4". It's for listeners seeking a safe space, away from Jazz Sonic Micro Aggression.
-
On 9/24/2023 at 7:15 AM, mjazzg said:
But, I just checked the Amazon listing and there's a five star review describing as 'indispensable' from a certain Allen Lowe 😄
Synopsis makes it sound fascinating
oh; hmmmm. Maybe I read that one. I will say that there's a lot I don't remember about that time (had just finished chemo and radiation for the first time, was sleeping for about an hour at a time, lost about 40 pounds and didn't eat solid food for two months). But I have no memory of that. I wonder where I put that book.
-
3 hours ago, Rabshakeh said:
I see that he has a book called Jazz Transatlantic. Is that the one to which to go?
I haven't read that one, but you can't go wrong with his stuff.
-
4 hours ago, Rabshakeh said:
What motivated the question is because my particular sweet spot in pre-war Southern US music is the piedmont and 'hillbilly blues' stuff. In particular, musicians like Frank Hutchison and Luke Jordan, but also early Willie McTell or even the Carter family, when they sing blues tunes. That is a personal favourite kind of music, quite apart from interest in how jazz, blues or whiskeyjug washboard breakouts evolved. It's a point where I think one can hear Blues, now capitalised and more or less fully formed, being handed back and forth across the colour line, for the first time as it's own thing, against a still dominant background of white 'mountain music' (i.e., pre-Bluegrass folk and old timey). I love it because it is blues but it is very fragile, often with quite light, soft vocals. That's the music that then gets gets semi-codified as "Country" the genre, through the influence of Jimmie Rodgers and the Carters. What I was sniffing around looking for was whether the book is going to concentrate on African American musicians that might fall into that category of early or proto-Country (i.e., Country the genre) or whether it will be more about African Americans playing in the wider genre of southern white music, which is what I think, from the response, it will cover. I'm not sure whether Black responses (influence or reaction) to Hillbilly blues does fall within that category or not, given that this music is definitely "Blues", but if "Country" the genre is a part of it I assume it would, since that is arguably a style of Blues in itself.
Sorry. Rambling. And off topic.
Also, the medicine show one is really really good. Strong recommendation from this side if you don't already know it.
I apologize for not going into greater detail, as I am in the middle of two insanely complicated projects right now, but to your question about polyphony - it might be related to the very unified independence of African rhythms, the way in which they divert and then return to the pocket. But truthfully, African music is not an area I know enough about to speak definitively. I would refer you to the writings of Gerald Kubik, who has written spectacularly on this and other related topics.
2 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:I do have that one too. Bought shortly after the "Sure Do Pull Some Bow" CD.
As for your other questions/remarks regarding early rural black/white cross-polliation (either white blues or black country), I think Allen Lowe is THE person to answer this in detail.
I hope to do this in my Black Country project, though I did write about that a bit (I think) in Turn Me Loose White Man,
-
1 hour ago, Rabshakeh said:
That's good, although of course...
What's "black country", by the way? Does "black country" here mean African American musicians playing their own old timey string band music? Or is this Country country, in the Jimmie Rodgers sense of white blues, but played by African American musicians? If the latter what percentage of what you'll be talking about is pre-war?
this is very complicated, but essentially it fits the sound of rural music shared by whites....most if not all pre-War. It is complicated, yes, old timey and non-blues.
-
49 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:
Sorry. I was googling Geeshee's book (which looks great - a definite purchase), then the website went down for me.
The Eubie Blake track is pretty eye opening. Obviously the opening presentation of the theme seems like ragtime, and throughout the track it does resolve back into that, but it has the pulse that is unmistakable.
Two points:
First, are we already not into recorded jazz history by this point? Perhaps records were slow to disseminate, but Blake could have been playing the 'new sound'? I think the key point though is that here is a musician from the North and from the preceding generation who already has the very different rhythmic feeling mastered, maybe because it wasn't new to him.
Second, are there any examples of Northerners (or non-New Orleans musicians) playing jazz horns at this early stage? Even textual references? I realize that the horns and the polyphony are not the key markers of the emergence of early jazz (as opposed to the rhythmic switch) but it is noticeable that the examples of non-New Orleans jazz, whether Blake or Willie The Lion Smith etc, are piano players. The James Reese Europe records do feature horns, but seem to me to be very definitely on the ragtime side, but this could be a factor of having to arrange for such a large band.
I must say that the reminder of Sidney Bechet and the indirect reference to Freddie Keppard’s Original Creole Orchestra up thread do seem to me to tilt the balance somewhat in favour of a stronger New Orleans connection. That really is a very substantial number of key musicians linking to New Orleans.
I'm interested. How does it compare to the Michael Ondaatje book?
This stuff really burns. Next time I'll go to a nice clean concert hall.
one thing I will say is that Blake recorded a piano roll of that piece in 1917, and may have written it 5-10 years earlier.
-
28 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:
Off topic, but this one has always interested me most. I sometimes wonder about how many of the distinctive features of 20th African American music actually evolved in the context of string band dance music. It was one of the main forms of African American music for over 100 years, but it is basically ignored by the histories. Nothing less sexy than a cèilidh, I suppose.
We know that in the Caribbean, where the diasporic elements are comparatively much more pronounced in comparison to European, it was still a vitally important part of the emergence of the new localised musical forms (even if the fiddles mostly dropped out quickly in the recorded era). It must have been even more important in the US.
Here's an example, so anyone interested:
My next project (probably next spring) is on Black country, and you might be surprised at how many black string bands recorded in the 1920s and 1930s.
-
On 9/21/2023 at 1:28 AM, Rabshakeh said:
I enjoyed that. A lot of it touched on already here, but nice to read something so in depth. Was it conducted by email?
yes, he emailed me the questions -
-
13 minutes ago, jazzbo said:
I personally think you make too much of Fort Worth and Free Jazz. And by that time there was a big difference in America--radio and TV and other factors (WW2, et al) have created a jazz scene and an American cultural scene that made melting pot even more fondu than ever before.
I'll bow out of this discussion as it seems much ado about nothing to me. We won't know if jazz developed around New Orleans or drifted there from elsewhere. What drove me away from college and certain studies is just this sort of discussion which . . . I'm sorry it does little for me.
I understand how academia, in particular, can destroy any enthusiasm one might have on any topic; but the origins of jazz question is really one about African American cultural history, and how various pre-jazz forces - from minstrelsy to songsterism to black and white pop, racism, and various musical stages came together in a strangely comprehensive way; kind of like a slow Big Bang theory. And I won't even mention the question of 19th century white fiddlers; and early black string bands.
Also, in the middle of all this we may have missed my post above, with the Eubie Blake piano piece, which is really jazz in 1921 from a Northerner.
-
I apologize for not having the time right now to go into detail about my opinion on this, but I will start by quoting Larry Gushee, who said "New Orleans is not where jazz started, but they have an excellent chamber of commerce."
There was no better historian of early jazz than Larry. Personally I would say that perhaps early jazz was taken to its highest point of early development there, but there is no way to determine origins in an empirical way, I think. Think: James Reese Europe; Gus Haenschen; San Francisco (there is a good book on this); Eubie Blake's Charleston Rag (1921) (which really is a game changer); and the pre-history which is largely but not only Southern, and which I do cover in Devilin' Tune. I would also encourage you to read Willie the Lion Smith's autobio, which tells us what a complex musical world the North had.
But listen to Charleston Rag, by a Northeasterner, from 1921; this is a Jazz Piece, as are several things by the Europe Band in 1913 (Charleston Rag had other names like Sounds of Africa and African Rag):
-
I don't wanna start a he said: he said, but the non-overdubbed sound is radically better (yes, in my opinion); the Mingus "fix" sounds like one of those "remastered for stereo" things.
-
15 hours ago, dicky said:
I was born Nov 1964. So as Maxwell Smart would say, "missed it by that much".
well, you were 4 years old - close enough -
-
4 hours ago, gvopedz said:
Well, some people (not me) thought Dylan was good enough for the Nobel Prize in Literature. In my opinion, Dylan should have followed the example of Jean-Paul Sartre and declined the Nobel Prize.
well, I think one could make the argument that he accomplished enough in his early years.
-
12 hours ago, dicky said:
That's profoundly, utterly absurd. I can only imagine you checked out.
this is a really unfair way of disagreeing with me, as it implies I am lying and citing/criticizing work I have not heard. I have always been checked in, have been listening to Dylan since I was 12. He always had the weakness I describe, of confusing cleverness with intelligence; it's not the same thing. Lots of bad lyrics, "words that tear and strain to rhyme," (Paul Simon). Look, here is a guy that revolutionized popular music - sometimes I think he was more important musically than lyrically, as we hear in Highway 61 and Blonde on Blond particularly, as he changes the sound stage of this music completely in a way which no one has ever been able to duplicate. But somewhere along the line he started to believe his owb press notices and decided that since he was a genius anything he produced would be a work of genius (it's an old syndrome; happened also to Lou Reed and John Lennon). Listen to the voice as it goes from phrase mastery to the unlistenable Rolling Thunder Review; go back to 1962 and the Minnesota tapes. Here was a guy who was completely rethinking every aspect of folk, the blues, and then rock and roll. There's no shame in the fact that ge simply went fallow, lost his mojo, whatever the hell it was. It may even have to do with fame and the way it corrupts self image. But I never checked out. I was there listening, possibly even before you were born.
-
I honestly think Dylan ran out of ideas with John Wesley Harding. After which his singing started to sound like a parody of himself. He was a great artist who completely transformed the music - very few can say that - but I find his prose insufferable in the autobiography and his opinions on various kinds music clever rather than smart.
'tis a pity. If only he'd retired instead of doing Victoria's Secret commercials.
-
4 hours ago, JSngry said:
There's a lot of them, so this will be an ongoing project. But I have most of them, often bought when released. Nobody knows the frustration better than I.
But I keep returning to them because at the end of the day, nobody else played like this, and although there may be misfires and odd decisions along the way, there are no lies told on any of them. And imo, there are still profundities revealed every step of the way.
For that, my gratitude far exceeds my frustration.
I too look forward to reading your reviews, which I suspect will be more enlightening than the actual music.
-
On 9/11/2023 at 2:48 PM, JSngry said:
You're probably in the majority here actually...and I find that to be a bit (or more) of a gross oversimplification. Very 20th Century thinking, the rush to close the door and have a soundbite.
I think he was disenchanted with the state of the world in general more than anything about Coltrane. I don't think he was that myopic about his life.
After his last return, he played almost 50 years uninterrupted. That's hardly "adrift". And between the records and the bootlegs, there is more than a little great playing to be had. There's also plenty of unsatisfying work as well, but "adrift" is in no way accurate.
Time for a new narrative, one based on specifics instead of hasty, overly simplified generalizations.
well, ask Larry Kart what he thinks of late Sonny. Nothing "20th century" about my observation, or oversimplified - just the opposite. I probably saw him perform 5 times in that period (always hoping he would unload that awful rhythm section) and have listened to countless live videos. This was based on observation and hours of listening. Nothing "soundbite" about it. I find Sonny to be the most frustrating performer of my lifetime.
-
doesn't exactly sound like Monk - I believe it's based on All God's Children.
Art Pepper - The Complete Maiden Voyage Recordings
in New Releases
Posted · Edited by AllenLowe
I have gone through five stages with later Art Pepper:
1) I met and spent time with him when he came to Boston on his comeback tour, loved the guy, escorted him around town, and thought he was fantastic that night, though I noticed some oddness to his playing. He gave me a few copies of his current LPs which took me to
2) being frustrated with the recordings. He seemed to be working too hard to sound "contemporary" in a sort of post-early Coltrane way. A lot of stops and starts that just were dull in their ineffective tonal tangents. A "scream" here, a pounded note there, as though he was telling people "yes I have heard jazz in the last 20 years and here is my interpretation." But he was always best when he changed back to his linear style which, as with that night in Boston, had intensified and focused itself in profound ways. But it never lasted; I could not listen to these LPs, which bored and frustrated me; so
3) I stopped listening. There was just too much wrong with his current approach, which had substituted a kind of emotional self-expose while losing the true intensity of linear development. It was raw but it was not really revealing or indicative of any true artistic epiphany, but then....
4) Some years later I went back and started listening again, to the Vanguard CDs, another with Duke Jordan, and I heard moments of real personal revelation, so I started listening again, enjoying myself until....
5) His personal history and artistic mis-advantures just started to repeat themselves; blues cliches substituting for real expression (and I do wonder if some of his personal racial self consciousness was starting to act in artistically self destructive ways), the same retreat into false tonal and harmonic exploration, just a weird kind of near-narcissistic emotional self-abuse. And now listening to a clip from one of these sessions, I feel like I cannot listen any more.