Simon Weil

Mike, I think there were a lot of fusion and prog rock bands that were influenced by Mahavishnu. Guy Please go ahead and drop some names - I'll gladly stand corrected. I'm too lazy to find every single example, but "Mahavishnu" pops up in a lot of band descriptions at the GEPR. I am not sure whether to include mid-70s King Crimson in this list -- while Fripp has denied listening to MO, the lineup is almost exactly identical. Guy I heard those guys in concert and it sounds like a different thing to me. Rock bass-player, no Jan Hammer. Fripp for McLaughlin. Lack of virtuosity. Controlled, really. Simon Weil

FWIW, the relevant time frame is the 60s, not the 70s -- that's when most of the prog guys came of musical age. In the King Crimson box Epitaph they have a bunch of band bios from 1969 and I was surprised at some of the names the guys dropped as influences. Guy Well, it depends. I used to do lights with a rubbish rock band and they were well and truly influenced by Weather Report (very easily accessible in more ways than one). Mid 70s people began to doubt rock. Simon Weil

I've mentioned this before, but I was in a shop buying Jazz CDs when I had this conversation with the guy behind the counter. I said was there any new Rock he would recommend and he said "The Mars Volta" - that the guitarist had been influenced by McLaughlin. Listening to the record, it jumped right out at me on a couple of tracks: Lifetime/Turn It Over - mostly because of the vocals but also partly because of the guitar style. This is a 2006 record. When I did a CDR (later) for the guy, he really liked the tracks I did from TIO record. I actually hear Tony's vocals as being something in the same place as Robert Wyatt on "Rock Bottom", kind of with an overwhelmingly rootedly depression thing. The funny thing is I never much liked TIO. Now I do. Simon Weil [Edit: confusing Emergency with TIO]

OK, Lazaro. What I remember of the McLean interview in the Burns series said that (kind of) 60s Jazz was about rage. So you can see him thinking that pre-59 Jazz would be worth going back to, in that a Jazz based on rage would be kind of monochromatic and tedious and really a deflection from the main trunk (To use the metaphor we seem to be playing with now). Because, clearly, any art is about much more than mere rage. It is sort of the Geri Allen-like approach I was getting at. But, then I do think RM is the greater musician. It was just a line from Jeff Beer that was in my head, where he basically said that hearing avant-garde (e.g. Ornette) stuff made you go back and listen to Parker in a new way. And I was thinking maybe you could bulk that up into a way of making a new style. Thanks, Lazaro. Simon Weil

I can't get the article to load on my computer (which wouldn't be the first time. But it still works well enough, mostly). But I think there's too much made of the supposed lack of development in the avant-garde since the 60s. There's very clear antagonism to this music in sectors of Jazz, and has been since its inception. People don't want it to develop and never did - and the more they can say it hasn't and won't, the more they can declare (and believe) it to be an irrelevance. Which is where they want to be. If they can get others to be believe it, then nobody will play this form - and they'll be dead happy. That's a comparable idea to post-Schoenberg, you can't go back Who knows, if you went further out there in the avant-garde, you might find new potential for "cracks". I think that is very important - that there's a link between the great generations of the past - and any potential generations of the future. And that these people continue to grow and have life is vital. Judging by my sight of Roscoe, five or so years ago, his music is well and truly alive and vital. There's something massive in his soloing which I don't think you get from retreads. The whole idea of the "avant-garde train wreck" (I believe this was "Clifford Thornton's" phrase) - which exists in different forms - is wish-fulfillment on the part of the conservatives. Either the music was dead at the source, because chaos (train-wreck there). Or some of it was good, but it went too far into vapourings (train-wreck there). Or it was good, but intrinsically negative in conception - just throwing out form, rather than remaking it - so ran out of steam (train-wreck there). Or just it ran out steam (train-wreck there. Who cares why. Just so long as we can declare that it happened). All of this, IMO, reveals a deep insecurity about the music - as though there's something in it that people are absolutely determined to keep in its box. Or maybe get back in its box. But Jackie Mc is right. You can't do it. Not without destroying Jazz. Simon Weil

I'd rather people enjoy the music than be threatened by it. It's inevitable, if you go to the edge, that some people are going to be threatened by it. Not that you intend it, but just that's how it's going to be. And when people feel threatened they come back at you in all sorts of unpleasant ways. That's the price of taking people into the unknown. They don't enjoy it. They're freaked out by it. Unless the whole world is like that. Then the unknown in music can bring catharsis. And the avant-garde gets to have its cake and eat it. In my theory. Simon Weil

I don't agree with this. Much of the jazz music that was considered "avant-garde" 35-40 years ago is still considered "avant-garde" today. (Obviously it isn't literally avant-garde at this point.) Guy Well, yes - it's still considered avant-garde for most people. But the sense of threat, the edge, of it has gone of it in a lot of cases. I mean, if we're talking of people getting acclimatized, that's how it works in a lot of respects. People no longer feel threatened by this music (often). Mind you, I thought KReilly's post was great - the one where he said Post 9/11 he got the music. I have always felt that that should be the case, that with the oppressive/repressive Bush-ite regimes across the world and people blowing themselves up in the middle of us, that this music should really begin to speak to the wider audience. In the sense that's where all of us are living now, on the edge, with threat. They took a chance, those guys, going out there. Simon Weil

Sure, and you can see her point - at least I can. I mean, the whole point of Free music is that you throw away (many of) the rules previously governing Jazz and attempt to play within a new(ish) frame (make one up). If someone is used to these rules - and nothing else - well, then, it sounds like chaos. Because people aren't acclimatized to it. Of course, then you have all the games that people play around reception, perception and content - which delays that. My sense is that 50 years is about the time it takes to sort these games out. That is to say, Jazz gets acclimatized - over time. And I think the time is about now. But, if she's your wife... Simon Weil

I think "Stanley's Tune" on Airto Moreira's "Virgin Land" is absolutely fantastic. (Good) fusion album in general, this is just fantastic, dominating, bass playing. In a way like Pastorius on Metheny's "Midwestern Nights Dream" (on "Bright Size Life"). Simon Weil

What do you think of this quote? Cuscuna is obviously presenting a very strong slant on history, but is there a grain of truth? Guy I would argue that "The influx of creative technically proficient musicians from Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit shoved a lot of the screaming pretenders off the scene" loses some very important factors. It doesn't take into account that probably the leaders of the screamers on the scene (to look at it through Cuscuna's eyes) were Ayler and Coltrane - and that these two people had died. So the quote would have to read ""The influx of creative technically proficient musicians from Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit shoved a lot of the screaming pretenders off the scene following the death of the leaders of that movement, Ayler and Coltrane". Moreover, nobody would (I hope) argue that Ayler and Coltrane were anything less than technically proficient - nor that their conception of Free was to be equated with anger. If you include Ayler and Coltrane, you lose that line about ". Freedom was no longer equated with anger and lack of musicianship." So, if you go back and amend the quote in this light, you should get: Ayler asserted that "I have lived more than I can express in bop terms" and asked "why should I hold back the feeling of my life, of being raised in the ghetto of America?" To me this seems to bear on the problem of "emotional excesses". Clearly Ayler is saying that he had excessive emotion for expressing in bop, and the way the quote goes "It's a new truth now. And there have no be new ways of expressing the truth." suggests that his innovations are answer to this problem. The implication of this is that there can be a new way of expressing the truth - that is of playing Jazz - which doesn't require bop techniques particularly. And that, therefore, when that new way goes out of fashion, its practioners may be found wanting. I think you need to get past the anger. Simon Weil

At last there's a publication date for what will be THE Trane book. There's an exchange in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy that goes something like: Smiley: "Ever bought a fake painting, Toby?" Toby Esterhaze: "Sold a couple once." Smiley: "The more you pay, the less likely you are to doubt its authenticity." I.E. Whatever else it is, the price is probably a way of saying this is "THE trane book" with 'the facts' about Coltrane's life...definitely established." And once you've bought it, you're certainly going to see it this way. Kind of related are the massive great tomes that accompanied "major" art exhibitions. Weighty tome = weighty exhibition. Ahh, the facts. What about The Truth? Simon Weil

What I don't understand is why the quote doesn't read: I mean, unless he had an axe to grind. Simon Weil Or unless, as has been posited elsewhere, he's never been a particularly "careful" and/or "eloquent" writer. Hey, people say broad-brushed shit like that all the time in casual conversation, and if it's somebody you know, you learn to let it slide, knowing as you do the difference between what they "mean" and what they "say". I've been following Cuscuna's career for about 35 years now (without knowing him personally), & I'd like to think that this is the case here - that he comitted something to print that is the equivalent of an off-the-cuff, un-nuanced bit of casual conversation. What he "meant" & what he "said" is something you gotta infer based on "knowing" the person. If it had been dropped in casual conversation, & if it was somebody I "knew" as well as I feel I "know" Cuscuna, I'd just let it drop/pass unless I either wanted to stir the pot for a bit of lively & friendly ball-busting or else I just wanted to be a disrespectful asshole. That this comment was made in print rahter than in casual conversation raises the level of "responsibility", and that's why I have no problem whatsoever with calling the cat out, and loudly, on his sloppiness. But afaic, anything beyond that is still either friendly ball-busting or else just being a disrespectful asshole. Well, the fact is Cuscuna put the quote in a rather out of the way place - in a Sam Rivers box set, brought out by himself and with, one would suppose, a rather limited audience. The fact that we're now having this rather extended conversation is down to Guy, who picked the quote out and invited us to have this conversation. Now, if you wanted to talk "responsibility", I would give a prime amount to him - and, absolutely I would put it down to stirring the pot. Personally I wish the damn thing had never appeared, in that it gives me the unpleasant choice between attacking a man who obviously demands a great deal of respect and letting slide a quote which I don't like. In my opinion, this conflict is not quite resolvable. Simon Weil

What I don't understand is why the quote doesn't read: I mean, unless he had an axe to grind. Simon Weil

As somebody who at one point put a lot of time & emotional investment into what's now known by may as the "Fire Music", I certainly see the validity in this. I mean, ok, let's take Giuseppie Logan. In his time & on his few recorded appearances, yeah, you hear some interesting shit. But beyond that, what? Did this cat seem, for lack of a better term, "equipped" to do anything beyoind that? Not that I could hear. Now, it's a very "romantic" notion, that of spilling your guts out with fire & passion taking precedence over anything/everything else, and yes, there's definitely a time/place in societal evolution when that sort of cathartic compulsion is not only welcomed, but is essential. And that time and that place did exist, and the players of that music who were into it mainly/totally for that reason were doing what had to be done - at that place and that time. Much eternal love and respect for them for doing that. But... The purpose of a cathartic experience is to "clear the air" in order to begin anew & build something. And for that you need skills beyond the ability to blow it all out. And the AACM/BAG cats definitely had these skills. Not that some of the NYC cats didn't, but the nature of that original scene was such that any number of "fringe" players such as Logan could get heard and romanticised in a way that the influx of most of the best players from "out of town" soon rendered obsolete. I mean, Jospeh Orange, what was he all about? Compare him to Joseph Bowie and tell me who's gonna be able to hang over the long haul. By not naming names, Cuscuna may be being disingenuous & may well be playing into an over-simplification that's sort of become "conventional wisdom". We can all name more names that defy that than we can names that confirm it. But - even the best of the NYC bunch (and I'm leaving out the Shepps/Pharoahs/Anybody who came to the "New Thing" with a solid (enough) background in "traditional" style(s)) didn't show much of an interest in moving beyond the "blow it all out" stage, whereas the AACM/BAG bunch was bringing in concepts/compositions/etc. You know, stuff that actually was building on the revolution. And that was essential. Which is what I think Cuscuna is actually getting at, sloppy/irresponsible as his language might appear (or actually be). But I'll cut him some slack. Jesus christ, before he turned into Mister BlueNoteMosaicGuardianOfTheGreatLegacy, look at his track record and be impressed. But one thing remains consistent in that track record - no hellbent balls out venting sessions where "emotion" at the expense/in place of "musicianship" was the order of the day. So I think he's being consistent in intent no matter what the language implies. Compare: And: Well, isn't it possible that this quote is representative of Cuscuna as "Mister BlueNoteMosaicGuardianOfTheGreatLegacy" rather than his "initial impulse" - the one that had "driven him towards the BAG/Braxton axis"? That before he turned into "Mr Tradition" he had a more positive conception of the people he now condemns? That, in fact, it's a rationalisation of the position he now holds? That, in fact, he - along with the rest of Jazz - has been seduced into a "safe" listening life without all the dangerous and difficult stuff that was hurling around at the bottom of 60s Jazz and that all this stuff about technique is his (and our) rationalisation of that? Or is this a post full of rhetorical questions? Simon Weil

Well... Steve Jones I remember these guys. Sure they were well aware that their provocations would get headlines. But deep down they were full of rage, "tortured soul", who enjoyed the havoc they were making. I think you need to get that clear. Once they became "the Sex Pistols, cultural icons" (or whatever), (a lot of )the rage went away because they were someones. My view was it was "destruction for the sake of destruction". Simon Weil

What do you think of this quote? Cuscuna is obviously presenting a very strong slant on history, but is there a grain of truth? Guy This is the old argument of feeling vs. thought which goes back to way back when. Inasmuch as art and/or religion always this dichotomy, there's nothing new. In art you can have the romantic movements with their elevation of emotion set against more "classical" styles. In (Christian) religion you get "Enthusiasm" filling the romanticism slot - and people fear emotion will carry away congregations from more considered, rationalistic, (Biblical)-text based experience. The black church is just full of these arguments, with the specific problem that "emotional excesses" has specific racial connotations to do with blacks being agents of chaos and out of control. I would be very wary of this quote, just on that basis. "Anger and lack of musician-ship" is a very loaded, rather tendentious, characterisation. It's a sort of symbolic anti-ideal - which carries with it all the seductiveness of the ideal. Sure there are musicans who fit that paradigm (or elements of it) from that period. But Cuscuna is here making of it a smug little narrative - implicitly of black ghetto rage erupting in music. I think that's anachronistic. While it's perfectly true that riots filled the (mid to late) 60s, I think the music, as a whole, followed a different - rather more positive paradigm. You have to wait till the late 70s for a musical movement based on rage to appear. "Anger and lack of musicianship" fits the punk movement of England of the late 70s just perfectly - and the protaganists are perfectly happy to talk about it in those terms. The guys from the 60s don't do that - and I think you should respect them. I think they innovated technically and went "beyond notes". Simon Weil

It's a very downbeat record. It is, like all, Shades of Jade. If not exactly monochromatic, seen through a lens of that colour. I always imagined it had something to do with the vibe of America (liberal that is) at that moment. But, to be honest, I found it hard even though the last track is exquisite and the playing seems of a high quality. In that regard, I preferred his earlier "Sound of Summer Running" which mixes the melancholy with a great healthy blend of sun - Jeez, his titles really do seem to tell you something - I think that's a truly beautiful record. Yup, too downbeat for me. Simon Weil

That's my take. My understanding is that Trane was using acid when he recorded "Om". I see no evidence that this had a particular impact on the recording. Unlike Simon, I think it is a largely successful outing, though it has more of the feel of a "jam" as opposed to a carefully constructed session like "Meditations". I think Trane's tenor solo is better than the one on "Meditations" and I think Pharoah's main tenor solo is one of the best he ever recorded and one of the outstanding tenor sax recordings in this idiom. There is some disconnect between the rhythm section and the horns, to be sure, but that is characteristic of most of the late '65 dates where Elvin and McCoy are playing behind Pharoah and with Rasheid, though I would freely admit that "Evolution" is quite the exception. Well, in a sense it's a string of solos bookended by the OM chant (but with a bit of Om chanting in the middle of Pharoah's solo). But there's also a distinct change in vibe (to my ears) in the middle of it. You go from the major soloists (Coltrane, Sanders, Tyner) playing with a degree of fire to a more reflective/quiescent thing with (I think) flute and then bass clarinet. There's a kind of twilight kind feel to it. I don't think the music is bad, although I don't much like the chants. The Coltrane solo I find intense but somehow rather obscure. The Sanders I agree is very good. Tyner's is kind of serviceable. What I don't really understand is why the minor soloists are there - what Coltrane was trying to do. I mean that's much of the second half of the recording in this unified (to my ears) rather reflective vibe which contrasted with the first half fire - but why? I don't think the second half's bad music - it works in a certain way - but... Of course I have my theory as to why he began to play like this...And it ain't drugs. The 9th Book of the Bhaghavad Gita in the Prabhavananda/Isherwood translation (straight out of it). The way Coltrane uses it is akin to a theme. Beginning and ending with it and with the one word chant "Om" in the middle - and then he talks about Om in the sleevenotes as well. So for him it's something important. Simon Weil Couldn't agree more - it was important to him, and that's what counts. It does sort of make sense to me if I take his use of "Om" seriously - that is to say if I take the track to be, in some sense "about Om". Then I can allow myself to hear the track programatically and the obscurity (as I hear it) of Trane's solo becomes a man trying to express the inexpressible (Om = the Voice of God at the Dawn of Time). Likewise, when I hear the flute come in, I don't have to keep disappearing thoughts of the flute being associated with the breath of God in Islamic music. Instead I can go with that and can hear those passages as having something to do with God's breath over the waters bringing life. I'm not saying that this is absolutely right. Just that listening like that - in a programmatic way that seems implied by Coltrane - makes the music cohere to me. It's a way of "making sense" out of the music in contrast to the "he's on drugs" thing which tends to "it's nonsense". And I wrote an article based on this view. Simon Weil

That's my take. My understanding is that Trane was using acid when he recorded "Om". I see no evidence that this had a particular impact on the recording. Unlike Simon, I think it is a largely successful outing, though it has more of the feel of a "jam" as opposed to a carefully constructed session like "Meditations". I think Trane's tenor solo is better than the one on "Meditations" and I think Pharoah's main tenor solo is one of the best he ever recorded and one of the outstanding tenor sax recordings in this idiom. There is some disconnect between the rhythm section and the horns, to be sure, but that is characteristic of most of the late '65 dates where Elvin and McCoy are playing behind Pharoah and with Rasheid, though I would freely admit that "Evolution" is quite the exception. Well, in a sense it's a string of solos bookended by the OM chant (but with a bit of Om chanting in the middle of Pharoah's solo). But there's also a distinct change in vibe (to my ears) in the middle of it. You go from the major soloists (Coltrane, Sanders, Tyner) playing with a degree of fire to a more reflective/quiescent thing with (I think) flute and then bass clarinet. There's a kind of twilight kind feel to it. I don't think the music is bad, although I don't much like the chants. The Coltrane solo I find intense but somehow rather obscure. The Sanders I agree is very good. Tyner's is kind of serviceable. What I don't really understand is why the minor soloists are there - what Coltrane was trying to do. I mean that's much of the second half of the recording in this unified (to my ears) rather reflective vibe which contrasted with the first half fire - but why? I don't think the second half's bad music - it works in a certain way - but... Of course I have my theory as to why he began to play like this...And it ain't drugs. The 9th Book of the Bhaghavad Gita in the Prabhavananda/Isherwood translation (straight out of it). The way Coltrane uses it is akin to a theme. Beginning and ending with it and with the one word chant "Om" in the middle - and then he talks about Om in the sleevenotes as well. So for him it's something important. Simon Weil

Well Om is not a total success, so that tends to give credence to this. But there ain't no evidence. Ergo it can hardly be "conventional wisdom". Useful means of categorising said session mentally, maybe: "they were high on drugs and look what happened...". I tend to feel that actually gets in the way of listening to the music. I mean a (partically) failed Coltrane session is interesting in itself. Is it a myth? Well, people do feel Coltrane was a kind of God. That's a mythic view of the man. The idea that the only way he could have failed is if he was taking something would be part of the myth. I don't know if it's true or not. Simon Weil P.S. [i think "Loud whisper in the Jazz community" is how I would describe this. Sense: Lots of people who think they know something.]

Well, the Old and New Dreams records are like that - and of course all with Ornette sidemen. They probably are about as out as Ornette on tenor, but the vibe is rather different, being from a later - looking back- kind of period. I think the Ayler is very good, well-realised, quite intense. This is kind of the mother-load in terms of outness when it was fresh and young. But there's also a kind of listeningness that isn't always evident in Ayler's playing. In that respect, probably, Cherry's interaction with another out Jazz great (Coleman) stood him in good stead - brought out the best in Ayler as a group player. N.B. Ayler's conception - "beyond notes" - is intrinsically further out than Coleman's. Simon Weil P.S. Pianoless quartets are supposed to have been given a big boost by Ornette in general.

Happy, happy, happy, birthday - Ubu. Simon Weil

Let's go at this slowly. First a couple of canonical texts: 1) It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that swing 2) What is jazz? If you have to ask, you'll never know. The Ellington one is a classic of the "traditional" view of Jazz - Without this specific element, swing, it asserts, the music is worthless. To it Wynton would add "blues" - it don't mean a thing if it ain't got blues 'n swing - is his position, and one we're all familiar with. But the thing about the Ellington quote, and this is very characteristic of Ellington, is that falls to bits if you look at it. Because, like I said above, actually Ellington's early music doesn't swing. So this is like one of those exchanges from "The Mirrored Self", where in his role as interviewee he'll say something and in his role as interviewer question it. This leads on to (2), the ineffable heart of jazz view. Basically, I'm arguing, if you look too hard at any specific element of Jazz, it turns out not to be quite that specific. Even Ellington's catch-phrase doesn't have quite that specificity in his case. This is about defining Jazz - that basically you can't do it. Wynton of course would disagree - and he's on record as making it a battle between him, who wants jazz defined one way, and the critics who (he asserts) want it defined another. But that is to assume that Jazz should be defined at all. It in fact overturns the position of point (2). Now I'm one of those guys who thinks there's something really beautiful about leaving the heart of Jazz kind of ineffable and unknown. That if you nail it down (or assert that it can be), you lose...well basically you lose what gives it life. So, then, "tradition": "...(L. traditio, f. tradere...hand over, deliver...)...The action of handing down something, from generation to generation, transmission of statements, beliefs, customs etc. esp. by word of mouth or unwritten custom; the fact of being handed down thus...A long established and generally accepted practice or custom; immemorial usage. Also spec. the principles held and generally followed by any branch of art or literature, acquired from and handed down by experience and practice..." The argument I made above is that, in Jazz, the process of generation forming is not about handing down specific (musical) customs, rather it's about introducing new ones - i.e it's non-traditional. And this, in a sense, is what's kept Jazz alive - it's ability to renew itself. Now you can argue that, in the 60s, the process went too far, that in introducing new customs you lost what made Jazz distinctive - and this is Wynton's view. That the old musical customs, of blues and swing, which had previously defined Jazz got thrown out of the window, leaving us with a music without meaning. Dead in that way. Wynton asserts that in "bringing back" blues and swing, he was revifying a music that was dead. "...the strength and adaptability of genuine traditions is not to be confused with 'the invention of tradition'. Where the old ways are alive, traditions need be neither revived or invented." That was in my first post. In Hobsbawm's view, Wynton would be an example of "inventing the tradition". If the process of generation-forming in Jazz is non-traditional, this would fit with that. I think Wynton needs "a story", that's why he's a traditionalist. Simon Weil

Sounds like it - and it does sound interesting, per se. The fact of there being a break which "the tradition" hides seems to fit right in - as well as the novel use of a time-honoured custom. Yup, very good. Simon Weil

My sense of the term "African-American" is of a person squaring up his shoulders and sticking his chest out - so I think that's about national pride. Kind of a people pulling themselves up to their full height after the humiliations of slavery and segregation. So I think a pride in their heritage comes into that, in that by dressing up in dashikis, blacks were able to identify themselves with pre-slavery ancestors = people who could carry themselves around unabashed - without the fear of the whip. I'm not sure it's about inventing an identity so much as seeing their identity in as positive way. I don't think they invented the tradition of African forebears so much as brought it out. Any musical ramifications? Simon Weil What got invented was Afro-centricism; the idea that a) Egypt was run by sub-Saharan Africans (it was for some of the time) and b) had a big influence on European culture (well, certainly some, but not necessarily when the southern kings were running Egypt); and that therefore Europe owes Africa its civilisation (or maybe a free pass to the ball game). This notion is VERY big in African-American circles. I had to go to 125 Street in Harlem to buy (on the street) books in English by Cheikh Anta Diop - couldn't get them in the mainstream bookstores of NYC; not in Britain, very easily. I accompanied a bunch of African-Americans on a tour of Goree Island, just off Dakar, in Senegal, a few years ago. They were astounded, and almost hysterically mortified, to learn that Africans had participated in and profited from the slave trade. MG I think this stuff comes out of "the drive to pride", in that anything positive about Afro-Americans is given an audience. And people's critical faculties go out the window. Free pass to the ball game in that sense. You get the same sort of stuff in feminist circles. It'll pass, in time. With enhanced self-confidence will come self-criticism (the capacity for). Hopefully, anyway. Simon Weil