ep1str0phy

It is, but I assumes that statement means East of Mel's. Edit: to say talk about the horrors and relative merits of LA doesn't really belong here. It's simply incomprehensible and depressing to me as an LA native and a musician and a human being that this could happen.

Re: remixes--the recently-released Impulse reworkings aren't all that bad, but there are some extremely questionable artistic decisions locked up in there. The "Mondo Grosso Next Wave Remix" of Shepp's "Blues For Brother George Jackson" does some interesting things with one of the sax solos, but this raving, ub-chick-ub-chick jungle beat is just weaksauce up against the original groove (fortunately they sort of leave the turnaround alone, but not enough...). And Duke--there's probably more technically, if not thematically, in the recent Rocky than all the Rockys after II and prior to VI. Then again, Rocky IV had the Russian Premier doing that 80's slow hand clap thing, so... (also: Rocky outruns a car. In the snow.)

Hopefully we'll always have screamers and not "screamers"--like we'll always have some guys actually playing New Orleans Jazz (probably in New Orleans).

Awful news. As an Angeleno myself, there are a million things I could say--but it's enough to know that the man left a beautiful mark.

From what I can gather, that material shows up frequently in the LP bins but, even in the digital internet (etc.) age we live in, very, very rarely gets mentioned on the web. I'm also of the understanding that McGregor was sort of itinerant when it comes to that group--was he present for the performance? Also--thank you for that, J.H. Granted how I'll not make it to the Vision Fest, that one might be a good place to hear Moholo...

Oh, and re: Brown--I guess it would be wise to qualify the really relevant material there to just Geechee Reflections and Sweet Earth Flying. Those two are arguably two of Marion's most coherent suite/long form recordings, even when some of the other material of that time (such as Vista, also on Impulse) falls flat in many places.

You got me on the Brown Caligs, but having really listened to the BMGs and not the About Times I can see where that puts my "appreciation"--so I'll try to correct that. As far as availability goes--Chuck, you were one of the few guys there, so you're doubtless in a better position to talk to the history than most of us here. The historical picture via documentation will lack, though folks will do their best (even some of the albums that CT and I mentioned will take some digging to find). The input of the "elders", however it comes, is appreciated. That said--right about the 70's thing, Clifford, but some picture of the AACM as it's been "painted" at large has to deal with the 80's stuff, right? I think it may help flesh out what happened after the "screamers" went away. Props again for mentioning the Rashied Ali Quintet album with Ulmer--that one, of course, doesn't get enough love...

This thread is dead and all, but in response to clifford: Ofama? It showcases an important element of the BAG scene (the performative aspect), but it dangles between "rough" and "trainwreckish" in the musical sense (not the Tyrone W. sense). I think some of the Human Arts Ensemble discs (Under the Sun and Streets of St. Louis come to mind) are probably a better indication of what the BAG guys were capable of in a technically grounded, conceptually cohesive context. As for the Chicagoans--sure it happened a little later, but Lester Bowie's solo work can't not be mentioned, as he's surely one of the more expressive and intelligent musical eclectics of the past few decades. Although it's not the best that Bowie could do, I'd put The Great Pretender (ECM) up there for good measure (as sort of a proto-Brass Fantasy thing, or at least showcasing an approach that was specific to Bowie among the other AACMers). I might also add mention of Jarman's Delmarks (specifically As If It Were the Seasons, oft cited as it is as indicative of the whole early AACM thing--and even if it is just precedent, it's by no means a tentative music, and one of the few larger group recordings we have from that vintage) and Muhal's Black Saints (nothing really new on those sides, but there are elements of his concept that come across clearer on albums like Spihumonesty than on the few Delmarks). ...and--George Lewis, one of the best and brightest we've got (period). Many would say Homage to Charlie Parker (Black Saint) is the one and I'd be inclined to agree, though his stuff with the Voyager program (e.g., Voyager) is a pocket revolution in and of itself. He's one of the only articulate and academically-informed music scholars coming from the inside of the scene--more well-spoken than many so-called "theorists" we have these days. His widely-available papers--they're on the official NY AACM website--are a miracle of insight, considering where they're coming from (or *period*, really). As for the Downtown guys: we're of course leaving many out, but you can't talk Downtown without Threadgill and Air. These are a good start: Air: Air Time (Nessa) Air: Air Song (Why Not) Air: Air Lore (Arista/Novus)--oft-talked about, featuring reworkings of early jazz and ragtime material. It's perhaps not "original" to this extent as the other two albums mentioned--where the repertory is somewhat more flexible and the musicians are given more room to move--but Air Lore is about as forward-thinking a "historical" album as you can get, which is a very AACM thing. Henry Threadgill--everything on Arista/Novus, and, for a different flavor, his material with the group Very, Very Circus: Too Much Sugar For A Dime (BMG/Novus) and Spirit of Nuff Nuff (Black Saint), for me. Also: Marion Brown's Impulse recordings and his ECM (Afternoon of a Georgia Faun) deserve mention for invoking and developing many of the same elements that the AACM was pondering in the early 70's, and doing so to very individual effect. Brown's penchant for space and silence, "made" and found instrumentation, and African and Black American ethnology blend into something very unique--and it's also a strong link between early 60's free jazz and what later generations were doing.

This joint has hit. I saw it at the Berkeley Amoeba earlier this evening.

Folks have been dealing with the dilemma of moot "transgression" for decades--the solution of pluralism is nothing new. I sense the same degree of historical reductionism here that seems to plague most accounts of the modern music scene: we had an exhaustion of available possibilities in the 60's--problematic gap--now we're beginning to look at alternate sources of inspiration. A lot of that is true, but again--no mention of how the AACM, BAG, and their ilk were doing the "polygot" thing immediately after the free generation. We're giving folks like Glasper too much credit here (and I'm sure Douglas, for one, would be the first to say that stylistic omnivorousness is nothing new to improvised music). Now, to be fair, I'm of the mind that pluralism, reconstruction, and mutual respect of ideas are the only real paths to creative survival in contemporary improvised music. Credit where credit due, though.

Well, "pro" on the big picture side: in the end, is who says what as important as whether or not a statement is valid or makes any sense?

I'm of the mind that the Jostian generalizations regarding the AACM don't really hold water in the long run. Those technical elements that seem particular to the early AACMers, or that they at least popularized--little instruments, improvisation in a rhythmically static environment, extreme dynamic contrast, among others--and, in addition, those perfomative elements (theatricality, certain programmatic elements, the co-optation of dramatic farce) so central to the group ethos, appear in largely variable forms throughout the org's history. It's to the degree that, if you're going to say something general about the Association--and not specific to Mitchell, Braxton, Lewis, etc.--it's inevitably couched in the idea of an aesthetic/cultural "pan"ism--and this, to a degree that arguably no one (save maybe Rahsaan, who had perhaps purchased too deeply into his jazz crusading to go to some of the outer reaches of where the Association went) had entertained prior. True, certain musical elements seemed to pop up in the AACM psycho-culture some ways before anywhere else, but while other folks (Rahsaan, Bill Dixon, Ornette) had mined similar territory some ways before, the AACM was probably the first to take the idiomatic ideas latent in the final stages of innovation in the energy music sphere (re: Albert Ayler breaking down the basic elements of jazz form, recombining that with obscure folk elements, and recomposing that into something new) to their logical conclusion(s). "Breaking down barriers" and then doing something with the new living space--asserting beauty, integrity, quality ("Great"), and, simultaneously, identity, self-awareness, and possession ("Black")--is something you can quantify as unique to the AACM in improvised music at that juncture. What makes that lastingly innovative is that it happened after a period of exhuastive innovation, and swelled the music forward--not so much, I'd say, for particular musical ideas rather than the notion that "yes, we can go there"--and, more importantly, that "we can make there there".

If not onerous, then at the very, very least piquant. For whatever reason, those with the resources and the time to listen really don't seem to have reached the point where A really is > B--and that's not a rip in any direction, and not a reflection of how I think about it--it just seems like a fact granted the hordes of folks who would still (apparently) champion Wright, Doyle, etc. on a level platform with Mitchell, Braxton, etc. I think that contingency exists, which is why this is at all an issue here or anywhere. For whatever it's worth, I think it's more important that the historical picture makes sense rather than who is painting the picture (although that clearly matters in some cases)--which is why, if our understanding of music of the vintage we're dealing with is going to make any sense, it's more important to evaluate the situation itself than why that situation pisses us off (which is where I'm at, anyway).

Attempting to remain on the sidelines for this valid v. invalid freedom debate, I've got a couple of notes: (1) Jim, I think we've had differing opinions on this topic before (re: Arthur Doyle, for example), but a general issue regarding the alleged charlatans (or some less aggressive synonym thereof)--of course there hasn't been much scholarship/historical documentation done on the post-Ayler/Coltrane, pre-loft renaissance NY free scene (some documentation, but not nearly as much as has registered for, for example, the Ornette/Trane/Cecil triumvirate), and I'd like to imagine that my perspective here is a little skewed because of that fact, but I'm of the impression that the scene wasn't that big. Now, re: who is being talked about whenever someone mentions the excesses of the energy scene--I can't imagine that too many of these folks are off the radar, though it's clear that at least some of them are. Oral and record documentation hasn't exhausted what the free scene was about, but at least the major players are in order--and who else would be worth the criticism than the most prominent voices in the movement? If someone can point to some phantom menace--someone who isn't Doyle, Wright, Cross, Logan, A. Jones, B. Allen, Watts and the like--please tell me, because I'm honestly curious. (2) Love it as I do, history seems to show that the energy thing was a dead end--come a few years after everyone attempted to digest Ayler, it's either reiteration or new types of construction. The Europeans verged into either jarring reconstruction (involving Eurospecific, nationalistic elements) or total demolition (free improv/non-idiomatic music going into the electroacoustic thing). The midwesterners infused the music with a bent of catholicism--and, after the technical extremes of the energy guys, I think it might be fair to say that the most crucial innovations of the AACM, BAG, etc. were intellectual/stylistic/idiomatic. As this conversation seems to be getting at/has been getting at, the most onerous element of Cuscuna's words speaks more to a value judgment (i.e., musicians A > musicians B) rather than it's historical understanding--which says a lot about what remain salient, emotional issues in this music (that is, validity and skill).

My high school guitar teacher used to push me on Robben Ford... for what it's worth, I think he recorded "Blues Connotation" on one of his own albums, so... Edit: Following 7/4's link, I discovered that I've made the same comment twice. I guess my early youth is still haunting me.

It screened a few blocks away, but I didn't get there in time... I'll be on the lookout again.

Sad news, but a great legacy left. RIP.

This one is great--maybe my favorite Dolphy session as leader, with Out to Lunch and Out There. Despite the supposed discord between Dolphy and the Dutch contingency, the music here is beautiful, a fine ensemble album (although not exactly an innovative group music, which I think everyone here might lay claim to in other contexts). This is also the album that really hooked me onto Dolphy's bass clarinet--it's in full flower here, and he can dance on that cumbersome reed like few people can maneuver an alto.. my favorite version of "Epistrophy", probably--it changed the way I listened to Monk, which is much more than I can say for most "strange" Monk interpretations.

Thanks for chiming in, Eric. I'll be looking forward to hearing the album... Excited to hear that more is in store--any chance you'll be assembling some ensemble pieces?

Would someone with big ears care to chime in on a suspicion I have regarding the discographical info for an unissued BoB CD? The Jizz Relics blog (jizzrelics.blogspot.com) lists the alto as Ozzie--I'm almost positive it's Dudu. Here's what I posted: Unless someone has clear knowledge that that discographical information is 100% correct, at least some of it is incorrect. My suspicion: the alto player (1st sax solo on track 4, in pretty clear evidence on track 5) is Dudu--not Mike Osborne. My impression here is based solely on the piles and piles of listening I've been doing w/respect to the South African guys; Dudu and Mike were the alto chairs in the Brotherhood, and their styles are fairly dissimilar. Reasons: (1) the harsher tone, frequently lapsing into chording/multiphonics (Ozzie's tone was cleaner, more reedy, and discreetly sharp in an Ornette-ish kind of way); (2) the dashing, jagged register leaps, alternating facilely between low-register multiphonics and the false register (a Dudu trademark; Osborne's tendency was to stick with a mid-register tessitura, although when he did go into overdrive--like on the Colbeck album--he tended to stay there, and with less capriciousness); (3) extensive use of portamento and pitch bending, which was always a Dudu thing (Ozzie's tone/pitch control is far more straightforward than Dudu's); (4) the tendency of phrases to trail off, as well as greater dynamic variation (I've always taken Ozzie as more of a melodic constructionist than Dudu--or at least more direct; Dudu had the early Ornette, getting at "contour" more than "form" thing going on); (5) the appearance of some of Dudu's pet phrases, including quotations from McGregor's "Now" (it goes under other names...) and a three-note motif from "Nobomyu" (from In the Townships; (6) the prominence in the ensembles (Dudu was among the more outspoken ensemble players in the Brotherhood, and his wild interpolations are almost unmistakable). I mean, what else would Dudu be doing at this juncture? He appears with McGregor during sides made during the Blue Note split (Moholo-Moholo and Dyani had gone to South America with Lacy, the others remained in Europe), and I can't recall hearing that he'd be anywhere else where the bulk of the Brotherhood crew was present. Granted, these are on-the-fly impressions, but whoever's playing alto does not sound like Mike and does sound like Dudu. The whole band is on a tear (which makes me regret that only two of the cuts are full band sides), which could explain any excrescent stylistic differences for this date. Still, though--some tough information would have to come out to convince me that the lineup on the front page is right. As for Mbizo--there was an ideological split between the Brotherhood camp and Dyani somewhere along the line.

Good pull. In particular, the Cyrille, Bluiett, and Harris are favorites of mine.

I've been looking forward to this one (weird and atypical as it is)...

Good thing this thread popped up--I just picked up a copy of Graham Collier's Hoarded Dreams (from the early 80's), and Ted is a featured soloist. He'd lost none of his old ebullience and keeps up well in fast company (Kenny Wheeler, Manfred Schoof, Henry Lowther, Tomasz Stanko). My only reservation might be that, fine as the set is--terrific arrangements, compositions--there's scarce little of the full-on trumpet line improvising together (and when it occurs, it's a BOOM-fest, versus the quieter, more detailed ensemble work that I know all of these men can provide). The whole line-up is killer, and it's in some ways enough to hear cats like Curson working in such unusual, momentous environs.

I'm right with you on Crystal Fire, .:., although I thought of a four-square Andrew Hill before I did Dollar Brand. Maybe, like Holland, Berger has had a more comfortable time at the more "inside" part of the inside/outside space--which doesn't say that he's abandoned his more esoteric elements, only that that's not what it's really about (if it's ever been about that, anyway). Walt Dickerson is definitely my "avant" vibe man, but I can appreciate where Karl's at now.

Naw, he doesn't play with the strings on that one. That does remind me of Forms & Sounds though--Ornette on trumpet + strings, although he doesn't really play with the strings (more like in-between).