ep1str0phy

If it isn't evident yet, not only are you eloquent, but you're also a quasi-saint.

Hey--thanks for pointing this one out. I'll be on the lookout.

Man, it's a favorites list. I'm just glad it isn't overstuffed with Rod Stewart albums. And bertrand--get the first three (at least) post haste!

If you like those, then you've got the check out the band with Bruce. It's documented virtually everywhere, and it smokes in a very prog/jazz-rock sense.

Yeah, that's my favorite segment of the album. Even if the structure is a little oblique, there's an intense emotional directness to it--something I've always loved about Cecil.

As both a Cecil fan and a musician, I can testify to the fact that "Ceora" has a bitch of a theme. On the reading thing--I remember a review of Cecil's set at the Thurston Moore's regular "All Tomorrow's Parties" musical get together that said that it takes an "astrophysicist" (or someone to that effect) to understand CT's whole bag... the literature can be helpful (and, though I have some problems with Jost's book--especially his Ayler chapter--I think it's as fine a readily available theoretical document as we have on that period of evolution), but if you can't get down with it on a basic level, there's something up. Cecil was a dance guy, after all, and Unit Structures (in its own way) "leaps" and "lopes" as hard as and hard bop.

He was a part of one of Jack Bruce's 80's combos with (Colosseum guitarist) Clem Clempson and Billy Cobham. That band had a penchant for the histrionic, but they were as fine a group of rock improvisers as was to be had in that era. That group was actually my introduction to Bruce, so Sancious's raging guitar/keyboard work is burned into my mind...

If this is the Perkins that king ubu refers to, then the Brotzmann duo qualifies as an autumnal recording; he died in 2004.

There's a confluence between the two phrases, for sure (and that's the eloquence of the "Great Black Music" thing--it's an encompassing phrase).

Does anyone know at what point the AACM adopted the "Great Black Music" title for the entire organization? By all accounts, it was an Art Ensemble thing first (the Tribute to Lester liners suggest that it came out of a conversation between Lester Bowie and Malachi Favors)--but it seems to have slipped, over time, into the rhetoric of the organization as a whole. Chuck? Anybody? Edit--also... I'd be interested in knowin the origins of the "ancient to the future" suffix (it wasn't always there as a qualifying phrase, was it? Who came up with it?)

So this isn't an LP rip--it's an actual remastering?! Nice to have it back in the catalog (enjoyed it since clifford introduced me to it...)

Ah--different rhythm sections, like Glass Bead Games. I would've loved to have heard them go neck and neck, though. On a side note--Cherry's really adept at these "insidish" contexts, where I've heard him. His personal ethos was just so strong that it's easy to forget about his versatility...

His favorite? Haven't heard this one (I've heard the "other" Jordan Strata-East sides), but the config., hot as it is, looks pretty atypical for a large scale Jordan date. Can't say I'm not fascinated, because some of those cats are a rare commodity together (Dorham and Cherry? Do they perform on the same track?).

I'm with you on that one, JS. What a beautiful legacy he leaves... RIP

This is the only "single" CD issue of Prophecy (readily) available: Prophecy It was in the 2002 batch of Caliber reissues, although why anyone would buy it over the twofer is beyond me (assuming they didn't already have Bells...)

Wouldn't doubt it.

Oh no, I got that, too. In spite of it all, I know there's a lot of shared love up in here.

I'll break up the "hate fest" [ ] and say that Patterns is > sliced bread.

Totally agree with you--and that's part of my concern with, if not this book in particular, than rather the idea that any sort of music that purports to be "free" (and, really, not just free jazz) can be successfully taught outside of the practical context. Not that the authors are making such claims (and it might be a helpful tool), but the usefulness seems particularly questionable with a music that--yes, is strongly communicative and contingent upon strong and flexible listening. I mean, once we dissolve all the other formalisms, all we've got is communication of sorts--and where's the academics in that?

And on that level--the Bailey book is instructive in this sense--really, how much can you teach? Those I've met who purport to teach this music are at least dubious of the prospect of really transmitting stylistic information to the student, as opposed to "awakening" the individuality within learner (which is straight-up AACM in rhetoric, and a noble sentiment in and of itself). If this music must be taught theoretically or historically in an academic context, codifying things into discreet, generalized theoretical lessons seems a questionable way to go (especially in light of the progenitors, who just as well might teach you an approach--ala Cecil--but not tell you what to say in that approach, which is what has happened with bebop, arguably).

I've studied with Myra Melford during my time in Berkeley, who has registered a significant amount of effort in the way of studying the sylistic and "formal" elements of numerous "avant" musicians. On the whole, the heuristic approach has leaned toward developing a broader conception of improvising philosophy/understanding of free group dynamics as much as some sort of theoretical discourse, which is of course present. I'd think that a book of this nature might be helpful (again, I'd like to see it) in conjunction with an actual lecture/class, but I question its merits in the way of teaching any music that is largely contingent upon dealing with group sympathy (and therefore a real-time communicative context) and, of course, sonic elements that extend far beyond the traditional heuristic Western idiom. (like, if there's anything touching upon the AACM in here, I'd like to see mention of picking up bicycle horns and honking them, if you catch my drift.) I mean, can you teach spiritual?

(saw this over at Jazzcorner...) The end of days? I'm at least interested in cracking it open, if for no other reason than to see what was deemed "important" for a theory book of this sort. Now, I don't think that "free jazz" or "free improv" (which have become pretty idiomatic themselves) are completely irreconcilable with an academic context--I've just never seen what seems to be a catch-all theory book (which doesn't, contrary to the practice of many free musicians, appear to cater to an individual musical ethos--e.g., Harmolodics or Ankhrasmation--but rather a general "style"--which seems problematic as hell). Beyond Time and Changes

I'm thinking Eternal Rhythm right now. There's definitely something discomfitingly precise about Symphony--which is still enjoy dearly--which doesn't jibe with the rest of his large group output. Maybe the strictures of the recording studio just pulled his "ragged glory" a little too far in, or maybe RVG's style simply worked better for the smaller group (I, too, think that Communion might be the more "successful" document). Don's stuff--especially his large group material--was the sort that needed that group energy to work off of (and I guess it's hard to have that communion when you're playing to the mic).

I think that griff was significantly better served at Riverside than at BN, although whether or not that was as much a matter of his own maturing as anything else, I'm not ready to say. But Riverside was definitely more amenable to different/expanded/whatever settings than was BN, for whatever reason. Now, about Unit Structures, again, some historical perspective is called for. You gotta remember that prior to that, the last Cecil date that was out there was the Into The Hot material, and that that was still "Cecil playing over time". (I know that some of the Montmartre stuff was released in the US on Fantasy/Debut, but A)that was a trio date, B)Fantasy back in those days was not all that widely distributed except for a few "hits", and C)I don't know exactly when that album was released. Anyway, good luck finding a copy, then or now). Anyway, Unit Structures was the first side with profile (and quite possibly the first side period) to present Cecil Taylor's music in the form that we all know today. It could be argued that pretty much everything that's come since is an expansion on what was first documented on that album. So afaic, it's "classic" status is a no-brainer, even if the music wasn't as incredible as it is ("Enter Evening" alone is one for the ages, & getting an alternate of it on the CD was a gift from on high). He'd have come out (no pun intended) somewhere sooner or later, but this is where it happened, and there ain't no changing that. There literally was no Cecil Taylor music like this on record before Unit Structures, but there's been plenty of it since. So I say you gotta give recording props to the recorded archetype. Ah--and there's the historical perspective. There's a dearth of recordings of Ayler from this period, although we've since heard a few "un-metered" recordings from earlier years. How do you think this one stacks up, in light of what's available now (i.e., with respect to Nefertiti, which was earlier)? They can't all have the right impact, but there's something to be said for hindsight...

Interesting--but have you ever partied to Andrew Hill?!