ep1str0phy

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?!

Some info is posted at ayler.org, but it doesn't give too much away. I'd be interested in hearing what you think (that is, if you find the stuff...).

I think it's a great album, but again the BN juju often positions it on the "masterpiece" end of the spectrum versus a lot of his other works (and we should mention Conquistador, too, because that's perhaps the most digestable and well-liked "post-standards" Taylor will ever get). I'm not sure it's any more valuable than Nefertiti, Air Above Mountains, the New World Stuff, or some of the FMPs toward understanding Cecil's bag (which is a fluid thing, really).

As much as I enjoy the 60's and 70's Impulse catalog, I question whether it's really the place to look for any sort of "deep" representation of the various scenes it (quite haphazardly) recorded. It's diversity is, in effect, it's failing point; as a label of "broad" interests, it risks coming across as a sort of facile gloss on the idioms it champions (jack of all trades...). There's a sort of presumptuousness about the The New Wave of Jazz is on Impulse! thing--especially in that, barring Trane, Shepp, Pharoah, and a scarce few others (and to a much lesser extent), a lot of the most invigorating "New" music of the era was being recorded elsewhere (ESP springs to mind). I won't begrudge Blue Note any sort of "sameness" in that it not only had an identifiable label sound, but also a deep, thoroughgoing understanding of at least a couple "sub-idioms" of the day (the Messengers hard-bop thing, the Miles clique).

Maybe it was the MB diet...

A straw man... The messenger piece...the way you put it...is yours. Ayler was a player and the message is in the playing. If you think he wasn't in the middle of it...you didn't see him walking down Eastern Parkway with vaseline on his face. Nas or whoever can posture about shooting dj's till the cows come home...or till the next time there's a raid at Kahlua's... But neither him or any of his boys have any words with the power of Albert's notes... And nobody is going to raise up with Nas's posturing. It takes more than music... Albert played is ass off... That's all the message that anyone has. Nas... Huh... Not that I disagree with you specifically (or clem, for that matter)--and with all due respect to the very respectable parties herein involved--but the strong dualism among music communities, genres, idioms, interests, etc. isn't doing anyone any favors. I wouldn't agree with clem on that point, either, but that put-downs beget put-downs (and I'm not entirely sure that clem's statement--correct me if I'm wrong--was so much a put-down as it was a probably-not-entirely-unfounded interpretation of the Ayler ethos) is a drag.

You'll acquire most of it. Whether it's more significant is questionable (it's all from the same span of a few months, anyway).

Killl yer idols, brownie. Kill yer idols.

Blasphemy!(?)

Copenhagen is readily available, but you should be able to find the others (in some form) from DMG. NYEaEC fits between Spiritual Unity and Copenhagen (note the presence of Cherry on NYEaEC, as he would join the band full time for the European tour).

Thanks for the heads up, Dana.

I'm with you on all of those, Rooster (notwithstanding Blue Train).

I was frankly hoping that more people could fill us in on that, although I have heard about the MPS (haven't heard it, but heard of). I'm astounded that we've got all the history on the 'net and virtually no accounts of this group.

HEY-OH! felser--agree with the intent (breaking through the brand name hero-worship thing, which seems to blind us to honest critical appraisal at times), but this kind of thread seems to have been attempted before--and, as you said, this is the stuff that leaves us cold (as in us v. them). And it's true that, if you run through the archives, almost every BN will be hailed as a masterpiece (but by a different cat each time?). It's nothing with the "general" consensus on the albums themselves (i.e., I like Components, as do a few other folks on this board, but you'll probably find just as many or more guys who don't--we're just vocal in the defense; in other words, you'll find far fewer people speaking in those "hushed tones")--just that someone here is bound to think that something that someone doesn't like is really something, dig? In the spirit of the spirit, then: I don't know what the deal with Am I Blue? is, nor why it was elected for an RVG.

Inevitably, I'll add, this winds up being a "favorites/I like/don't like" thread. Someone out there thinks that too much praise is heaped on Speak No Evil.

Almost all of these are among my favorite BNs. Including 'Bout Soul--but then we get into questions of aesthetic, and I can't remember too many other people who swooned over this BN quasi-free thing. I'm not the biggest fan of Maiden Voyage, especially in light of the greatness that is Empyrean Isles.

I forgot about the Wilson! Hopefully, we'll see a decent translation in our lifetimes (alongside the scores of Euro improv books that are as of yet inaccessible to the better part of the American community...) Good music on the ESP box, although it's (from what I can gather) another one of those 'sordid' licenses... Danas... is good on that point. By most accounts, nothing we've got will capture what Ayler was like live--so there's some stuff that's more lauded than others (in terms of recorded output), but, sadly, we'll never get around to seeing the cat blow holes in walls with his horn. And Clem--Nas and Ayler come from and go to very different places, but the Black Revolutionary Continuum is pretty big, no? (and the Olu Dara connection drives it home...) As far as Ayler is concerned--I think the transcendental "quest" thing has a lot more depth given the fact that it's coming out of such dystopic circumstances. The opposite might be Shepp, who is still (dependent on whose words you court) a misanthrope, although not quite down.

Great advice, Ed, but warning about the Copenhagen date--what isn't included on the HB boxed set isn't that much material (just three or so fairly cuts, if I remember correctly). Before HG, the Copenhagen album was one of my favorite dates--and it remains top notch--but the doubling was frustrating (I mean, the Ayler album is still in print).

Wow. Thanks for the heads up, B.

Well, a personal favorite Cherry quartet session of mine (having not gotten to know Hilversum) is Vibrations (also known as Ghosts, with Peacock, Murray in tow). There's an interview somewhere where Ayler says that it was the only time that his group got recorded right (which seems arguable), but, whatever the case, it's one of the bess cross-sections of Ayler's small-group music and compositions that we've got. Cherry just kills it on this one.