ep1str0phy

No joke. The undergraduate music deparment presently has only two improvisation-oriented classes (neither is a history class), only one of which is a jazz course. This is due to expand in the coming year (Myra Melford just got approved to teach full time), but I'd be surprised to see a history course in the works. It irritated me to no end back when I was trying to get an interdisciplinary major together. It's been in the course listing for ages, but nothing comes up. The graduate program (ethnomusicology) is also relatively spartan.

I sat in on a UCLA introductory jazz history course with Gerald Wilson a while back (concentration was pre-bebop--mainly a primer for some stuff that had been slipping past me). Wilson was congenial, nurturing, and thorough--without coming across as didactic. As far as I'm concerned, it was his personality that put him across--a spirit that had lived/is living with the music, tempered in mind but high in spirits. Unfortunately, the brevity of the course (it was a summer session) prevented one from taking too much away from it--things just whizzed pass, some skipped over. Regardless, it was a joy watching the professor 'phantom' cue his old orchestrations, spinning interesting (if tangential) yarns about some of his old running partners. I talked to him before class on quite a few occasions--real kind, with a regard for the avant cats. My favorite moment: talking to him about Eric Dolphy. On the never-assembled Ayler/Cherry/Dolphy/Peacock/Murray quintet: "That would've been a tough band." Compare this to Berkeley, where there hasn't been a real jazz history course for years.

I'm a fan of Ming--more so for what it is than what it promises. There's no doubt that this crowd could produce one hell of an avant blowout; what we get, instead, is a well-arranged, temperate set of free jazz-inflected post-bop. As beautiful as Ming is, I have to wonder what a riskier direction would have produced--and with these cats... it's nice to see so many adventurous faces excelling in this context, though. Great compositions and some phenomenal blowing over a set of choice charts... nothing that'll blow my mind, but I'll take it over a good 99% of whatever's eating up the bins these days. On Wynton--could it really be done? And--even then--would it matter when we have so many forward-looking improvisers--hell, trumpet players--so well versed in the entire history of the music? WM would be a virtual nonentity in a scene comprised of Lester Bowie, Olu Dara, Raphe Malik, etc. This is a music of ideas as well as chops; last time I checked, Wynton was severely lacking in the former. It's truly fantastical to imagine that WM could stake an interesting, unique claim in the David Murray world where he hasn't even succeeded in so much in his fairly parochial, backasswards, real-world musical sphere. We shouldn't give Wynton too much credit either way; the conservative revolution would've happened without him--not in the same form, perhaps, but damn if it wasn't the 80's and damn if the powers-that-be wouldn't have thrown everything into reverse sooner or later. Like a lot of icons, he's 99% hype, 1% chops--and the cat has killer chops. Thanks for getting me to pull out Ming again, by the way.

Man, I wish I had the discipline to do that... Frankly, I don't think I've (in any salient way) absorbed a good 90 or so percent of my music collection. Sometimes the connection is immediate and powerful, sometimes it just doesn't come. If something doesn't work, I just move on (usually buying stuff along the way)... 'Bitches Brew' collected dust for years before I finally worked up the nerve to tackle it. Conversely: Andrew Hill's 'Point of Departure' had me at second number three. At the same time, some great albums just take a really, really long time to settle in--and that's part of the thrill, really... 'getting to know' some of this stuff (the Cellar Door material included) can be a lifelong endeavor.

Rigg, Diana Lee Morgan Field, Morton Benny Morton Adams, Pepper Yerbuti, Sheik Scott Yanow Leroi Jones Stanley Crouch

I'll voice the minority opinion and express my unyielding devotion to Trompe Le Monde and Bossanova. That latter set is straight-up hard-noir post-punk. It's like doomsurf.

Random fit of paranoia: I've been somewhat frightened of chimps since that guy got his testicles ripped off a year or so ago. When threatened, they (adult chimps) can be dangerous, dangerous creatures. I'm fine with clowns, vampires, shriners, and dentists, but God help me when it comes to lovable primates.

Happy birthday and get better soon, JG.

I don't have my copy handy, but it's definitely one of my favorites. A terrific advanced hard-bop/post-boppish outing with a five-star band... great compositions, great improvising. And... this album boasts some of the most propulsive rhythm work in this style. Elvin is a monster on this--just ballistic (on the level of his best non-Coltrane sideman work, like Judgment). And then there's Jimmy Woods--a forceful, emotionally charged player who walked the line between bluesy, Ornettish sonorities and less oblique hard-bop saxisms. His other album--Awakening!--is a joy... not as powerhouse, but a lot of soul. Both of his albums are more than worth checking out.

Sean Connery Peter Sellers Mr. Bean

Threadgill's material is a little more difficult to apprehend than the majority of elder statesmen in the avant-garde. He's very much created his own sonic realm, innovating in the large group area where some of the most forward looking of his peers stuck/stick to more conventional jazz combo formats. If Air was the apotheosis of the small-group pianoless context, than Threadgill's larger bands have set a standard in the way of organizing less traditional instrumentation. We all know the cat can play, compose, and groove. Not just that, though--the cat can lead, and he can orchestrate. I haven't always been bowled over by his material, but I have to respect the craftsmanship and ingenuity of his enterprises. He holds a special place in my heart for learning how to make constructive use of the electric guitar. As far as albums are concerned... he hasn't done too much sideman work, no? Where he's popped up, he's been an asset. Mr. Nessa mentioned the Muhal album--which is great for the piano solo alone, btw--but any chance to hear Henry in a more typical AACM-ish format is a plus. Also--I wasn't reall hip to it until recently, but he does some fine work on David Murray's Ming (one of those perpetual top-10 of the 80s albums that, for whatever reason, never really gets talked about). The solo album that pops up (in my mind) right now is Spirt of Nuff...Nuff on Black Saint. It's Very Very Circus: Henry, trombone, two tubas, two guitars, and drums. There's some terrific ensemble work here, wonderfully oblique coloration with the characteristic Threadgill vibe--dark, funky, and strangely comical. The only thing that sort of detracts from the proceedings is the consistent density of the sound--the bottom frequencies are just hard core--but the spirit keeps things buoyant. Nice call with the thread, btw.

Another post in the label thread that refuses to die: I just (as in less than an hour ago) picked up a copy of Anthony Braxton: Four Compositions (Quartet) 1983. I'm enjoying it quite a bit. This is the acid, erudite, cryptic Braxton that will always confound the lay critic (I particularly enjoy Nathan Bush's bewildered musings on AMG)--a few smatterings of true melee, but the atmosphere is generally brainy, strange (in the best sense of the word). Which is not to say that there isn't the right measure of explosiveness... Everything is astonishingly calculated, but consistently 'out'; there's a tremendous amount of thematic/motivic continuity amidst all the emotional schizophrenia (and a lot of beauty, if you're willing to look for it). It's recordings like this that remind me just how wide the BS/SN oeuvre is.

Bronson Pinchot Charles Bronson Branson, MO Mo Cheeks Vincent the Chin Charlie Chan Duke Jordan McCoy Tyner Earl Hines Father Flannery Papa John Creach Sister Sledge Sister Sadie Psychedelic Sally Misty

Hope you dig it (well, I've done my seize-the-day proselytizing for the day... thank you, Kurosawa). Again--it's a nice middle-ground between Tchicai's more beat-laden efforts and the freebopish stuff of old (e.g., NYC5). It reminds me of the SteepleChases, sort of (same sort of feel, but warmer).

Sunny Murray: Perles Noires vol. I Abdullah Ibrahim: Water from an Ancient Well Anthony Braxton: Trio and Duet

Bronson Pinchot Charles Bronson Branson, MO Mo Cheeks Vincent the Chin Charlie Chan Duke Jordan McCoy Tyner Earl Hines

Timo's Message is a classic addition to the John Tchicai discography. Very rhythm-heavy (in typical Tchicai style), but always sensitive, always honest. Inside/outside, but listenable for all parties. A favorite.

This is my probably my favorite ECM disc. The first track with these african funeral wailings by femail singers interweaving with equally sorrowful tenor and trumpet moans are mesmerizing. I'm glad someone else appreciates this one--that title track and 'Darafo' (the twenty-plus minute closing blowout) are really extraordinary. Not to say that the other material is middling--because it's all pretty thematically coherent--but this is the sort of group that just thrives on cutting loose. The only other large group I've heard with this much energy and groove in the studio is the Brotherhood of Breath--and this could easily stand up against some of the best South African stuff. This one really, really deserves wider release.

Man, when Jack reaches those high notes on the 'Escalator...' version, I just go nuts. When that cat was younger, he had the baddest pseudo-operatic rock voice ever. 'Darn-It' is ridiculously inconsistent, I'd say--in line with a lot of the HAnrahan catalogue--but there are a number of nice bits. I enjoy the Michael Snow pieces, the Rudd, Tchicai/Cyrille, and a few of the groove passages--nice as a comp, but thematically impenetrable (and I'd give a buck to anyone who thinks he/she really 'gets' the whole Paul Haines thing).

Don't want to derail anything, but this probably can't go unchallenged... Different strokes etc., but if anyone is left unmoved by e.g. 'Requiem', then my first reaction would be to take a pulse. Another comment at the risk of a derailment: John Butcher is another saxophonist with a professed admiration for a couple of gospel horn players (names escape me just now). Back to Ayler! Different strokes-- No accounting for taste--and, at this point, there's no point defending Tristano from anything other than a musicological/innovatory standpoint. Those early 'free' sides were, in principle, every bit as severe a rhythmic/harmonic 'break' as the avant-garde clique--more unprecedented, perhaps, in relation to the music of Tristano's peers (Third Stream notwithstanding). (I'd say that the relaxed, if not unambitious melodic and timbral character of the Tristano sides is the far less innovatory element of the 'free' material). The New Thing posed a more logical progression from the technical extremes of the post-boppers and the already folksish, 'groovy', blues-based strains of hard bop. Regardless of what you think about those Tristano sides, they're an interesting enough study in the influence of musical opportunity and circumstances. As for Ayler--beyond the present discussion, I just like the notion of Ayler as 'born again' saxophonist--'re-sanctified' by the church of Coltrane. Without getting too oblique and fetishistic, that's an awfully powerful iconic image.

Point taken, MG. The semantics are flimsy, which is sort of the whole point. By 'purely musical innovation,' I refer to that element of the evolutionary enterprise that seeks and reacts to more explicitly musical factors--e.g., tenets of 'proper' intonation in pre-free, post-swing jazz. Which is not to say that these factors cannot be influenced by social happenings--e.g., Civil Rights and Black Nationalism(and they often are). Coltrane reacting as consumer of social circumstances forces 'Coltrane the creator' to break these 'purely' musical tenets. Whether or not the term 'pure' belongs, the distinction--in theory, if not in practice--persists. It's a sloppy dichotomy that nonetheless provides the fulcrum (if not in the same wording) of much scholarship on the post-bop/free generation (from Kofsky to Jost). I'm not entirely happy with this conception (either), but it seems to be the brunt of the discourse. In any case, I do insist that (however we split it) one cannot ignore one or the other. A comprehensive examination of the Coltrane lexicon reaches a brick wall once we abstract the either the social or the musical--this is part of the problem with a lot of jazz criticism (especially of the free era)... some folks (still) insist that these 'purely musical' or 'purely social' innovation schemes exist independent of one another--or, worse still, one without the other. It confuzing. I think you've indirectly posed the same dichotomy, although far neater--you've already implied the musical-social (integrated) relationship. This is, intellectually, a step toward how discourse (I posit) should go about. As per the 'great innovators' idea--in total agreement, inasfar as being 'too far ahead' of the social environment often leads to early death (aesthetic or physical, I guess). Whether or not the commensurability of the endeavor renders one 'great' or not, it is, apparently, a major determinant of whether or not innovations are adopted--precisely why the Lennie Tristano stuff made a blip, Ornette a boom. But was Tristano a 'not-great' innovator simply because his color, environs (etc.) did not play into the revolutionary morass of the free generation? A lot of that material was arguably more strident than the bulk of the Atlantic Coleman work, and we recognize it today (alongside the early Cecil Taylor sides, which were similarly blip-like--at least early on). We're indirectly validating the musical v. social discussion: on a 'purely musical' level, Tristano was arguably as exciting. Is timing/circumstance what separates the 'greats' from the rest? Maybe? I ask this because it plays into the former discussion; Tristano's revolution was what--as per the vernacular--one might call 'purely musical', whereas Ornette, Coltrane, Ayler and the brothers had the benefit of social synergy. We have to examine both these sides--the musical and the social, together--in order to come to terms with the canon.

Holy shit --I'd never thought of that before. That just makes so much sense.

Wayne Bargeron Hubbard, L. Ron Bard, William Shakespeare Stephen Fry John Cleese Hugh Grant

Excellent input all 'round, guys. I think the R&B/barwalker/gospel lexicon is particularly interesting, however--mainly because its role can take on a variety of interpretations. I particularly dig the comments here: "But, of course, the new music was based on completely different assumptions from that of the old R&B honkers. The real achievement of Coltrane and the others was the creation of those new underlying assumptions." It may be--and sometimes is--argued that much of the early-avant mentality stemmed from a self-conscious co-optation of these (directly prior to the Trane era, at least) musically 'base' variables--musical reposession through the exigencies of an entirely different cultural milieu. The issue is, we've got to square this with the concept of purely musical innovation. It's particuarly interesting in the case of the less explicitly political (although not apolitical) avant adherents--Ornette, for example--who, as numerous interviews attest, identified 'musical' freedom as an ultimate goal. Kofsky might construe this as fear-based equivocation--the whole "if they didn't need to work, they'd get more pissed" thing--but, at least in Ornette's case, the concern with purely musical emancipation--as the predominant element, if not singular goal--seems more difficult to misconstrue. Ornette, at times, seems more bent on assailing a European musical power structure than any dominant political force. Here, the revolution isn't in what he's doing--rather, it's in that he's doing it. This is partly what the Kofsky analysis--and I'd be shocked to find anyone on this board it hasn't frustrated, at least in part--fails to do--that is, parse out and validate the purely musical element of these extended devices. Which is not to say that socio-cultural factors aren't or weren't the major force in the adoption of these techniques. Rather, in the broader analysis, purely socio-cultural argumentation can do a serious disservice to the practices of a musical movement--at worst, it's a total cop-out (a venue for hatred, if we're talking about the the racist/anti-revolutionary intelligentsia). Moreover, a lot of the social/political force behind the New Thing stems from, as with Ornette, the practice of musical revolution (and not the content itself)--and that's something that all people can admire, regardless of affiliation. Didn't Don Byas say something to the effect of "I've always wanted to play like that"... with reference to Albert Ayler? And that guy lived though bebop. (Without further confounding my thread topic) Personally, I feel as if we need more socio-cultural analysis of these variables--tempered analysis, mindful of the musical schema we've been tracing here. In abstracting and dividing the two, a lot of shit gets left in the dust.

Not an especially thought-provoking topic, although this has been weighing on my mind lately: Been slogging through the Kofsky book ('Black Nationalism and the Revolution in Music')--for thesis writing, no less. Irregardless of the author's slanted, misanthropic, and often bewildering opinions, there's a lot of factual material to deal with. One passage (with reference to Trane): "Many of the devices that we associate with him were in fact initially introduced by other musicians: in the case of utilizing mid-Eastern modes, Yusef Lateef; in the case of playing harmonics on the saxophone, a still-anonymous Philadelphia musician." (Kofsky 174) First question (someone has to know): where--cause I can't recall--is it stated that Coltrane developed his harmonics technique from an 'anonymous' Philadelphia musician? An interview, perhaps? More generally: the origins of Coltrane's extended techniques/musical vocabulary are sometimes explicit, often obscure. The same might be said of much of the vernacular of the New Thing in general, occasionally regarded as unprecedented and uncalculated/random. Most folks on this board, I assume, are versed in the history of these techniques--extending as far back, further back than delta bluesmen and barwalkers. No point to be made, exactly--just looking for people to share anecdotes/ideas regarding the provenance of these musical devices.