ep1str0phy

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.

Al Cohn Curtis, King Curtis Mayfield Jeff Goldblum Ron Silver Jeremy Irons

It's been freakishly awful in Berkeley for weeks, but we're finally getting some sun. I still miss Southern California, though (if not the SF Valley music scene, mind you).

I just got this today--a splendid little obscurity: Bengt Berger: Bitter Funeral Beer Band (w/Don Cherry) This is early-ish world music in an explicitly jazz-oriented mold--fine blowing all around and some fine, fine grooves.

Hal Overton Fletcher Henderson Sun Ra John Gilmore Gary Gilmore Godfrey, Gilbert Melissa Gilbert Tim Daly Arleen Sorkin

Frankly, it just popped out at me this morning. I didn't get a copy of 'Pharoah's First' until just recently--let it be said that, even if the general confusion regarding this music is warranted (and I think it is), it's a lot more than a curiosity. I can't easily dismiss the (ostensible) foundations of a major, major wing of avant jazz (and, for that matter, the ensuing trip-hop/acid-jazz debacle). Listening to 'Seven By Seven'--and even 'Bethera'--again, the harmonies are all there... but the context isn't. I actually prefer Frank Lowe's version on 'Lowe-down and Blue'--but just because, after all this time, someone finally cut a version that knew what to do with the melody.

It's un-freaking-believable. Oh, go ahead and say it -- cuz it's true -- that Jimmy Woods date is un-fucking believable. Seriously, one of THE best dates I've bought in the last three years or so. 5-stars, with a money-back guarentee. Not to denigrate Jimmy's (family-oriented?) grounds for 'retirement,' but that album--more than anything else--should have established him as a force to be reckoned with. Not that he was ever a powerhouse on the level of, say, Eric Dolphy, but he had a charm all his own--and he could certainly hold court with your Elvin Joneses, Andrew Hills, etc. Jimmy was a consummate inside/outside mind with a very warm sense of musicality... now, I'll be the one to ask: what the hell happened to this legend-in-the-making?

Hal Overton Fletcher Henderson Sun Ra

The 'Peace' name may represent my favorite series of common-title compositions in the music (an esoteric honor, I know). Ornette's tune may have gotten me into the music. Kudos.

It's the name of a vocalist that appears on a number of progressive jazz sessions (an Impulse! Shepp side and Rashied Ali's blues album come to mind). I'm assuming that, here, it refers to Tina (although I could be wrong)--another variation on 'True Blue,' maybe?

Judd Nelson (and I pity any man who can connect Stack to Nelson) Dave Foley John O'Hurley

That is an awesome shot. Welcome, new wallpaper.

I'm definitely of the mind that the CIMPs are inconsistent, but I'd like to think that I've come to terms with the 'boringness' once or twice. I don't think you can look for anything prime-Rudd--or, especially, Herbie--caliber in the 'Unheard' sessions--but they're pleasant enough, just to get you through a cold afternoon (I didn't try too hard/expect too much, so I'm certainly not disappointed). But--even for my favorite CIMPs--the 'trial' notion is in full effect. It's that very sense of frustration that makes me love the Frank Lowes so much (especially where the chops are shot). But yeah, CIMP has yet to score an unqualified 'victory' with me--I've just stopped waiting for one (and live more easily, as you seem to have long ago discovered).

That's precisely the impression that I've been getting. I've been listening to 'Memory/Vision' a lot recently, and it's struck me just how supremely mellow the whole affair is. I'll just assume from your dialogue that the ECM material wasn't so much ECM-ized as 'built' for the ECM sound--that sort of anesthetized vibe that makes for good, soothing, if not exactly blood-boiling listening. '50th Birthday Concert' has been getting even more spins around my apartment--and it's remarkable that the second trio is a part of the EAE--moreover, that Evan Parker was part of the Incus tribe, or even a ringer member of the BoB. Not saying that any one musician should get stuck in the same (lifelong) groove--it's just that I can hear certain possibilities, and they don't always come to fruition.

The way I hear the ESP, Pharoah is trying to split the difference between harmolodic freebop and more conventional post-bop. It's especially evident on 'Seven By Seven,' where Pharoah just throws the ball out the window--Marvin and Bennett follow him straight to the end. Getz sounds like an innocent bystander in the more far-flung sections, and Foster does his best to stay with the groove (sounds sorta like a weaker-toned Bill Dixon to me). I don't think Pharoah was ever ready to abandon the piano--ala Ornette, Shorter, Cherry, etc.--although he stopped short at full-on Cecil Taylor/early-Don Pullen freedom. It's a sort of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too thing; there will be problems melding a Getz-styled piano player with an essentially anti-piano approach (and it took years for Ornette to re-rationalize the piano into his ensembles). I think the Coltrane ensembles were invaluable toward solidifying Pharoah's conception--offering a 'different' sort of free approach, one where the piano is indivisible from the group dynamic. Sanders always had it in him, but--prior to the Coltrane Quintet--I just get the feeling that he was leaning to the 'wrong' side of the evolutionary fork (Ornette v. 'Trane).

It's un-freaking-believable. 'Homage' is also a favorite.

No tunes, but (from Herbie Nichols: The Unpublished Works, 27 Jazz Masterpieces): "In the fall of 1960, when Herbie first started teaching me some of his tunes, my cousin Charlie Keil, then a senior at Yale University, asked me to round up a couple of other players and join him for an evening of jamming in the Pierson College dining hall. I wanted the best, and so I invited Herbie and Tina Brooks to go along. We picked Tina up at the designated spot. These were especially hard times for Tina; he was run-down and he didn't even have his horn. When Herbie saw this, he gave me his I-could-have-told-you-so look follwed by his famous interjection for all occasions, his self-styled half-laugh/half-cry sound (hereater referred to as The Sound), thought for a moment, then just started giving out driving directions. An hour later we found ourselves somewhere in the deep Bronx. Herbie got out and disappeared into a building, reappeared after what seemed an eternity carrying a tenor saxophone. And we went on up to New Haven without a word, save for an occasional reprise of The Sound. It was great to hear Herbie on a good piano for a change and playing with Tina, who, despite the shape he was in, could really give Herbie a run for his money, harmonically speaking..." -Roswell Rudd He also mentions a benefit concert for the NAACP--Herbie played Change of Seasion and The Happenings with 'Royal Blue' on sax, Steve Swallow on bass, Billy Higgins on drums, and Rudd. What a band!

Honestly, thanks for that. More to the music--Evan Parker's back catalogue is a little dense, although I have been a little more on point as of late--starting to fill in the holes. I've seen very little cogent critical analysis of Parker's EA work; I'd be interested in hearing some opinions.

Yes! And if you want to daydream (tangentially): Eric Dolphy with Monk. Just to hear the madness unfold.

B.B. King Muddy Waters Blind Lemon Jefferson Blind Willie Johnson Lennie Tristano Rahsaan Roland Kirk