ep1str0phy

I was sort of waiting for this (above)--the rational response to obviously inflammatory statements (that "who is musical genius" thing is thermite--thanks for getting it out of the way, 7/4 ). Cobain's genius is certainly contentious. I don't think that's the only issue involved in the fatuous (really not pointing fingers), confusing overuse of the "genius" nomenclature. It's just that the rationale for labeling is seldom explicit. Cobain's struggles with mental incapacitation, the bullshit millieu of showbiz, and especially his desire to create in spite of circumstances go some way toward explaining why he was an icon among a generation of troubled youth, courageous, fascinating, etc. But none of this--none of it--contributes to a fuller understanding of the man's genius (if it even exists). I'm bothered by the fact that this sort of information is regularly invoked toward validating the "genius" of our musical iconology when--in all seriousness--we often deny (or, more precisely, "gloss over") more concrete (specifically aesthetic) qualities. In other words: biography does not = genius. And--I know this is a tangent--but take it back to the Miles Davis discussion from a week or so ago--there is legitimate virtue in questioning the relevance of sociological/biographical factors to the whole "genius" labeling process. Let's temper the thoughts a bit, folks.

As long as we're name-dropping: Billy Bang. The guy never fails to get a rise outta me (and such passion!). And CT--good call on Samson. I dug the Paris Transatlantic piece on the Slug's sides--they're still some of my favorite music. I was in early High School when I heard Volume 1--my first Ayler. It was the dead of winter... I was on a break, listening to the sonic vestiges of the revolution--heated the place (and my soul) right up. End tangent--like others, I'm ambivalent on Carter. Unaffected, but open to more.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? Who else was in the group?

Jimi Hendrix wasn't a guitarist per se? Per se who? Yeah, I wanna hear the answer to this one. Because Jimi's guitar was continually incorporated into the story-telling aspect of his songs ... the guitar playing served as emphasizers, segues, rhythm and background, etc. underlying the story being primarily being told by his lyrics. It's tough being the front man and the guitarist. How many great rock bands can you name in which the guitar genius was the front man ? What do you mean by "front man"? Are you talking about the vocalist/ringmaster aspect, or simply the center of attention? ...in which case I'd say that Eric Clapton in any number of groups (esp. Cream, although that was a sort of co-op) fits the criteria. The "guitar genius as center of attention" isn't entirely uncommon among groups with a heavily improvisational bent (e.g., the Allman Brothers--and Duane was a point of emphasis, right?).

You know, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I had forgotten just how much the guy had copped Jimi--same mannerisms, similar vocal styles... and then there's that whole splashy, ultra-lush 80's bag. An artist, a great all-'round musician--but man, that cat's vibrato just pisses me off.

Off the top of my head--Joel Dorn didn't want to append every record cover with "produced by Joel Dorn for Joel Dorn Productions" (sounds to egotistical, I guess. Feel free to debate the irony.), so he decided to use "the Masked Anouncer" as a straw man.

Hey--it's far more than can be expected from most musicians.

I'm inspired by how noble and dedicated all this sounds. Kudos (esp. to JSngry and Chuck).

Just, at the very least, disrespectful and in bad taste, which was one of the problems of attitude during the 60's, of the lesser talented Free players. I know the times were different, and Black Nationalism feelings were high and all of that but, this kind of attitude hurt their cause. In the matter of The Freedom Principle, it might be worth noting that John Litweiller has always been a strong advocate of Warne Marsh & Lee Konitz (in the case of Marsh, one of the strongest, actually, him & Larry Kart), so reading that book with the thought that it's focus is race-specific is not accurate. Not saying that anybody has/is/will, just that if you have/are/will, that you shouldn't. It's not about that. Just to throw this in the ring (and not directed toward anyone in particular)--if you want to read a pro-avant book that completely shits on the conventions of the "white" jazz contingency, seek out Frank Kofsky's "Black Nationalism and the Revolution in Music." While it's nice to see a traditional "suit" so thoroughly engrossed in the innovations of an ethnic counterculture, the book is filled with so much condescension and vitriol it's unnerving. I'm trying to piece together a thesis on this stuff, and it's remarkably difficult to build a body of sources when a substantial proportion of scholarship on the "free revolution" is just plain angry (or, even worse--in academic terms--provincial).

Just 'cause this thread is up: I just purchased a copy of Wilber Morris's "Wilber Force"--and it's great. I've found Murray to be astringent in many contexts, although this characteristic has occasionally contributed to--and not diminished--the effectiveness of the group sound (e.g., WSQ). The trio on "Wilber Force," however, sounds warm--really warm--and Murray (especially) plays with such vigor, joy, and depth that it's infectious. I mean, the whole band is on (Dennis Charles is in the drum seat), but Murray really comes off like Frank Lowe Mk.II--deep, subtle, and full of love. High recs on this one--I really need to get more DM.

Good listening, man. Is the album even in print anymore?

I think it's that very severity that allows Curson to fit into so many different contexts. It's a fairly unique niche, especially among the inside/outside crowd--what with caterwauling in the one corner and straight-up scratchiness on the other. I've always enjoyed the fact that Curson straddles the lines, opting for fairly intelligible, full-bodied rigor where most people would just fall into one of the two extremes. The cat's got a sort of seething pathos that distances him from his peers. That's just what I hear, anyway. I've been enjoying his contributions to "The Tenor Stylings of Bill Barron"--there's sort of a Bradford-esque gravitas to his playing (I don't know if it's a sonic thing; I just feel it).

Thursdays are heavy: Wilber Morris: Wilber Force Charlie Parker: Charlie Parker (Verve) Gato Barbieri Quintet: In Search of the Mystery Sidney Bechet: SB 1937-1938 Julian Priester Pepo Mtoto: Love, Love

I found (and purchased) a copy of the Strata-East "Impact" CD (the Charly issue) just this past summer in Greenwich Village. It was the last copy, but I'm sure there are still a few floating around. Still, I'd gladly buy a reissue (assuming it's an improvement). And that's 300. I'm getting there, folks.

I know it's bound to happen sooner or later, but let's have the rest of the Andrew Hill BNs out on CD (just making sure no one forgot). Also--the remainder of the Sam Rivers catalogue. "Natural Essence" is seconded.

Here's hoping that the documentary gets to the right places... Albert's tale must be told! (truth is still marching in).

Me neither! That puts you smack dab in the SF Bay. That's COLD! Man, I needed that right now.

I'm sure Lovano is flexible enough to deal with Green's context (and hey, who wouldn't want to hear a Baker/Wilson/MM&W collaboration--at least for curiosity's sake). Anyway, now that Hill is back on Blue Note, I'd love to see him work with some of the Osby crowd again. Synergy, baby.

Seriously. That's part of the problem in "professional" (or at least pseudo-vocational) music--it's hard to dictate your direction before you know what it is. If I could go back in time, I'd get my 14-year-old self reading George Russell (versus going through the motions with the upteenth shuffle-time blues track). You could say that you have to know where you want to go, but it wasn't until mid-high school that I realized that I wanted to play jazz-based improv at all (that was a great moment). I guess the important thing is how you roll with the punches, remaining flexible, receptive, using your preformed skill set to the best advantage--regardless of what direction you're moving in. Joe Henderson played stripper bars, Ornette did R&B gigs, the SA guys were often well-versed in township music... if it weren't for the fact that so much great music has been born from unique (and sometimes incongruous) circumstances, I'd be angry. As it is, I'm happy just being one of the few guitarists I know with a solid vibrato. So yeah, the 'formal' approach isn't always the best--but reflexivity is a skill unto itself.

Not so, man. I picked up guitar at 12, trained by a blues & rock musician. (Weekly) private instruction lasted well into my last years of high school. The thing is, those last couple of years--very little learning. Chalk half of it up to personal initiative, the other half to incongruous teaching techniques. I had to teach myself the physics of jazz. I just got charts thrown in front of me--I had no idea what to play. It gives me panic attacks up to the present day--I didn't learn the whole chord=scale paradigm until college. Granted such poor formal instruction in jazz-based improv, it's a miracle I can play this stuff at all. It's not the teacher that matters--it's the right reacher. It paid off in the way of blues/rock playing, though--I can still do a mean Cream-era Clapton.

The capacity to communicate with the public is certainly a helpful attribute in the way of both success and stardom--but it is hardly a prerequisite for iconic status. I knew enough kids growing up in the 90's who connected with Pearl Jam on a far more visceral level (don't laugh) than with Nirvana. It's phenomenally difficult to gauge one's ability to "communicate" with the masses when 1) there's no way to objectively measure that stuff and 2) posthumous stardom and/or the canon and/or public hype constantly interfere with the clear representation of an individual's talents. I mean, death is as concrete a catalyst for iconography as something so nebulous as the "capacity to communicate." The connection is tenuous--anyone try spelling it out. Are we quantifying one's communicative powers? Again, let's see some numbers--I want to know that Cobain's voice is more scientifically "communicative" than Vedder's--especially when I never felt Nirvana like I do, say, the Pixies. And they only got really mainstream "famous" as of late. I mean, that's the point of this thread, right? If we have guys who are more "talented" (e.g., Woody) or communicate with us more profoundly (e.g., in johnagrandy's case, Woody) why the hell is Miles an icon? And the Pumpkins were a straw man act for Corgan. Among the reasons the Pumpkins went under: clashing attitudes and egos, creative slumming. If Pearl Jam had done Budweiser commercials, I still doubt that they'd be as bad off as the Pumpkins are now.

Interesting. I grew up in (probably) Oakland's worst neighborhood and went to (almost certainly) its roughest high school. I've never for a minute felt unsafe or threatened. And Jack London Square.....? No, Jack London is pretty safe... it's just the outskirts that are dangerous (I mean, move some blocks in either direction). Maybe I've just been incredibly unlucky, but one thing is for sure: you've gotta watch your back at nights. Almost everything is fairly safe during the day, but most concerts start past sundown... as for your case--well, I'm from LA. I'm sure you're far more acclimated to the atmosphere here, but travellers have a more difficult time playing the part (or getting around, for that matter). Just like anywhere else, foreigners can be easy prey (talk to my dad--immigrated from the Philippines in the late 70's, spent about 8 years alone in downtown LA... he's had to deal with some bad shit).

SPRING FOR THE CAB. I cannot even begin to stress how unsafe the Oakland area is. Embarcadero is just moderately safer than the 'hoods (it doesn't hurt that there's a police station in the area). Yoshi's is a pretty haute establishment, but man--I mean, I almost got mugged a couple of days ago (somewhere near MacArthur). I got lucky and was able to talk myself out of it--but man, the beter part of Oakland is not a place to hang.

Point taken in the way of "names" on Woody recordings (although it should be stressed that some of the aforementioned personnel were broken up into smaller combos on some of the albums, as I'm sure you're aware). At the same time, Miles's most successful groups have very often been touring bands--well-honed, road-worn combos that lasted for years (or at least longer than a recording session or two)... the Jackie McLean groups, 1st great quintet, quintet + Cannonball, second great quintet, the Shorter/Corea/Holland/DeJohnette band, numerous electric combos of variable personnel... Woody's bands are nothing to scoff at, but he certainly had far fewer canonically "great" studio or (especially) touring units than Miles did. Woody's combos never wholly relied on his solo chops, but Woody the technician was probably more integral a component of the great Shaw bands than Miles the improviser was in any of his (check out the 70's electric combos). Again, Woody was a phenomenal musician and bandleader; Miles, however, is renowned in certain circles for his bandleading skills alone... even among those who aren't particularly fond of his trumpet stylings (which is indeed a unique role among great jazz figures, notwithstanding a couple of significant faces--e.g., Hemphill very, very late on).

No, point taken. Personal opinion on the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of a particular artist (whether it be Ware or Shaw or whatever) isn't going to answer the initial question posed by this thread. I think it's fairly obvious that the members of this board don't speak for the better portion of the record buying public (let alone its specific sins/mindless apotheosizing).