ep1str0phy

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).

Can't say that I can (personally) add much to an intensely contentious (if fascinating) debate (and we truly are doing a disservice to Miles by propping him up as a sort of aesthetic straw man--regardless of others' merits--Woody included). And yes--the whole "one man against the canon" thing is admirable, if foolhardy. Nonetheless, it almost seems as if we're losing the original intent of the thread--to psychologize a difficult phenomenon, regardless of personal conception. And seriously, folks: subjective judgments are difficult to challenge, but attempting to foist our dogma upon objective (if unfortunate) phenomena is a fool's errand. We can't actively change the canon--it just is... which isn't to say that there isn't value in information, awareness, etc. Which is why the quote above gets my vote for post of the day. --And I agree on Frank Lowe.

Aren't these fragments? (not my definition.)

I may go Monday.

Thanks. --On "Alive!"--a lot of people might not agree with me, but those bonus tracks are as good as--if not better--than the original album (a little more dimension, balancing out and enhancing the straight-up "funkiness" of the basic cuts). Spring for it if you get the chance. -And yeah, the comp does look sorta fun. It would be nice if more people would acknowledge that Grant Green wasn't two guys ("jazzy" and "funky," so to speak).

It will be a life's goal of mine. Seriously--I don't have a couple of the tracks. I'm not even sure where all of it is from (a few are really obvious--"Let 'Em Roll", "My Point of View", "Love Bug", the "Blue and Sentimental" reissue...) but I'm just blanking on some of it (and I don't have access to all of my collection). I'm actually sort of interested now, actually (maybe I'll do the detective work later).

I'm not positive, but that version of "Hey, Western Union Man" may be one of the bonus tracks included on the latest reissue of "Alive"--so that cut, at least, is from a GG session. I really can't get excited about this, granted (no pun intended) the recent glut of GG comps. Most of this stuff should be easy to find, though (even an OOP album like "Love Bug" pops up in the used bins fairly often). For those among us who have all of the material: anyone willing to assemble the album?

In a certain way, SNL has always been a reactionary cultural power--just tapping into the social consciousness and a preformed sense of "cutting edge." Barrier-breaking, yes--in a comedic sense, and then somewhat contentious. But hardly avant-garde--even in its heyday. Now, it would have been nice to see Sun Ra on broadcast TV some ten or so years earlier... Nice to have the tape around, though (thanks, Dmitry). Still, I'd really flop if someone dug up that Jazz and People's Movement performance of "Haitian Fight Song" (Rahsaan/Shepp/Mingus/Haynes, any more?).

Way Back When is great. That's the one with John Marshall, if I'm not mistaken... a stalwart British jazz-rocker/fusioneer. A fine groover (if I've ever heard one)--his sides with Jack Bruce just knock me out. He provided an excellent foil for Surman in funkier contexts (and Collier, too).

That's the criticism I've heard. I think they're great precisely because they don't go on for too long, granted the fact that they seem more like one-offs or bookends than anything else (and I dig the grooves, so there's no accounting for that...). On the other hand, I think the longer tracks (as you say, the less "fusiony") are among the best Cherry ever put to wax. It's rare that the Cherry of the late-70's (probably his technical apex) assembled fully-realized, self-contained compositions in the world fusion mode, and both "Malkauns" and "Chenrezig" manage to completely integrate composition and improvisation without lapsing into the schizophrenia of long-form suites. For once, Cherry actually manages to stretch his trumpet improvisations into rather extended singular compositions--I mean, barring the two short tracks, Brown Rice is predominantly improv. Cherry never sounded better, and it's remarkable that he was wiling to devote so much time to his trumpet playing at that stage of his career. And the sidemen include Charlie Haden, Billy Higgins, Frank Lowe--geez! To get back on topic, some of Sonny Sharrock's less-aggressive 80's sides veer dangerously close to fusion. "Highlife" is almost a pop album, stylistically all-over-the-map but retaining enough improvisation to remain interesting. "Faith Moves" is probably a better option--a series of overdubbed guitar duets in a spacy, elegiac idiom--not too much for the Methenyite, I'd say. I might include "Guitar," but it's a little further off the map, hewing closer to Sharrock's free jazz origins. Really, Sharrock was "straightest" in the mid-70's, producing relatively drab albums such as "Paradise"--which is an unequivocal fusion album, if I ever heard one (Sonny sounds like a studio musician on those sides, he's that out of place). But his 80's material is definitely something to check out--if you're feeling intrepid.

More frustrating than idiotic, I'd say. But yeah. A lot of John McLaughlin qualifies as fusion, but his earlier (and arguably better) sides are sort of post-bopish. Doesn't matter, though: anyone who does not own Extrapolation needs to but it right now. McLaughlin's also put in some heavier acoustic jazz, as on Jack Bruce's Things We Like (which often veers into fusionish territory). And CT mentioned Don Cherry--I'd like to add Brown Rice to that list, seeing as how it marries certain fusion elements (namely, electric instrumentation) with Cherry's usual bag of free jazz and world music. A classic, IMO.

I don't think I ever really appreciated Milford Graves until I heard this: Bad. Ass. Few drummers can sustain a performance of majesty and magnitude quite like MG. On the matter of drummers: I've also enjoyed the Susie Ibarra I've heard (and it's nice to have a fellow Filipino so prominent in the music). And Tzadik has had a lot to offer in the Radical Jewish Culture Series, including this (seemingly improbable, but actually quite appropriate) nugget by Glenn Spearman: Strangely, much of the album is in a late-60's free jazz mode, although the programmatic content is ostensibly Jewish.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. Originally, it made me want to punch a wall. Then I remembered that I don't give a damn about these lists.

These docs are all part of Comcast's digital "On Demand" service. You select Channel 1 and it takes you to a menu that lets you select whatever you want to watch (from what's available). More specifically, it's listed under "free movies" (you'll probably have to cycle through the options to find it) as "Cecil Taylor."

In reference to CN's question, I'm not sure that the 77 minutes applies to the documentary itself. There are quite a few intro/preview spots which may or may not add to the total time (they are certainly a part of the "total time" as gauged by the Comcast status bar). On the matter of Cecil's "imitatability"--he seems to make extensive use of synthetic scales, none of which appear to be collected for public view (and thus are difficult to access and assimilate in any comprehensible manner--even by those who know and have played Taylor's stuff intimately). And has anyone really adopted Cecil's cell structure strategy?

I always enjoyed that album - it's one the few LPs I pull out with some regularity. I especially enjoy Caiphus Semenya's compositions on it, Larry Willis, but all play in good form, the grooves are nice - and yes, it's inspiring to hear Dudu in that context. Whoa, have the Masekela sides been reissued anywhere? All Dudu is good Dudu, and with Larry Willis? I'm actually sort of embarassed to say that I don't own "Song for Biko," although I've always heard raves. I usually wait for things to show up at a local shop (within a reasonable price range), but I'm really, really tempted to spring for it this time.

Yeah--it's by no means a masterpiece of cinematography. Still, given the scarcity of documentaries of this kind, it's an invaluable document. And I completely agree--the concert scenes were a hoot. It's nice to see Taylor out in the field, just taking up the sounds of his peers (and Bang was smoking).

Sorry, it seems like this is only available to digital cable subscribers (there's an on-demand service). Hopefully, this documentary will at least make it on to DVD--it deserves to be out there, anyhow.

Apologies for the attitude, folks. It frustrates me when even the community can't get involved; documentaries like this have a built in viewer base, and minimizing test audiences definitely misrepresents the marketability of the film. I suppose, then, that this only applies to Comcast subscribers (or maybe just people in the Bay Area). It sucks that so few of us will get to see it here--I don't know how many people will even bother to watch it... for free.