A Lark Ascending

I always liked Robert Fripp. In the midst of playing something totally wild he: a) Sat down b) Looked like he was trying to puzzle out something in Plato Though he appears to have been mildly moved here:

Surely he can't beat Alvin Lee on the Woodstock film. Once described as looking like someone having his genitals extracted with a chainsaw.

Phil Robson Phil Lee John Parricelli Mike Walker Colin Oxley

I wonder if there'll be internet forums where people complain about the dumbing down of music and worry over why young people don't listen to hip-hop any more.

http://www.swedejazz.se/links.html#3 Fascination with jazz of one anothers' neighbours is arguably the story of contemporary jazz in Europe. Here was the line-up of one weekend jazz festival in the UK during 2004: Stacey Kent and her Musicians (US + UK) Esbjörn Svensson Trio (Sweden) Stimmhorn (Switzerland) John Law’s European Quartet ‘In Extremis’John Rae's (England/France) Celtic Feet / Hungarian Collaboration (Scotland/Hungary) Ballamy/Carstensen Duo (England/Norway) Louis Sclavis -’Napoli’s Walls’ (France) Gianluigi Trovesi / Gianni Coscia Duo (Italy) Brian Kellock (Scotland) Système D (Netherlands/Senegal) Soweto Kinch Group (England) Amsterdam String Trio (Netherlands) Mirabassi/Biondini Duo (Italy) Renaud Garcia Fons Quintet (France/Spain) Courtney Pine Band (England) The Uk audience was very much into this music.

That's just the Scots! The diet of colonials who have learned their place...unlike some I might mention!

That's rich coming from the land of the quarterpounder, the big Mac and the Supersize Me! [Also just kidding!]

That proposal helps explain why so many impenetrable books get published. The poor chap is having to write in academic-speak to get the attention of the academic publishers. The quote by couw shows the sort of humour that, if used, would make the book an interesting read. There are many good books on European jazz just waiting to be written...I doubt if one book could encompass its breadth and different tributaries, without oversimplifying. But a straight narrative of how jazz developed in Europe from its beginnings to the present, unsullied by grandiose theories, would be most welcome. I suspect Stuart Nicholson will probably be very quick off the mark with one; unfortunate in that he has a bee in his bonnet. We're bound to get the facts-arranged-to-fit-a-theory type book referred to above. As a sideline the BBC will be showing a three part documentary on the history of British jazz at the start of February. There will be a bit of a hulabaloo surrounding it including special concerts at the Barbican. Details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...tish.shtml#jazz Only a sliver of the European picture, but interesting nonetheless. I wonder if there'll be an accompanying book?

I can see that by reading this book I'm finally going to understand Garbarek!!!!

Speaking as a card-carrying non-intellectual I can vouch for a suspicion of intellectualism well beyond the USA (in the UK intellectualism is perceived is rather too French to be of any value [one of those smiley's denoting an ironic comment rather than a comment expected to be taken at face value!]). So much intellectualism is so joyless. Those who perceive themselves as intellectuals seem to delight in what they dislike, the limits of their taste, their distance from the public at large. Most people (and I think I can generalise in this instance) enjoy music on an emotional level. Many also enjoy it on an intellectual level; or use their intellect to unpick music that interests them but does not immediately connect emotionally. It comes as a real irritation to see music that has connected with you in a genuine, honest, emotional way belittled by a self-proclaimed 'intellectual'. Critics/writers/commentators or whatever you want to call them who can communicate the joy of listening to music get all my gratitude. They enthuse me. Those who can illuminate it through work, research, study put at the service of the music, the musicians, the listeners are to be as valued as any other contributers to society. Those 'intellectuals' who sit on the sidelines picking fault, preening themselves with regard to their discrimination, stewing in their own perceived superiority deserve nothing but ridicule. I suspect the age of the self-contained 'intellectual' was left behind in the last century. [Apologies for my inability to name drop leading 'intellectuals']

I like to read how others react to music. It is interesting in itself; but it can also suggest other things to focus on which can, sometimes, lead you into music you don't get. I find some writers worth reading because they have a musical (or musical -historical) knowledge that can explain things that I don't understand. What I don't care for are the writers who assume they have the complete picture of what music should be and then pronounce, without humility, without recognition that they are only seeing part of the picture; or those who take an intellectual dislike to a particular style of music and use reviews to grumble about that dislike. Above all I have no time at all for the writer who, rather than trying to explain what the musicians are doing, attempts to project his/her obsessions onto the music. Alarm bells start sounding the moment grandiloquent social or 'spiritual' theories start being expounded. Do we need critics? Probably not. But I think we need people to write about their reactions to music, just as long its the music they're writing about and ever mindful that, however much music they might have listened to, they are only seeing things from one particular viewpoint.

Come and play in Worksop once a week. I'll turn out!

Baile = Bal-yeh Atha= Awe-hah Cliath= Clee-ah The New Year greating is pronounced: "Athbhliain faoi Mhaise Daoibh" (AH vlee-ihn fwee WAH-shuh Heev) (I don't know a word of Gaelic myself...but it's a beautiful language to hear sung).

Yup! Amazing what you can find on a search engine.

Athbhliain faoi Mhaise Daoibh

Old wounds?

Interesting. To my ears, that's the weak point of Metropolis. The 'jazz-rock' bits. Listen to Love Dream Variations from 1976 and that has all gone! The odd thing is that it's those 'jazz-rock' moments on the early 70s Westbrook's and nearly all of Nucleus that I hear as 'stiff'. The same think happens on Keith Tippett's Centipede's 'Septober Energy' - most of it is very freewheeling but at two points the obligatory (for the early 70s) 'jazz-rock' kicks in. Far less interesting to my ears. I can never really warm to Bill Bruford's recent 'jazz' recordings for the same reason. All enjoyable enough, with their moments. But the drumming is still very 'rock'. I like it all much looser.

On the standards issue... I'm currently in the middle of a book made up of interviews of young-ish UK jazz players. A common theme is how at festivals and in London they see younger faces in the audience; but their bread and butter is often made up of touring jazz clubs in the country where they face a sea of middle-aged and older faces. Such places expect standards; mention of an original gets grimaces! And yet... When playing to a younger audience the standards have little meaning. Play a Radiohead or Bjork tune and then you get a point of contact. So the idea of two standards per album might well work for an established jazz fan but its no guarantee of connection with younger listeners; might even run the risk of labelling the music old fogeyish. I like hearing new takes on standards but only if the musicians really want to do it. The presence of a standard on a disc has zero influence on my listening to it. I've shelves of CDs with marvellous standard interpretations from a century of jazz. As a rule I'd prefer to hear original compositions on newer discs.

It's the usual different ears stuff. I have a hard time with Nucleus. Always sounds like a jazz group with a glued on rock section. I thought that at the time (didn't have any of their records but I saw them once), listened to none of it for 30 years, and then bought some of the reissues. It still sounded awkward! Whereas the Soft Machine still sound totally fresh to me in their Third to Sixth phase. I really like Ratledge's sound. I suspect alot of this is a case of 'you had to be there at the time!' My judgement of the Soft Machine is heavily clouded by how evocative their sound is of a formative time in my life. I think you have to treat 1 and 2 as almost by a different band - a song-based rock band. From Third onwards they became something else (and after Seven something else again which I don't care for). I prefer Greek Variations to 'Kaleidoscope of Rainbows'; once again its the heavy rock beat that takes away a little of the enjoyment for me. Good record though. Solid Gold Cadillac is unrepresentative of Westbrook. He loses the 'rock' thing completely after Citadel/Room (mid-70s). **************** One problem of perception here might be in that term 'funky'. If you are looking for 'funky' in UK jazz you are generally going to be disappointed. White Brits doing 'funky' can be pretty embarrassing. Its quite interesting. I heard this stuff before I heard American 'fusion'. I care little for most of that, largely because of its tendency to need to 'get down'. I suspect both types of music require a distinct realigning of ears to really warm to.

Leaving aside the one person's bad composer is another person's genius argument... I'm happy to see a lot of music put out and be left with the responsibility of deciding for myself what I do and do not value; far better than having a much sharper winnowing system that is as likely to exclude much that is excellent alongside much that is of doubtful value. We may wonder why certain music ever got to the recording studio, let alone release; but its more disturbing to think of the wonders that never made it in more frugal times.

I can't see it as a problem, unless you're afraid you'll miss something significant. I have a batch of musicians whose music I've come to know and so will try to follow up on their releases; other things I buy as a result of a concert or radio performance; sometimes I like the sound of something from a review in a magazine or something I read in a book. Despite spending way too much on recordings I'm sure I only scrape the surface of what is available. But I'm more than happy with the current deluge that keeps me awash in a warm bath of wonderful music. I'm sure it must be very hard for anyone approaching music from an academic standpoint, trying to make sense of it all. But, perhaps, in the same way that jazz itself has fragmented stylistically over the years, I suspect the jazz marketplace has also fragmented. The greater ease of recording and putting out CDs has enabled whole areas of the music that would have found it impossible to get a deal actually being able to promote itself. Much of my jazz buying is of British bands on tiny labels or self-produced recordings acquired as a result of concert going. I'm very grateful this music is getting released so I can enjoy it beyond a single concert appearance. The days when there were a limited number of recordings available (on a few big labels and a few smaller, specialist labels) might have made it easier to construct some sort of narrative of what seemed to be happening overall. But I'm more than happy with the massive current output that thrives on a more dispersed and often localised jazz world.

I'm not that up on organ records. I like this one: Would that fit the oft used definition on this board 'greasy'?

The Impressed Repressed series of 60s UK jazz. And the Carr-Rendell reissues on BGO. The (jazz) world looks different from this side of the pond! (Actually, it looks different from this side of the Channel!)

The similarity I mention is merely between 'Open to Love' and 'Facing You'. Maybe its just because the solo tunes on the latter are short!!!!

If you like 'Facing You' you'll definately enjoy 'Open to Love'.