A Lark Ascending

I took a lifetimes dislike of Alfred Brendel about 20 years back when reading an interview where he said he only studied and played about six composers - Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Lizst and a couple of other because they say everything that needs to be said. How imperious! I know people who always go on holiday to the same place. No problem with that. They know it intimately, get to know the local people and ways. I'm more of one to go somewhere completely different every year. I'm like that with music. I have my musical home...artists, genres that I love deeply and have listened to for years. But I need my regular expeditions into other climes to keep my ears fresh (currently Scandanavian folk music).

I think I agree with JSngry. The way I'd put it is that there is 'The Blues' as in the musical form; and there is 'The Blues' meaning a depth of feeling communicated through that form. As JSngry says every culture has its blues...I like the Lear analogy. Whether you're talking Hungarian peasants or hardanger fiddle players from Norway or Mongolian throat singers or top twenty singers there are some who just have that ability to set your spine alight. Now that is not unique to 'The Blues.' There is a tendency to go all mystical on 'The Blues' as if the feeling is something quite unique. Nope. Its the same feeling that some Irish piper is feeling lamenting the fleeing of the Wild Geese. Its the blues format that is unique. And what a format for expressing powerful feeling in the right hands! When you listen to a blues record you might just hear a musician working through a particular structure but having that ability to create deep feeling that leads to a memorable experience; or you might get someone just running through the choirds and devices with no feeling at all. And you'll get exactly the same in every other form of music. The deep feeling is universal. It becomes 'The Blues' when expressed through a particular style. Which, to get back to the start, makes me feel that jazz does not have to contain the Blues format to have meaning; it can express its depth through some other source, borrowing from some other culture or coming from within the musician. Listen to some of Jan Garbareks Sami based music and you'll hear a depth of feeling the equal of any blues-based jazz (well, you will if you're open to it!). Of course its understandable that some should find the power of blues based jazz so absorbing that they feel no need to listen beyond. But jazz is happening beyond and it has just as much legitimacy.

Far out, man!

Simon, MacDonald's argument on the decline in popular music (and remember he is talking about mass popular music) is far mor complex than my brief mention - I'm not doing him justice. Essentially he argues that the explosion of 60s pop music was a result of a newly affluent youth getting off the leash and running straight into the conformism of the 50s - the friction created a vibrant and innovative popular music where amateurs were able to become the dominating force as opposed to the professional domination of the music industry (nothing new there). In his view this gave ten or so years of highly creative music before the law of diminishing returns set in. The lack of professionalism that had been the very heart of the 60s became an albatross thereafter and the emergence of new musical technology requiring even less skill ultimately led to a music unable to break out into its own creativity. The result has been a music increasingly reliant on nostalgia, constantly referencing back to the 60s. I'm always suspicious of 'things ain't what they used to be arguments' and this one seems a bit too all-embracing to be convincing. But my heart hears echoes in what he writes. He obviously explains it much better in the essay 'The People's Music' in the book. Jazzmoose, MacDonald also picks up on your point. He talks of three types of listener - those who focus on the music, those who focus on lyrics or words and those who want the lifestyle. Everyone has elements of all three but the balance varies from one individual to another. I know I can relate to that. I've always been mainly responsive to the music; I frequently stop listening to the words after a couple of verses! I think I'd throw in a fourth category and that is people to whom the most important quality of music is its dancebility. I've known many people to whom dancing to music is a way of life but who have little or no record collection. As for those to whom the lifestyle is paramount - well you only need look at every musical craze with associated fashion to see that in action. It's in us all to a point but I suspect most people on a board like this have it tuned way down!

I've never been too sure what 'strong character' actually means. Over here we're for ever told that things like 'team games' are 'character building.' The implication is that those who don't care for them (or are, like me, too physically weedy and uncoordinated to ever get properly involved) have 'weak characters.' It strikes me that a 'strong character' is someone who overtly and loudly demonstrates the assessors own particular value system. I doubt that Charlie Parker or Jerry Garcia would have been considered 'strong characters' at school! I'd suggest people who don't exhabit the signs of 'strong character' are perhaps just less prone to putting their character out on display at every available opportunity. Agree very much with Dr J. In reality even 'omnivores' have their favourite munchies which they know intimately!

My thoughts entirely. Someone with a singleminded focus on one area of music will obviously know that music in much greater depth and probably hear things the more magpie listener might miss. On the other hand he or she is going to lack the wider context of the music. Hearing other music can often send you back to your core interest refreshed and able to hear new things. I certainly take issue with MacDonald's idea that a 'strong character' will have 'selective tastes' and 'exclusive sympathies.'

No. I'm copying from a stand alone CD copier, not a computer. Thanks, I think I understand the distinction now.

I was struck by these sentences in Ian MacDonald's 'The People's Music' (Pimlico, 2003): "While, now, it's common to claim a catholic range of taste, it's doubtful whether such tastes are as powerfully charged as narrower, more sectarian responses …. A certain dilution in response is an almost inevitable consequence of inclusivity …The corollary of exclusivity is concentration. Those with very strong tastes will be more focused in their implementation than those who like a little bit of everything. It is, moreover, typical of strongly defined character that it manifests relatively selective tastes and exclusive sympathies." The context of the remarks is an essay where MacDonald is trying to explain what he sees as the deskilling of popular music over the last thirty years. I like MacDonald's writing as a rule but as a fundamentalist eclectic find myself in disagreement with him on this one. What do you think?

I'm not totally up on this. Am I right that what copyright control does is stops you making more than one copy (i.e. the copy won't copy)? I noticed this when making a compilation CDR. I tried to make a copy of the copy for a friend and some of the tracks would not copy. The problem was overcome by switching to analogue record. Can't say I noticed any quality difference. Or is this copyright control something different?

I'd join those recommending the early Caravan records. They've recently been reissued in remastered form with a lot of extra material. I saw them three times back in the early 70s (You can hear me clapping up in the balcony on the Drury Lane record) - two great concerts, one less so when the membership changes were losing the original feel of the group. Caravan had a great gift for poppy melody which they could absorb into wider structures - with Richard and Dave Sinclair they had outstanding musicians who could carry longer improvisations and the occasional use of Jimmy Hastings (a full time jazz player who guested on his brothers records) on flute and sax had a huge effect on the sunny, dreamy feel of much of their music. 'In the Land of Grey and Pink' and 'If I Could Do It All Over Again, I'd Do It All Over You' just epitomise the early 70s for me.

Jazz history seems to have been sorted out quite neatly. You can trace a linear story...yes, lots of sidetracks too...which makes it relatively easy to find your bearings. I've read two or three blues histories and always got totally lost. All those field trips into this and that region coming up with micro-styles. Outside of the really big names it can be really hard to get your head round. Which, of course, is no comment on the quality of the music. But might explain why there is some sort of system in my jazz collection where my much smaller blues collection seems quite random.

Egos. Mmm! The mirror, old chap, the mirror! This is a nice board, Mr h. By and large people are polite to one another and respectful. Yes we all have opinions but most posters try and express them with a degree of humility. Your posts appear to be based on the illusion that your opinions are 'right' and that you are required to ram them down people's throats. What is really strange is that you can be so unpleasantly dogmatic about what is essentially pop music! Great fun, hugely enjoyable but hardly worth fighting over. Lose the hectoring tone! Actually, I suspect you might well be a wind up merchant. Not normal behaviour. Anyway, show some respect to your elders, man. Have you not noticed that I'm a Veteran Groover! Kids today, I don't know...

That the blues gave birth to jazz is undeniable (well, it was one of the parents!). That it was central to its shaping in its first fifty years, equally so. That it still lies at the heart of much contemporary jazz, no argument. That anyone interested in jazz might also gain much from the listening to the blues outside of jazz, seems fair to me (I just received the box of Newport recordings from the early 60s today - it might have been these artists second wind but it sounds pretty wonderful to these ears). But that jazz has to contain the blues or that jazz musicians who choose to avoid it are lacking something. We're into jazz mythology there. There are other ways of expressing the depth of feeling that the blues has given jazz. Choosing to leave aside the musical structures associated with the blues is not a denial of the form or its influence, just another way to rejuvenate and help the music expand in the many directions its been going. In that evolution there is room for blues based and non blues based jazz. They needn't be mutually exclusive. They both owe their origin to earlier jazz and the blues from which it partially emerged. I can understand many people being unhappy with jazz that does not wear its blues on its sleeve. But be a bit careful in suggesting it is consequently lacking in something.

Along with Ken Clarke there's John Prescott. I'm not sure if they are celebrities...though given the state of politics maybe that's exactly what they are! The strange thing about these two is that Prescott (a Labour man) is the trady whilst Clarke (a Tory) is pretty up to date with his listening. I believe Clarke has been doing a programme on Radio 4 about jazz recently - havn't heard it. Isn't Julie Christie a jazz fan too? She's never sat at my table!

Now take the next step and realise that what you are putting forward as the 'true' this or that is actually your own very biased opinion! You're not so much trying to open up 'closed minds' as demanding that other minds fall in line with your particular mind which appears to be equally as closed. No need to fight about who is or isn't best, who is or are not the true 'innovators.' Ultimately its all just personal taste and trying to ridicule others tastes is the stuff of the Grammar School* Sixth Form common room (sorry, not quite sure what the equivalent is in the US system). God, I remember these 'Tull are better than Hawkwind' tussles from 30 years ago! Caravan, Henry Cow, Hatfield, Yes, Egg, Genesis, Mahavishnu, Van Der Graaf...all names I recall with great fondness from the 70s and still gain great pleasure from today. But in the grand musical scheme of things they are all pretty small fry when it comes to 'innovation.' Play who you like because you like them, not because they are 'important.' Keep your personal tastes in perspective. I have a downer on Wakeman but I'd never pretend that it was anything more than a personal dislike. As for Camel.....*%$£^&*&^%$5^6&&!!!!!!!

In a bar in Norway you say? I wonder how many people watching went bankrupt! £4 a pint, for goodness sake!

Most 'political' songs tend to be over-simplistic. Much as I love 'Ohio' as a performance (and the outrage comes across impressively) the lyrics are pretty naff. It wasn't for nothing that Dylan abandonned his 'finger-pointing' songs for something more ambiguous. One political song that really works through the obliqueness of its imagery is Elvis Costelo's 'Shipbuilding'. The Falklands War pilloried by understatement. The Robert Wyatt version is breathtaking. There's an English writer in the folk world, Maggie Holland, who has produced some outstanding songs with contemporary relevance. 'The Perfumes of Arabia' was written in response to the first Gulf War - the perfumes in question being the smell of petrol on our hands in the filling station. Martin Carthy does it brilliantly. But her masterpiece is a song called 'A Place Called England', a head on confrontation with the Right who would have us fill in the Channel Tunnel to keep out the 'foreigners'; and a wonderful celebration of England as an evolving culture, enriched by all who make their homes here. June Tabor's version has my spine tingling and eyes watering every time.

I never felt Wakeman was more than an 'add on' to the original group. Yes, I think dropping the keyboard player could well be a way to keep the rejuvenated group fresh. Without keyboards to fill up the sound they've got to try harder with the writing. 'Magnification' shows they can still do it...I have some of those tunes whizzing round my head for days after playing the disc. Just like in the olden days!!!! I'll give a listen to one or two of these more recent discs. I did by 'Open Your Eyes' when it came out and found it arid. What made me take the risk with 'Magnification' was reading lots of reviews that were equally disappointed with 'OYE.' It was nice to know if wasn't just me.

Charlie Haden did a piece called 'For a Free Angola' on his album, 'Closeness.' I think he got arrested and deported from Portugal in the early/mid-70s. His Ballad of the Fallen was a response to US policy in Central America in the early 80s. And, of course, Liberation Music Orchestra was a marvellous evocation of the late 60s - especially the free-form depiction of the '68 Democratic Convention.

I stand corrected! Bought a copy of 'Magnification' to take on holiday and played it on several long drives. What a glorious record! The melodies and key changes are just like the old days and the arrangements excellent. Lyrics as silly as ever but never mind Maybe this is the answer. No keyboard player! No synth washes or squiggles! Very enjoyable. (Anderson was interviewed in The Guardian a few weeks back and sounds as daft as ever...have a look here for a laugh. It's worth it for his thoughts on baby ducks!: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st...1008449,00.html 'The Idea is to Unravel the Onion' indeed!)

I've been there a few times (Roy Hargrove, Mingus BB, David Murray BB, Johnny Griffin, Charles Lloyd and more) and never found it an ideal venue. The sound problems plus the difficult sightlines. Plus the soundchecks all seem to overun leading to everything going out of programm - a real pain if you're wanting to go to something else on the timetable a bit later on). In the end it's the biggest venue the've got so they have little choice. There's a really good theatre in Brecon (Theatr Brycheiniog...no, I can't prnounce it either!) where the smaller groups play, down by the canal. That has a beautiful acoustic.

Its ironic that composers like Jerome Kern loathed what jazz musicians did to their songs but jazz fans insist the jazz musicians were right; but when singers then turn the tables and vocalise the jazz versions or improvisations it becomes improper!!!! Kern just wasn't hearing what the jazzers were doing; I'd say the jazz fan unsympatheic to vocalisations of jazz is in the same bateau!

Jonas Simonson of Swedish band 'Groupa.' Actually a 'folk' band if we're talking labels but the closest I've heard any band pigeonholed in the 'folk' box get to getting the freewheeling, improvisatory nature of jazz whilst keeping within the phrasing and harmony of the traditional music. Simonson is superb, weaving his way through the cloudy textures of this breathtaking music. I love the sound of the flute but feel its ethereal nature often makes it sound a bit overpowered in conventional jazz groups. Groupa provide a context where the bottom is light enough for it to really shine through. I love James Newton too.

I love jazz vocals so really enjoy it when lyrics are put to instrumentals. The only problem is that the words are rarely much cop (in the poetic sense), especially those that go for the 'hipster' argot. However, after a few listens my brain usually tunes the meaning out (a bit like when listening to Jon Anderson's lyrics for Yes...though thinking about it they have no meaning whatsoever!!!) and I can just enjoy the delicious sound of a great vocalist weaving through a great tune. I especially liked Tierney Sutton's version of 'Speak No Evil' - I'm not sure who did the lyrics but it makes a great vocal number. One of the most consistent composers of lyrics for jazz tunes is Norma Winstone. Although her words tend to verge on the twee at times she turns jazz tunes into marvellous vocal vehicles. Even better, she goes for less obvious tunes - Steve Swallow, Ralph Towner, Egberto Gismonti...and, of course, John Taylor and Kenny Wheeler. I'd love to hear her do John Surman's 'Tess.'

Graduated with a History degree in 1976 and then did a years teacher training. Got a job teaching history in a mining town in the middle of England; the mining has gone but I'm still in that same school 25 years later! Love the school, love the staff, love the kids...and the promotions came up just right. In some ways I'm in exactly the position I'd always wanted. Enough responsibility to have some influence over how things go yet not to the point of becoming an administrator. I get to teach history (what I love most) but also get the rewards that come with managing adults. I lead a faculty of mainly young staff and am supremely lucky to have inventive, positive people who are great to be with. The only thing I'd change is shifting the school 150 to 200 miles south-west. My heart is very much in the south west of England.