HutchFan

Yes !!! You nailed it, ghost! Expansion is better than contraction! Both/And is better than Either/Or!

NP: Various Artists - Atlantic Jazz: Piano (1986, 2 LPs) An enjoyable sampler.

Here's something that's related to our discussion that I've been thinking about, and I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about it. For a long time, if a jazz critic said that something is "commercial," it was an implicit -- if not explicit -- criticism of the music as "less than." Less real. Less legit. On the other hand, no one would think to criticize a Soul or R&B album for being commercial. In fact, the opposite is probably true. I remember reading an interview with James Brown. When the interviewer asked him what he was looking for when he recorded music, he said, "I'm looking for a hit!" No bones about it! So why is it that this implicit criticism of "commercial" only seems to be applied to jazz? ... But not to these very closely related genres? One thought: Does it have something to do with the early stages of jazz's development when jazz and pop were basically inseparable, one and the same thing. But there were musicians (and aficionados) who were looking for music that gave instrumentalists an opportunity to "stretch out." Think about the timing limitations of a 78. If someone described that music as "commercial," it might mean that there's negligible soloing -- or even none. But that sort of thinking got carried forward, even up to the present day, when those technological limitations are long gone and jazz has evolved into something separate unto itself. It's a sort of "vestigial" criticism, no? Thoughts?

Now: Art Pepper - Artworks (Galaxy, 1984) Outtakes from the So In Love sessions -- with George Cables, Charlie Haden and Billy Higgins Coming up next: Art Pepper - Roadgame (Galaxy, 1982) The first of three Galaxy LPs from Pepper's engagement at the Maiden Voyage nightclub in L.A. -- with George Cables, David Williams and Carl Burnett

Braves won again last night. Still undefeated in the post-season. Long way to go, of course. But so far, so good.

Nearly included this one in my 70s jazz survey.

Earlier today: Joe Henderson - Black Is the Color (Milestone, 1972) The title cut on this record: Yowza! Tremendous. and Illinois Jacquet with Kenny Burrell - Desert Winds (Argo, 1964) Absolutely. "Desert island" good.

NP: Recently added this CT album to my 70s jazz blog.

I don't know whether my notions were ever practical, then or now, in the way that they need to be to practitioners of the art. As someone who is strictly a listener -- unconnected to the "business" in any way -- I'm free of the constraints of making it real in the world. I'm just articulating a way of thinking about things that makes sense to me. A model. That's it. Thanks for sharing this, Mark. That GE book is going on the reading list! BTW, Early's comments remind me of things that MG often said here on the board when he was talking about Soul Jazz. Different function, different purpose -- different sound.

I'm on board with that. But I'm not quite ready to give up on the word and idea of Jazz yet. I like the word. It has all sorts of positive associations for me. With jazz there are so many places to go: Ultra-refined. Gutbucket. Or both. Or neither. In. out. Euphonious. Dissonant. Party time. Meditation. Anywhere really. Freedom. Like you said, life.

I meant "in" with regards to the concert halls and the academy. Years ago, you couldn't study jazz in a university. Now you can just about anywhere. You couldn't hear jazz at Lincoln Center. Now you can. The upshot: In people's minds, jazz is high-falutin', cerebral, arty stuff. It's "America's classical music." And, of course, jazz LOSES something when people think about it that way exclusively.

I think there's also something at work that's running in parallel to the prism of race that we're discussing. It seems to me that for a long time writers AND musicians would look down their noses at jazz musicians that they deemed to be "commercial" -- because certain elements of the jazz community wanted jazz to be positioned as ART music. It was a question of credibility and funding and power. Their goal were to make jazz "as important as Classical music," which was traditionally perceived by the Western world as being the "real" art music. On some level, that goal has now been accomplished. But now, we find ourselves looking around and saying, "Sheesh, a lot of great music got left behind!" And we're saying this because jazz is both folk music and art music. It's commercial music and it's non-commercial music. It's dance music, and it's listening music. Jazz, at its core, embraces all of those contradictions EASILY -- but those contradictory aspects had to be smoothed out to make it's way into the academy and into the concert halls. To make it fit with traditional conceptions of what constitutes "art." Ironically, now that jazz is seemingly firmly "in," this idea that art is something separate and higher than "ordinary" culture is breaking down.

Oh, I see. ... Yeah, that tracks, for sure.

Not sure I understand your comment, Jim. Are you saying that Soul Jazz is the elephant in the room that authors of jazz histories have conspicuously ignored?

I agree 100%. Somebody needs to write that chapter in the book! Where's MG?!?!?

William James made the argument that all people -- and all philosophies, histories, and outlooks of any kind -- tend towards either the "One" or the "Many." Either unity or diversity. Either monism or pluralism. Either Plato (the ideal) or Aristotle (the particular). Isaiah Berlin articulated this same idea in his essay, "The Hedgehog and The Fox." The hedgehog knows one thing, but the fox knows many things. Bringing these ideas to the topic at hand: I want to have a pluralistic understanding of jazz. I want the way I think about jazz to be foxy and slippery and elusive. Because I think jazz itself is all those things. The idea of integrating all these different strains doesn't interest me. That's monistic. And I think the overly simplified histories that we're bemoaning have failed to give us an accurate portrayal of jazz because they were trying to tell THE story of jazz, rather than the STORIES of jazz or A story of jazz (among many others). When you're trying to tell ONE story, stuff is inevitably going to be excluded; anything that doesn't fit neatly is out! But if you're telling MANY stories, things are much more complicated and convoluted and maybe even contradictory. But there's also the possibility of a more accurate model or picture or framework. That's how I like to think about these things.

Weekly Recap - PLAYING FAVORITES: Reflections on Jazz in the 1970s Ran Blake – Rapport (Arista Novus, 1978) Sarah Vaughan – How Long Has This Been Going On? (Pablo, 1978) Lester Bowie – The 5th Power (Black Saint, 1978) Zoot Sims – For Lady Day (Pablo, 1991) Horace Tapscott Conducting the Pan-Afrikan Peoples Orchestra – The Call (Nimbus West, 1978) Jimmy Rowles – We Could Make Such Beautiful Music Together (Xanadu, 1978) Cecil Taylor – Cecil Taylor Unit (New World, 1978) and 3 Phasis (New World, 1979)

Nope. I don't.

Manuel de Falla: Four Spanish Pieces, Dances from "La Vida Breve," etc. / Alicia de Larrocha (Vox Turnabout) Originally released on Clave/Hispavox Beautiful.

Thanks for the info!

\ Illinois Jacquet - How High the Moon (Prestige) Compiles cuts from Jacquet's Prestige releases, 1968-69 Check out the final sentence from Dan Morgenstern's liner notes: "... don't pay attention to any history of jazz tenor that doesn't have Jacquet's name in bold type." Bob Porter feels the same. In his book on soul jazz, Porter repeatedly discusses Jacquet's influence and importance. Even so, Jacquet does tend to get overlooked, doesn't he? ... Speaking for myself, I know that I "missed the boat" -- until relatively recently. But better late than never. I've had a great time digging into his music over the last year or two.

Disc 2 - Fathead Comes On and House of David

Next up:

Now spinning: Jazz Stop series reissue