fasstrack

I didn't take it that way at all. I'm also sorry if it sounded defensive. Just trying to ask the right questions---and only claiming answers that work for me.

Why is that tired? What endeavor in art or life can get anywhere or be worth a damn without the basics?

As a psychologist and a person who wholly embraces emotion, I do believe some experiences (music, humor, love, nature, children, animals) can have cathartic and healing effects. Some people find healing and hope in these experiences that help them to acknowledge, accept and work through life's difficulties and uncertainties. Others, however, seek sanctuary in such experiences. They try to immerse themselves in such a way that they deny the difficult and confusing, claiming peaceful ignorance as others try to grapple with the reality around them. Ignorance might be bliss, but how can a person truly appreciate artistic expressions of life if they ignore the problems and inconvenient truths that are a part of life? I myself don't ignore those things. Unfortunately I have to live them. I get along the best I can and am fairly well-adjusted but do seek sanctuary in music and friendship. I take art seriously but reality less so, the better not to go nuts. And, to paraphrase our friend Mr. Allen (about casual sex as an 'émpty experience'), maybe these things are sanctuaries for the slightly maladjusted, but as sanctuaries go they're the best there are.

Oh, well. Even a broken clock......

Sorry to say I don't. Sorry to hear it, though. Any other examples of his writing?

This was recorded in The Netherlands. The piano player seen at the beginning is Pim Jacobs and the tenor man seen at the end is Oliver Nelson. Thanks.

First of all this is not about me per se. The thread title is like a song title or catchy hook (I hope). Observing all the large response to various threads like the one on who's gay or not or the Jazz Manifesto from Chairman Kurt I'm beginning to wonder if time and even this forum is passing by a basic romantic like myself. I hope to hear from people that may agree (OK, hell, disagreeing is OK too...) that music and beauty have power to heal and rise above the vagaries of things like current trends or social issues. Is there anyone else besides me and Woody Allen who thinks that whatever happens in politics, war, inhumanity etc.---which was always here and is always gonna be---the real action (i.e. the stuff we can actually affect) is in human interaction (friendship, romance, etc.) and the real inspiration in striving (i.e. falling down, as we must, but getting up to try again)? I had a meeting with a dear old friend yesterday, a very fine jazz musician. We've been having the same argument for years, he the paranoid conspiracy theorist who can only shut up relax when he plays, then it's pure swing and beauty, and me the guy who doesn't waste time on the above mentioned social vagaries, only knowing how to do friendship and some pretty notes to make things better. Chicken Little meets Pollyana (sp?), some would say. Any other romantics here that might be thought of as ostrich-like by some but really only escape because the world will never make the cut with their standards? PS: I hope you understand why I put this in the music and not non-political section. I can only talk about what I know. (edited for grammar and clarity. JF)

Thanks again. CRS. I'm sure you csan relate....

Thanks. What record is it on? Not Svengali. It's the one with Ray Crawford, Johnny Coles, Budd Johnson, and Elvin. On Impulse!? It may just be called the Gil Evans Orchestra. Lee always had confidence problems playing. I can relate....

And sex isn't, at least in part and/or sometimes? That's what I mean. It's not about sex and sexuality in the strictest sense, but the treatment of sexuality, the apotheosis of masculinity and macho in the jazz culture--isn't this stuff also tied up in power, control and violence? Again, not the whole story, but these things are interwoven. As for Gaga and cohort--there's some stuff that might be best addressed in the Rosenwinkel "jazz sucks" thread. It is pretty notable, however, that this time around the "old guard" is criticizing neophytes not so much for aesthetic reasons but rather for social conventions like insularity, arrogance, and a lack of historical perspective. For my part, I can't really imagine coming up in jazz (or even improv, at this point) without the knowledge and encouragement of one's forebears (spent waaaaay too much time around some of the "old guard"--which is really just the guard--to think otherwise), but what does it mean when a lot of the guys on the street aren't even playing/battling on the same court anymore? That is pretty bleak. I'm not sure if you were answering me. Anyway, I'm done here, my choruses taken. Only gonna repeat myself. I will say though that Kurt Rosenwinkel has a lot more to learn about humility, not to mention other basics about jazz playing,people, and what the music represents at its best before running his self-absorbed mouth about anything. If you like his opinions, take ém. He definitely does not speak for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgXhd3LcuOM&feature=related Here's another beauty. This one shows the more firey side. W/Jim Hall, Steve Swallow, Pete LaRoca (?). BBC, 1964. I think the title is the Berimbao song by Kurt Weill. Maybe I'm wrong. Whatever it is it was recorded by the Gil Evans Orchestra on the same recording as La Nevada and Sunken Treasure. Maybe someone will remenber the reording's title.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NshwQGnDQ4U The first solo is a gem, as is his contribution throughout. Priceless. Good European players. Lee has had better days, I guess, and I know how that goes...Not sure why Oliver Nelson's name is on this. Maybe it is his band and he laid out on Just Friends. If I can be be allowed an editorial comment I for would like to just get back to music and beauty and leave alone non-issues like who is or isn't gay.

This entire discussion has got me thinking about the metaphoric black clouds that sometimes hang over human heads. Once the set up shop those humans often do things many find shocking. I personally am shocked by almost nothing people do, good or bad. A defensive mechanism in the name of staying sane, no doubt. Saddam Hussein and Mother Teresa walked the earth contemporaneously. Both were convinced of their good deeds, I would guess. The thornier part is who has the right to judge frailties, even ones leading to despicable acts? No one? Everyone? People at, or considering themselves to have attained a certain moral plane? Like someone said earlier: maybe there are no answers but hope for the race can't die if we at least ask the questions.

Gabor Szabo I never met but I liked his guitar sound, ideas, and presentation. It was sort of world music way before that became trendy. Atilla Zoller I did know. He was was one of the greatest guys I've known, a way underrated player that did a lot for jazz in Berlin after splitting Hungary (I think partly for political reasons) and finally landing in Jackson Heights. He was also an inventor who developed guitars and pickups for companies like Framus. An unforgettable character full of endearing malapropisms, he was always hanging out in clubs encouraging players and being honestly and brutally critical when warranted, but in a tough love way. When fellow guitarist Eddie Diehl had an instrument stolen by dope fiends Atilla heard and gave him one of his. Not a loan, a gift. He was the real gift.

Funny how this thread died. Possibly making my point about jazz guitar being at the back of the popularity class? I did listen to Goines. Agreed, not nearly what the editor claimed but he and his group were alright. Nothing bad about it and anyway they have a nice feel. One of the tunes I liked, can't remember which now. He actually reminded me more of O Donnell Levy than George. Coming out of blues and organ trios. He did have some of George's licks, though. Pretty good player. I'd like to get the Christian bio.

Wait around. They'll top themselves. Won't be long. Reminds me of story a friend told me about a gadget he bought. ''It was supposed to be 'idiot-proof', but I think I found a way to beat it''.

I'm of the mind that an artform is genuinely irrelevant when it ceases to respond to the exigencies of the culture at large, and that's a big reason why jazz holds such a small market share (of an already small market) right now. New jazz studies (addressed, obviously, in a different) thread has been trying to superimpose contemporary race, gender, sexuality (etc.) studies on music from the 50's for years now, but this is like seeing a black and white film in color. The exigencies of the culture have to have a natural outlet in the music, otherwise the music doesn't serve its social purpose (maybe the academic, aesthetic, historical, yes, whatever...). I'll take jazz as a listening habit any day of the week, but the erudite commentators of today are listening to Odd Future and Kreayshawn because all that jive is at least connected to what's happening to the masses right now. It's been over 50 years since 1960! Jesus, in the past decade--9/11, Prop 8, Obama--what the hell does jazz have to do with the world we're living in? I'll even take an abstract relationship to the times, for whatever that's worth--which is why, musical value being debatable, I'm all for Iyer, Mahanthappa, Lehman, Mostly Other People... Again, disagreement is good, but if the conversation isn't even worth having (for any number of the arguments made above), then shit. The advanced artform of jazz is behind Lady Gaga in addressing issues of contemporary sexuality. Who's going to remember Lady Gaga in 50 years? Whatever she 'addresses' no one will because she's a flash-in-the pan with little talent or even a message that goes beyond now. Charlie Parker has been gone 56 years and his impact is as fresh as a daisy, b/c he didn't do throw-away art that addressed only the 'culture at large'. The basic human condition art adresses never changes much and 'art' that's genererated and hyped by commerce or marketing people or even the desire to address the short-run contemporary hot issues has never lasted and never will last. The test of time is a great barometer of what does and doesn't resonate. You can fool some of the people for a while but in the end the bullshit fades and ends up in its rightful happy hunting ground: history's junkpile. It is, blissfully, thrown there not by certain self-serving historians or critics whose careers and incomes are predicated by riding short-term trends, but people. People will separate wheat from chaff every time, but only OVER time. They are the ultimate arbiters of what lasts and why. I'll believe that til I die. If we start getting lulled by the short-term popularity of garbage 'music' based on market research or gimmickry, like Lady Gaga; or from 'musicians' like hip-hoppers who are too musically illiterate or lazy to learn instruments so they steal it by sampling everything we're seriously up a creek. I think one major reason jazz has receded in popularity is that many musicians do exactly what you broach: they reflect the self-absorption of the me me me culture at large with its head up its ass and people playing with the latest hyped device some huckster told them they need, blathering idiocy on cell phones and making eye contact with no one. Too many of the younger musicians imitate such stupidity rather than set an example of what art and people could be. Too much of jazz has become equally self-absorbed with 'clever' music, music that stresses technology over universal soul and the mistaken assumption that long, self-absorbed solos by me me me musicians like Kurt Rosenwinkel (who plays very well, but go to a gig and end up in Kurtland, the isle of short-sightedness. It's all about Kurt and his purported cleverness, not the audience or even the band) has something to do with jazz. Jazz is CURRENTLY unpopular because society has dumbed down and too many musicians have followed that trend. Oddly enough, it once was a music that was social at the core. The musicians came out of the communities (mostly black communities, and nationwide) they performed in and after they came off the stand or walked around the 'hood they knew everybody and mostly didn't have big heads. This included giants like Monk. And their work was speaking to those people by showing them the best part of themselves, not bowing to bullshit trends. When the world gets stupid it takes no courage to jump in the water and take a swim in stupid. Better to wait it out or keep doing what you believe in and working with quality. Someone will hear it. Have courage, musicians and artists, and don't succumb to mindsets that will make you popular for a day. Jazz is better than that.

Also, I don't believe artistry is asexual, it's the culmination of everything the artist is, including their sexuality. To quote Homer Simpson, We're here. We're queer. We don't want anymore bears! I hear what you're saying about honesty and the whole person going into art. But I can't say I agree entirely with that response because it would be a shame IMO if the art (artist?) stopped there. My statement ended with 'pay attention to instead to the achievements'. Maybe I said it poorly, but what I was really getting at is that really great art speaks to all humanity. It sort of supercedes ethnic concerns or those of sexuality. Otherwise I fear there could be a danger of, perhaps, a certain kind of self-absorption---or at least self-limitation. If someone wants to make a statement in music or art about their sexuality, ethnicity, repression or prejudice against the above or whatever else, that's cool with me. But messages without content or quality isn't IMO. I sure as hell would hope, to begin with, that a person's art was well-written or played or painted, etc. because if it isn't no matter the statement that limits its power straight away. Then it becomes maybe limited in success comparable, say, to a political screed. OK, but not the best art out there or anyway not put to the higher purpose of having something everyone can see some of themselves or their own potential in, but perhaps lack the talent, time, or resources to express themselves. Anything can be taken too far as a thing in itself. If someone believes in it or has cultural pride and wants to express that, cool. But understand the inherent dangers of 'preaching to the converted'. For a very extreme and perhaps unfair example (because of its very ridiculousness) there's a very fine composer, David Del Tredici, who taught at my Alma Mater, City College. He's a great orchestrator I wish I studied with. He happens to be gay, and proudly out. That's all great, but he actually made statements in the NY Times to the effect that his pieces contain 'gay chords'. Let's assume he was accurately quoted---a big leap of faith sometimes, I know---but would someone please explain to me what the hell a 'gay chord' is? I'll wait... There's a reason why Louis Armstrong was loved all over the world by every race, etc. He was a great artist who it only took one note of him playing or singing to tell that he was even more of a great humanitarian. He really loved the human race in its entirety in his art. He brought out human potential and not all artists or art do that. Just my opinion. (edited for grammar. JF)

Going upstate for some much-needed R&R today and I wish all my O friends a happy, peaceful holiday weekend, disagreements notwithstanding. Be well Chris and Allen.

That discussion is already taking place, started by out gay musicians---and mentioned in Allen's OP. That's where courage is needed and should be applauded. If others fear or are uncomfortable for whatever reason being out, that's their journey and no one has the right to 'push' them in the name of progress. That's what I see happening here, or going in that direction (starting with the distasteful outing of the dead). That's heavy-handed meddling. It reminds me of the way progressives used Lenny Bruce's trials and downfall to see how far they could go challenging obscenity laws and promote free speech, etc. But they didn't give a shit about Bruce and helped destroy him in the process. Other people's trips are just that: their trips and anything that's not directly helping as a friend, i.e. supporting morally or financially in tough times, testifying for or otherwise going to bat for is IMO of very questionable motives and value. And I already told you what I think of outing the dead, who can't speak for themselves. It's disgraceful, and a man of your sensitivity and accomplishment in the jazz world can do much better. Maybe help a gay musician friend conflicted about coming out? Otherwise I really don't understand this and am obviously very turned off. 'Music speaks louder than words' Charlie Parker

Thank you. I could not have said it better. This discussion frankly gives me the creeps. Chris, you're a great guy and we've had warm communications but I've never understood why you repeatedly cast yourself in the role of, well I can't say 'outing' people but reminding people of the sexuality of especially musicians who are no longer with us. It's not helping advance equality for gays mentioning that Ben Webster or anyone else was gay. They are dead and if that was the case lived closeted in those days with what would be certainly have been a terrible secret. Bringing this up now is not going to make them feel better, especially in their current condition. Also, since they are not around to speak for themselves or their privacy I think this rather disrespecful and untoward. The best way to accept---even honor---someone's sexuality is to ignore it and pay attention instead to the achievements. Listen to the music. It is asexual, great art, speaks to the soul of all kinds of people whatever color,age, sexuality, etc. and that's all you need to know about these people. To be clear, I thought Chris had started this thread, probably because I remember a similar discussion he may or may not have started, mentioning Dizzy, etc. I had the same reaction then. But if Allen started it I still am not backing off what I wrote. I had a horrible experience many years ago when a motormouth musician (and not a very good one) said in front of many people in a public place that a musician I and many others adore, and is responsible for many of us, propositioned him. He said it in a vulgar way and true or not took me totally by surprise and made me confront my image of this teacher and mentor. Obviously I was confronting my own homophobia too, which I acknowledge. I am not perfect nor am applying for sainthood, but the incident was such a turn-off that I'm super-sensitive to this and especially people's privacy. I'm not comparing this to that, but this is not the way to advance rights of people of different sexualities than our own. Going to a gig, buying a CD, hiring someone, saying hello because we like their work but more so because they are human just might.

Thank you. I could not have said it better. This discussion frankly gives me the creeps. Chris, you're a great guy and we've had warm communications but I've never understood why you repeatedly cast yourself in the role of, well I can't say 'outing' people but reminding people of the sexuality of especially musicians who are no longer with us. It's not helping advance equality for gays mentioning that Ben Webster or anyone else was gay. They are dead and if that was the case lived closeted in those days with what would be certainly have been a terrible secret. Bringing this up now is not going to make them feel better, especially in their current condition. Also, since they are not around to speak for themselves or their privacy I think this rather disrespecful and untoward. The best way to accept---even honor---someone's sexuality is to ignore it and pay attention instead to the achievements. Listen to the music. It is asexual, great art, speaks to the soul of all kinds of people whatever color,age, sexuality, etc. and that's all you need to know about these people.

He's also a hell of a director of commercials BTW, and makes nice money at it. Good for him. This thread is the first I've heard of Inside Man. When did it come out? I'm glad I put this topic up. It's making me rethink his whole output. I want to see some I've seen again and some I haven't. One thing is as sure as it is obvious: Lee has had an impact. I believe he will last.

I felt bad saying that too, since I'm a fan in other ways. I think he'd be a powerful film maker if he didn't try to do everything. It reminds me of seeing Isaac Bashevis Singer on a talk show disowning Barbra Streisand's Yentl b/c she insisted on doing everything, including direction. Collaboration is important, especially when you're so close to the material you can't see obvious flaws (or strengths) that a partner could easily point out. I though Get on The Bus really good, though, with very believeable and well-formed characters. One of his best, maybe.

This is great, thanks. I presume that's you speaking and interviewing. What a great radio voice! I'm going to start tuning in on the web.