Steve Reynolds

Thanks for the comments. That final quartet would have been my motivation as well to go that night. As you can see I chose Sunday night. Yes - when Taborn is animated and really into it, it is quite something to experience. Now I'm regretting not picking up at least one of their two rogue art CD's.

Jordan Burrell Parker Drake Wow

By the time Sunday night gets here, I be all wound up!!!!

Fwiw, Lightcap's Big Mouth is a helluva jazz band with fine tunes. Poppy it isn't and Taborn, Cheek and Malaby wail. Another fine example of living, breathing jazz without compromise that IF actually HEARD would be enjoyed by many. However it would be enjoyed by many who like jazz. Hard enough to convince many actual jazz fans to listen to jazz as played by living musicians. Maybe that is why jazz smells funny to some

I think anyone writing music where there is an interest in melodic materials, that a hope would be that something memorable might happen. As you said, very hard to do. And some composers/jazz improvisors simply eschew melodic forms in some or even all their approaches. Some deliberately decide to work towards a melodic pursuit at certain times. See Barry Guy's Harmos as compared to especially earlier works where melody was not considered

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo. Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway. But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither). MG I don't see present day jazz bands with a large number of catchy originals. Some of the present day jazz bands have a distinctive sound and quality execution, but not catchy originals. Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"? Apparently you think that writing 'something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"' is essentially a matter of will or intent. I think there are plenty of people who would like to write pieces that had that kind of effect on audiences if they could, but it ain't easy -- in particular, it's not a matter of simply putting aside one's supposedly snotty-complex "high art" habits of music-making. Well put, Mr. Kart Throughout the years, I have found a few new melodically brilliant nuggets within all the recordings I have listened to of post 1980 or 85 jazz. Not including improvisations for the point of this discussion. Catchy, exciting and memorable. The stuff that's a prerequisite for any sort of interest from anyone outside of us who are already listening. A few new tunes buried within and around all the other good stuff that we like. Michael Moore, Gerry Hemingway, Don Cherry, Jemeel Moondoc, Tony Malaby, Mat Maneri, Darius Jones, Mark Helias, Barry Altschul, Fred Anderson and I'm sure a bunch of other wonderful composers a bit more to the mainstream have written more than a few melodic, catchy, memorable gems. So they exist buried within recorded sessions that are heard by the hundreds sometimes at the most. Who the hell is gonna play these bedsides who has already heard them? And where are they gonna play these besides on their stereo, I-pod, MP-3 or whatever? Hot 888 or whatever gonna play Hemingway's gorgeous lilting Holler Up?!?!? Much of it could labeled or described as post Ayler of free or avant-garde.

Thanks for the comments. I guess I need to check that saxophonist out!

Another release I wish I put on my very recent order. at least I have the 10 CDs I did order all arriving over the next few days

Plus he plays in a wide variety of exceptional ensembles. His amazing trio with Craig Taborn and Mat Maneri is playing at Greenwich House in early September. I've seen them twice. The first time spring of 2013 was pretty much the most exciting 2 sets of music I've seen in the last couple of years. And as those who pay attention, I'm excited by a good bit of live music that I see fairly regularly. I urge anyone local to see that trio live.

I'm stoked as I'm going to see 65 year old Paul Flaherty roar on the saxophone for the first time. He sounds fresh as paint on record to me. It says on the liner notes that he made his first record in 1978. Maybe he's old school. I know he roars on the saxophone and I imagine the set is not gonna be cool or laid back or whatever the guy a few posts above was talking about. I might dance. I will move. I will be fired up.

Been tracking the upcoming shows and I'm circling the possible ones and a while back I noticed that Ches Smith's week of shows @ The Stone are very interesting with These Arches scheduled for 10/1 and a fine quartet the following night. Then I see on Saturday night 10/4, the first set is a trio of Brandon Seabrook on guitar, Toby Driver on bass and Ches on drums. Called TANK. Sounds smoking. THEN - the second 10:00 set: Ches Smith Tyshawn Sorey Randy Peterson Get Ready to Receive Yourself

I'm kinda dyin' over here knowing I can't make it on Thursday @ Vision Fest.

I'm now upset I didn't include this on my most recent order. Instead, I'm gonna make sure I revisit the original Lacy music that this recording is based on. I will make sure get this and I will make I check out the band live.

Not to mention playing videogames, which is a billion dollar industry which last i heard had officially eclipsed the movie industry earnings wise. From housewives playing casual games on smart phones to hardcore PC gamers, people are in to gaming. And unlike music they're willing to spend money on it. People will spend thousands on consoles and games; that's a large slice of the disposable income pie right there. Jazz is not that popular but i think the age of traditional popularity, household names etc, in pretty much any genre, is largely over. It was a blip. Having said that, i think if promoted in the right way jazz could at least reach more of the young/alternative audience. At the end of the day jazz is a different language to what most people grew up with. What motivation does anyone have to learn a second language if they don't need it? Also, it's a fact of life that factors other than the music itself come in to play = for most people jazz is a faceless, contextless music. When we pick up an album and look at the personnel we sense the history of the players and everything that comes with it: "whoa i wonder what Dude X will sound like with Dude Y on bass prior to that period of his playing." For most people however the personnel are a list of random names that carry no weight whatsoever. I've often thought that if a listener listened to an album not as a 'jazz' album but as an experimental album from one of their favourite alt bands it would be a mind opener. I'm 33 and starting getting in to jazz at around 25. FWIW here's what i thought pre-indoctrination: - In general i disliked brass. - The saxophone is the least cool instrument on the planet. In the eighties when i was growing up it seemed like every horrible pop song and cheesy sitcom theme featured a corny saxophone solo. - As a hip hop fan, i'd often check out jazz due to enjoying songs with jazzy samples. It always felt like it was missing something without the beat. Vacant, lacking. - Beats. I can't stress enough how used we are to hearing a strong kick snare four four beat and how wrong it feels to not have it there (in hindsight this is weird as i dug film music and other stuff that didn't have a beat). - That 'tss t t tss t t tss' and walking bass line thing made me want to slit my wrists. - Sometimes i'd enjoy the heads but i found solos to be completely tedious. Listening to Kind of Blue it was like a switch when the solos would start, like the carpet was being pulled out from under my ears. - Beats. No beats. No good. - Funny thing is i don't even remember consciously thinking that jazz was old or dead or whatever. People don't give it that much thought. I started listening to jazz when I was ~ 31 or so. My first thought was: 1) where the fuck are the drums? I was used to rock music. It took a few weeks to hear the music and it was Mingus at Antibes that did it. I then bought a zillion classic recordings and started listening to more current music including 70's and 80's Waldron, Murray, Hemphill, Lake and Rivers, etc. I started hearing something extraordinary about hearing music that to me was without limitations and very energetic and exciting. Seeing Trio 3 helped. Seeing Evan Parker roar on tenor with Dresser and Previte had me hooked on the "avant-garde"

Some people will. But that sort of music has a tiny audience. It might seem otherwise at a dedicated New York or London venue with millions living within commuting distance. I can't imagine many turning out for it in the market town I live in. We don't even get mainstream jazz here! Remember that in its determination to confront conformity and stereotype much of that music deliberately throws out or disguises the things most people recognise as music - recognisable melody (in the sense of tunes), a danceable beat, standard harmony. There is no doubt that if you are receptive to having your prejudices about music confronted then it can be enjoyed by anyone. But, as you said earlier, most people's interest in music doesn't go that far (and there's no reason it should). Agree with all of this. My wife heard the stuff I listen to at home for years and besides a few things, I was forced into listening via headphones. Cecil Taylor scared her and forget about Brotzmann. But when saw the musicians live it all changed. She told Nasheet Waits that he should be on Jay Leno

Plus the idea that extended improvisations or continuous playing through different compositions cannot capture the attention of an audience is not accurate based on my experience. When the music is good, people listen and get into it.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that? Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point. ​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34. I agree that jazz should not be watered down to try to appeal to a mass audience. However, even in my lifetime I can remember Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra emphasizing an entertainment aspect in their shows, or at least a lively, friendly interaction with the audience. Charles Mingus, Dexter Gordon and Carla Bley had large personalities and some people went to see them partly to hear their between song comments and just to see them. I am not aware of anything like that today. I can't name any jazz artist who presents an entertaining, engaging or compelling onstage personality, or who makes their shows entertaining. There are no jazz artists that I can think of who would generate a comment like "oh, he or she is really cool" from a member of the general public. ICP, William Parker's Quartet, and I would even venture to say Tony Malaby, despite what some feel is his desultory appearance. The bands I see are mostly highly entertaining *and* musically invigorating. Almost all the bandleaders are open and warm to the audience and my experience is the audience has plenty of fun. My belief is that most people just don't love music in the same way that some of us do - and that once they end up with some sort of stable life, they like what they might hear on the radio or see on TV. And the few concerts they might see would be a band from their past (Fleetwood Mac or The Eagles) or something that they heard on hot 97 or whatever the current Top 40 station is where they live. Same as it ever was, really - but as someone pointed out, music on a deep listening level is simply not as important to as many as it once was as there are a zillion new ways to be "entertained". Who is going to investigate some wordless sort of music when they aren't even really excited about the music they might currently listen to in between tweeting, surfing on line or watching DVRs of the latest shows or sporting events?!?!

Much truth to that Allen. I was only there for a few hours on Saturday. The set with Richard Davis, Aska Taneko, Angelica Sanchez and Andrew Cyrille was very fine and it was the only time a group was able to play long enough to find the core of the music and yet the set was only 40 minutes or so. Plus it appeared that they had signaled to the that the set should be shortened and then they played another 10 to 15 minute beautifully improvised piece of music. Tar Baby ( I hate the name, fwiw) with Oliver Lake played 3 or 4 tunes for a total of 20-25 minutes. The opening band played 2 compositions for a total of under 15 minutes. We left after Reid / Gibbs and Aklaaf who played 2 rocking tunes(one a Ronald Shannon Jackson thing) and the other a pure rock out song that was good - my wife loved it - and they were done in under 20 minutes. Glad I went but to compare it to, let's say, the sets I heard from the Lucien Ban/Mat Maneri Quintet with Tony Malaby, Bob Stewart and Gerald Cleaver @ Cornelia Street, there is NO comparison as far as the intensity, sound, vibe and ultimately the performance of the musicians. For example I am much more excited to go to I Beam (a square cement walled box of a room in Brooklyn) on June 22nd to hear two different trios with Max Johnson on bass that feature Paul Flaherty and Mat Maneri. I will be right there in front of the band hearing, feeling and taking in every drop of sweat, sound and force of those musicians. Seeing Nasheet Waits in a small club compared to that 980 one third filled auditorium is like Lobster compared to Chuck Steak. He was very fine and his solo was all Nasheet but it's nothing like when you are in danger of feeling like "this is fucking incredible" which can and has happened when I've seen drummers like Nasheet Waits live in the music rooms I normally see music in. Plus even after the fine improvised 40ish minutes, there was nothing in the level of excitement that I got, for example, from Cooper-Moore when he was playing with William Parker's In a Order to Survive in June 2012 @ Vision Fest. No band I heard even approached the level of intensity of groove of that awesome ensemble with Drake driving the engine.

Rita: One of these days I get to your neck of the forest.... I made some comments on the other thread. I enjoyed the few hours my wife and I were there. Highlights were the quartet with Mr. Davis and the duo with Cyrille and the fine cellist with a dancer that added to the presentation for me.

The audience at the concert last week in Montclair, NJ was pretty much a microcosm of the community. Mixed races, ages, sexes, etc.

Another myth is that intense free jazz/improv cannot be deeply engaging and profound Then again, I never heard it before that traditional more mainstream jazz is more engaging and profound than most of the music I listen to. Then again I listen to Led Zeppelin, Evan Parker, Hank Mobley, Pavement, Can, Mat Maneri, Darius Jones, AEOC, Oliver Lake, Husker Du and much in between. Maybe some more profound than others - but firm mt experience from my personal perspective, intense concentrated free improvisation of all sorts is the most challenging and profound.

I will do a survey at the 2 or 3 Evan Parker shows I will attend in September @ The Stone. My recollection is that it is wide range of ages from last September and 2009. The audience @ Cornelia Street has a nice percentage of young people

See Brotzmann tour thread - very young listeners are a large part of the more out/aggressive aspects of the free jazz For a more mainstream concert yet skewed towards the margins(The Dolphy tribute even last weekend in Montclair, NJ), the audience was older but many in their 20's through my age(54) The younger listeners, IMO, are looking for something else besides what has gone on before and even through free jazz/escastic jazz has been around for a while, it continues to morph and many have never heard anything like it. When a young friend of mine heard Brotzmann a few years back, he didn't hear out, he heard exciting jazz/improvised music that was exciting and vibrant to him. He is not alone.

Gerry Hemingway or Michael Moore

John Law