Larry Kart's jazz book

[Cornelius]

AllenLowe,

You say that the following is directed also to me:

"If you get nothing out of Larry's book than chances are you get nothing out of the music. This is the problem with jazz, audiences and musicians alike - a lack of intellectual background or perspective, a decided anti-intellectualism and a failure to understand that jazz is like all art forms and deserves the kind of sophisticated analyses that other forms receive. The failure to perceive this is why there is so much bad writing about jazz."

I did not post that I got nothing out of the book. I posted that certain kinds of passages left me cold. As to getting nothing out of the music, what a non sequitur! Get hold of yourself, please. Yeah right, all these decades I've been thriving on the music, relishing its details, inspired by its nobility, and I've been getting nothing out of it. As to anti-intellectualism (decided anti-intellectualism, no less [emphasis mine]), again, a non-sequitur and factually incorrect given my intellectual interest in the music. As to bad jazz writing, generally I agree that it is almost surely due to the lack of intellectual energy you describe. But someone not appreciating a particular piece of writing that you do appreciate does not entail that that person is anti-intellectual nor reflects a failure to understand jazz as art deserving of intelligent analysis.

"[...] it's the tone of Cornelius and Goulds's posts that bothers me - instead of engaging one of the country's finest jazz critics (and I am not exaggerating in that assessment) they seemed determined to prove that his whole approach is symptomatic of some kind of hyper-intellectuality [...]"

Again, you've gone past what I actually wrote, this time to impute onto me a motive that I don't have (or at least you say that I "seem" to have this motive). 1. I am not interested in proving anything at all about his "whole approach." 2. I have no interest at all in combating "hyper-intellectuality." I don't even know what that is. However, that does not entail that I won't express my dislike for certain intellectual writing - but not on account of its intellectuality per se, just as I alluded to in my original post.

"[...] the nasty and contemptuous tone of some of these posts [...]"

Since you've lumped me with another poster already (and I'm not opining on his posts), this needs my response. Some of my criticisms were point blank and harsh. That is not contempt. I don't have contempt for Kart and should resist any attempt by you to characterize me as contemptuous of him. As to 'nasty', there are too many senses to that word for me to untangle in this instance, but I think 'harsh' or 'tough' are fair characterizations and 'nasty' is a less fair one, especially as it might suggest a personal attack.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Cornelius

[AllenLowe]

"all these decades I've been thriving on the music, relishing its details, inspired by its nobility, and I've been getting nothing out of it."

yes, thanks, that's exactly my point. Just remember that the first step in solving any problem is the admission that you have the problem -

[jlhoots]

Everybody has an opinion.

I guess that's good.

Makes life interesting.

[Cornelius]

AllenLowe, I've responded to your criticisms with attention to their specifics and have disclaimed the contempt you ascribe onto me. Instead of a meaningful response, you come back with sarcasm that is sophomoric. At this point you've become plain unreasonable.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Cornelius

[ejp626]

Wow, this thread has gotten pretty far off track. I still haven't picked up the book but I probably will soon thanks to a Borders coupon. I did want to mention there is a very long and very positive review of the book in this week's Chicago Reader. I don't believe this is on-line (in the free section), but I didn't really look that hard. If it isn't on-line now, then in about a week, you can check the archive and order the article (for about $1).

[AllenLowe]

yes, I did get little unreasonable, I will agree. Just frustrated, I will admit, at your failure to get Larry - and it was probably unfair for me to lump you with Gould, who I really do think crossed the line in terms of getting personal. I will just question your judgement here; you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Larry's elucidation of Mobley's style is clear and to the point, so I guess you can agree to disagree. I do think you are way off with Duke Jordan, who has never recorded in a context that I would consider to be "hard bop" and who, at any rate, is stylistically miles from that form. And though he is from the bop era, rhythmically he has a deep connection to the swing players -

Edited January 21, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

yes, I did get little unreasonable, I will agree. Just frustrated, I will admit, at your failure to get Larry - and it was probably unfair for me to lump you with Gould, who I really do think crossed the line in terms of getting personal.

... I do think you are way off with Duke Jordan, who has never recorded in a context that I would consider to be "hard bop" and who, at any rate, is stylistically miles from that form -

SHOW ME how I got "personal".

Meanwhile, tell me if these albums Duke Jordan recorded don't fall in the "hard bop" category:

Tina Brooks, True Blue

Here Comes Louis Smith

Dizzy Reece, Comin' On

his own Flight to Jordan (particularly his own composition from that album, "Deacon Joe")

Watkins at Large

Yes, Jordan was a bop pianist. Doesn't mean he didn't fit into hard bop settings.

[Cornelius]

Thanks, Allen.

I haven't thought about Dan Gould's posts enough to firmly opine on the fairness of your characterization of them, though my hasty impression is that you were, at least, somewhat unfair to him also, though his remarks were pretty harsh too.

Perhaps I'll have time to give a more detailed followup on Duke Jordan. But first these points:

1. If we're going to examine whether he's a hard bop, as well as a bop, as well as a uniquely styled musician, we'd be assisted by some discussion of what those terms mean. As a start, I don't think of hard bop always as hard toned or hard driving, though it often is. For example, Mobley playing a soft ballad is still hard bop. The 'hard' in 'hard bop' doesn't need to be taken too literally.

2. As to contexts, among many others, 'Art Farmer Featuring Gigi Gryce', 'The Happy Blues', 'Watkins At Large', 'Here Comes Louis Smith', 'Blue Lights', 'True Blue'.

3. As I mentioned, sometimes the difference between bop and hard bop is not great. Sometimes it is a difference not so much in the soloists' lines but in the musical setting of them - the arrangements, the kinds of tunes, the style of the rhythm section, or just different musical emphases.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Cornelius

[AllenLowe]

I spoke to quickly - yes, he has recorded in those contexts - but by no stretch of the imagination is Jordan a hard bop pianist, in my opinion. His feel is too old school.

[AllenLowe]

This isn't out-of-line personal and nasty? (quoting Gould):

"As I read the lengthy excerpt, I was left thinking:

What the hell does this mean? and Is there anything here that illuminates a single thing about Mobley's playing that I don't already get from the music itself?

The answers I am left unequivicolly with is: Not much and absolutyely nothing

IMO, Jazz hardly needs the convoluted meanderings of one man's guesses about what an artist does or what motivates him or how he goes about his work.

Its one man's opinion and just because you think its spot-on doesn't mean it isn't utterly vacuous. "

give us a break...

Edited January 21, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

I spoke to quickly - yes, he has recorded in those contexts - but by no stretch of the imagination is Jordan a hard bop pianist, in my opinion. His feel is too old school.

Congratulations. Acknowledging a mistake is the first step to recognizing you have a problem.

Now, kindly identify how I became "personal in a way that was completely out of line."

For your convenience, here are the two posts:

I want to thank Cornelius for his extensive quoting of Larry's work, and Larry for attempting to clarify his opinions.

As I read the lengthy excerpt, I was left thinking:

What the hell does this mean?

and

Is there anything here that illuminates a single thing about Mobley's playing that I don't already get from the music itself?

The answers I am left unequivicolly with is:

Not much

and

Absolutely nothing.

I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that, for me, I am missing nothing by not running out to buy Larry's book.

Your mileage may vary, and hey, if you get great insight from his work, more power to you. But for me, Larry's ramblings epitomizes the old cliche about "writing about music is like dance about architecture."

*******

And Post 2:

IMO, Jazz hardly needs the convoluted meanderings of one man's guesses about what an artist does or what motivates him or how he goes about his work.

Its one man's opinion and just because you think its spot-on doesn't mean it isn't utterly vacuous.

If the fruits of his great intellectual efforts give you some great insight into the music, great. I get mine from within the grooves.

Look, nothing I've seen Larry write here made me think I would get anything out of his book, and Cornelius' lengthy quote confirmed it. That's why I asked for the Morgenstern book for Christmas. So shoot me.

Where did I get personal? Where is the "nasty and contemptuous tone"???

[AllenLowe]

see above - you need a little bit of work on the social skills -

Edited January 21, 2005 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

If I tell you that your opinions mean absolutely nothing and are vacuous (which of course I would never say to you, though I'm thinking it right now) - I am being nasty -

Edited January 21, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

If I tell you that your opinions mean absolutely nothing and are vacuous (which of course I would never say to you) - I am being nasty -

Uh, if there's "no there there" then naturally the opinions would be viewed as vacuous.

And no, if you told me my opinions are vacuous, I would not consider that nasty at all.

The fact is that throughout my posts, I said things like "you've mileage may vary" and "if you get great insight, more power to you" but apparently, when you speak of someone as exalted as dear old Larry, you may, may be allowed to not think so highly of his writings, but you sure as hell can't express that unless its accompanied by a lot of mewling and mea culpas.

[Dan Gould]

NOT COOL, Allen, to go back and edit a post so that it now appears you responded to my challenge to identify offensive statements earlier.

Now, my repeated challenge looks foolish, because you tried to alter reality.

NOT COOL at all.

[AllenLowe]

hey, idiot, don't you accuse me of something like that - it happened because we were both posting at the same time - unless one goes back to the title page, one will not see the new post - so FU

Edited January 21, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

hey, idiot, don't you accuse me of something like that - it happened because we were both posting at the same time - unless one goes back to the title page, one will not see the new post - so FU

Yeah, that would explain it except for this:

This post has been edited by AllenLowe on Jan 21 2005, 02:26 PM

That isn't the message you posted at 2:22 PM, is it?

And a hearty FU to you to, sir.

[AllenLowe]

and besides you don't need any help looking foolish, and this is getting out of hand, my apologies to everyone else, as I will sign off now -

[AllenLowe]

well I gues I'm not done - if I stay on the same page, on my computer, as my post is on, it will not refresh by itself - I will not see the new post unless I go back to the title page - and that post took me a few minutes to do - so don't call me a liar --2:26 is the SUBMISSION time, not the time I began to edit -

Edited January 21, 2005 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

I'm still trying to figure out why you guys are wishing Felix Unger on each other. I mean, he was kinda prissy and stuff, but aren't we all at one time or another?

Now, Theodore J. Mooney, THAT'S somebody I'd not want wished on me. Him or Harrison Carter (who, it must be noted, was a fink!)

[AllenLowe]

Actually, I was thinking Frankfurt University -

[Lazaro Vega]

Even while with Bird, Duke Jordan had a prettiness to his playing (all those lovely intros) that were far different than the harrowing music of Bud Powell. Duke was a bopper, yet his aesthetic seemed to arrive from the sunnier mood of the swing era. I'd buy that Allen.

Corn and co. here are challenging the reason for the book: Jazz in Search of itself. These days the music really aught to be considering such a search, i.e. the 'why' of it, not the 'how,' which the jazz in schools movement has made part of 7th grade curriculums, you know, the 'how' is being covered. To look at the music as an art form which ultimately communicates the condition of the soul in its human condition, even if that communication is of an imagined soul or a soul personna, puts jazz into the arena of art in general and, you know, many people don't want that responsibility, don' t want to consider the personal process of music, see it as entertainment or a means of making a living, and it is much easier to deal with as product, as a thing.

So if someone says Von Freeman, for instance, uses his ability to play inside or outside the changes according to the emotional demands of the song, that makes sense according to the music, and process, but it makes no sense according to "proper" means of playing a solo as taught today. So there it is: the difference between "music" and what everyone else is doing.

Hank Mobley's music lets you into a world of his own imagining, and that world is coming into being as he ties his note choices for creating melody to some very subtle rhythmic responses to his musical surroundings. So I can see Larry's point. Nothing is a foregone conclusion as he's soloing. There are not excessive patterns, and his riffs seem more about a celebratory declaimation than cliches. Who plays like that today? With the codification of every phrase huffed out by all the jazz greats, many musicians have become schooled, studied and highly skilled players, but what do they have to say? That isn't a complicated thing. Lester Young said of Trumbauer, "I like the stories he tells."

In today's jazz world, that epigram wouldn't fly. "Stories, you mean music?" All the while missing the point that the music is telling stories. And that is not an empty thing at all.

Ultimately, the music tells you, and years of listening do count: in fact, it is the one huge thing that is not being taught about jazz right now. Listening is what jazz is all about. To discount that... in the name of what?

Edited January 21, 2005 by Lazaro Vega

[Cornelius]

Larry,

Thank you for your previous post (about drama and soloists' lines). Some interesting ideas put in interesting terms.

Allen, Dan [written before I saw your "FU ... No, FU ... No, you FU" exchange]:

I think Dan is rash to conclude "beyond a shadow a doubt" from one passage and some discussion about it that the book would offer him nothing at all.

However, I did not sense that Dan meant that Kart is utterly vacuous in anything Kart might ever write, only that Dan thinks (by what I think is a poor inference) that Kart's present writings are vacuous, which is a gross overstatement. So while I think Dan pushes his case much too hard, I don't believe he went over (though maybe somewhat approaching) the line where criticism becomes personal insult and hardly "completely out of line." On the other hand, if Dan really meant to convey that there's "no there there" in Kart's mind (not even a possiblity of worthwhile thoughts), not just his writings, then that would be a personal insult.

/

Recall that the matter did not limit to consideration of Duke Jordan as a soloist, though that is probably the most important part of the matter. Anyway, "Jordu" is a very famous hard bop composition.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Cornelius

[Big Al]

Where did I get personal? Where is the "nasty and contemptuous tone"???

What, you don't think reducing a man's life's work to terms such as "ramblings," "convoluted meanderings," and "utterly vacuous" isn't "nasty and contemptuous?"

Tell us what you do for a living, Dan, so that we may have the opportunity to reduce YOUR life's work into a series of petty and uncalled for blasts against what you've dedicated your life to.

For that matter, just pick up the damn book (even Cornelius has done that, and he's made some excellent and debate-worthy points) and you will see, even with a cursory glance, that these are not the “ramblings” and “meanderings” of someone who woke up one morning and decided, “Hey, I think I’ll jot down some thoughts about my opinions of jazz.” Far from it. This is a collection of interviews, reviews, and yes, opinions, on the vast landscape of jazz from the LAST FORTY YEARS!!! Yet, you act as if any one of us just picked up a pen, wrote down some thoughts, sent ‘em off to a publisher, and voila, a book is published.

You don’t like the book? Fine. Say so. But is it asking too much to do that WITHOUT insulting the man’s work? Or are you just sore that no one’s contacted you about that grand list of CDs you felt compelled to tell us all about?

BTW, I do hope you don’t find that last comment to be ‘nasty and contemptuous.’ It isn’t. It’s just that I got nothing, absolutely nothing, out of looking at your list of CDs. But hey, that’s just me, others may dig it, and your mileage may vary. It’s certainly a better CD collection than mine, Gunga Din.

Again, no nastiness or contemptuousness intended.

[Lazaro Vega]

Yes, "Jordu" in the hands of Max Roach and Clifford Brown helped define the genre, but even that is much more subdued than "Walkin" or "Moanin." "Jordu" reminds me of something Benny Golson would do -- just real subtle dynamics, whereas "Sandu" seemed more unequivocally hard bop.

Hard bop pianists -- Horace Silver, Bobby Timmons -- seem to put more sweat in their playing. Look at some of Duke's later tunes, too, "Midnight Moonlight" and stuff he wrote in the 70's or 80's. Very lovely. Jordan with the premier hard bop drummer, Philly Joe Jones, got pasted on that Steeplechase record. I mean Philly ends up playing the head on "Ladybird" on that one if I'm not mistaken. Which may have been arranged, or Jordu might have just been pushed aside! "Lemme do it!" That's a great record, by the way.

Whether he is or isn't a hard bop musician could be debated (yes he was active then), yet Duke isn't definitive in that genre, though he was in bop, painting with lighter colors than Bud.