Ben Ratliff

[Larry Kart]

I don't look at Ratliff that much but enough to know that something's very wrong there. But a sentence in his review of Jason Moran in today's NY Times stopped me in my tracks. After describing this as Moran's blues band, because it makes ample use of slide-guitar lines, blues scales, etc. and plays an actual piece by Albert King, Ratliff writes: "Yet at the same time the quartet did what the best jazz groups do: render material neutral, if not irrelevant."

Again, I'm not a Ratliff scholar (alarming concept), but it seems to me that whatever voodoo is going on in that IMO insane little sentence may be the essence of his method -- it creates the illusion of thought and movement without saying anything that pertains to the subject at all; and thus it remains safely inoffensive, which I think is the goal. Or, to put it another way (which may be why that phrase leapt out at me), rendering himself neutral, if not irrelevant, is what Ratliff himself is trying to do.

[JSngry]

As if an Albert King song needed some neutralizing (whatever THAT means...I assume it means the musical equivalent of cooking tomatoes with sugar to make them taste less like tomatoes) to make it "jazzworthy".

That's some stupid shit.

Edited January 28, 2005 by JSngry

[Christiern]

Ratliff sometimes sounds like the Professor Irwin Corey of jazz. He does this sort of thing often. As I have said before, I think he is the most useless writer the NY Times has had covering jazz. I also think his sloppiness is symptomatic of a general downgrading of the NY Times entertainment coverage.

[couw]

reading the piece (it is available online), I have the impression that it should rather read something like: "Yet at the same time the quartet did what the best jazz groups do: render material neutral," loosening it from its original source and context.

Edited January 28, 2005 by couw

[JSngry]

I don't think that material needs to be rendered neutral. Far from it. Why bother selecting specific material if it ultimately doesn't matter?

I do think that past interpretations of the same material can be effectively rendered neutral, and I also think that any piece of material can provide a basis for something far removed from its original intent, but that's nowhere near the same thing as neutralising the material itself.

[Aggie87]

Sorry, but I'm not understanding this (non-musician here). What does "rendering neutral" mean in terms of a tune? Removing all traces of its character to become a mere soloing device? Eliminating it's purpose/effect? Or something else all together? If so, would a "neutralized" song have any effect at all on a listener?

[Lazaro Vega]

Well, whatever you do be sure to not make the song YOURS.

[JSngry]

Sorry, but I'm not understanding this (non-musician here). What does "rendering neutral" mean in terms of a tune? Removing all traces of its character to become a mere soloing device? Eliminating it's purpose/effect? Or something else all together? If so, would a "neutralized" song have any effect at all on a listener?

That, I think, was Larry's point - that the phrase was used carelessly at best, and cluelessly at worst. Piss-poor conveyance of an idea.

If he REALLY meant it exactly as written, then he's an idiot, at least in that regard.

Just my opinion.

[couw]

If he REALLY meant it exactly as written, then he's an idiot, at least in that regard.

please enlighten me, what does it REALLY mean exactly? Seriously, I am having trouble not seeing this as the thing you get when you smear around combining various sentences into one in your word-processor.

...

The album reaches the stores next week, but Mr. Sewell has been playing live with the trio (Mr. Moran, the bassist Tarus Mateen and the drummer Nasheet Waits) for long enough that he has absorbed its springiness, its raw, abrupt shifts in tempo and mood and volume.

Playing amped-up slide-guitar lines on electric guitar, and unusual harmonies on acoustic with a special tuning, he is a necessary part of the band's new music. Aside from plenty of blues scales, blue notes and shuffle rhythms, the set at the Jazz Standard on Wednesday night included an actual piece of blues-guitar repertory: "I'll Play the Blues for You," recorded in 1972 by Albert King.

Yet at the same time the quartet did what the best jazz groups do: render material neutral, if not irrelevant. The set also included a version of "Joga," which Mr. Moran identified as having been written by "the blues artist Bjork," and a tape of a complex African drum chant over which Mr. Moran fitted a version of the jazz war horse "Lover." It didn't quite caramelize, but it was done with great confidence.

...

[JSngry]

If he REALLY meant it exactly as written, then he's an idiot, at least in that regard.

please enlighten me, what does it REALLY mean exactly?

If you take it literally, it means that the best jazz is that which removes all "the flavor" from an individual piece and leaves everything sounding/feeling the same. That is, of course, the complaint that many non-jazz fans have against the music in the first place, that "it all sounds the same", or any number of variations thereof.

A few people have been able to produce great jazz by doing that, but not very many. Most of waht I consider great jazz has consisted of music where material itself remains relevant at some level, even if it is doing a familar tune in a totally unfamilar way, or finding new meaning in a familiar composition, or even finding a new setting for improvisation. Those are all ways in which material is very relevant,

I suppose that what Ratliff was trying to say is that great jazz finds inspiration in many places, and many times in some unexpected/nontraditional "nonjazz" places, that it's a music that can absorb many influences and source materials in the process of turning them into something ese entirely other than what they originally were. Which is spledidly true.

But that's not what he siad, and unlike Mr. Kart's description of Mobley's playing that stirred up such a fuss not too long ago, it's not a thought that reveals its essential "correctness" under thoughtful scrutinization. It's just a thought that sounds like it must mean SOMETHING, even if that something has to be guessed at. And even if/when you guess, you can't be sure if you got it right or not.

But as they say, "your mileage may vary". If somebody was able to reach the same conclusion as me as to what Ratliff really meant, and did so unambiguously, well then, good. As was obvious from the Kartian-induced chaos last week, some people "get" a writer and their style, and some don't. So maybe Ratliff is one that I just don't get. But damn - that seems like some awfully ignunt shit to me. Or, at the least, an expression of a thought not fully processed before being offered for consumption. Not so much a fault of "style" as of swallowing your food before it's chewed well.

[Larry Kart]

Couw -- What it would really mean is that the "best jazz groups render" (as in "translate" or "modify") the "material" they're playing until it is more or less "neutral" ("having [in itself] no strongly marked characteristics" is the only definition of "neutral" that seems to fit). Don't think I need to add what "if not irrelevant" would really mean here.

What Ratliff probably had in mind is the way -- in jazz, in a "blowing" context -- blues changes or "Rhythm" changes or the like can be the ground base for just about anything a talented improviser wishes to play. But to say flatly that the "best jazz groups" do this, as though this is what distinguishes those groups from others that are less than good, is absurd. Also, many of us have written lots of reviews for daily newspapers on tight deadlines -- "the thing you get when you smear around combining various sentences into one in your word-processor" is no excuse.

[couw]

Jim, you scrutinised and came to something "spledidly true," how is it that does not reveal "essential correctness" then? Playing the devil's advocate, why is "(not) getting" what Larry meant with his Mobley passage different from (not) getting this passage by Ratliff? Both are not examples of lucid writing (sorry Larry... ). Either you get it, or you don't and you need to think a lot in between too. And if you don't get what Larry wrote, it's all a bunch of hooey, just like Ratliff's is. Ask Dan.

Larry, cutting the man some slack, the passage could as well translate to something more like that the "best" in jazz combines all sorts of influences to a coherent whole. Not necessarily something I would support with my life, but reading other writings it's not too exotic either -- some even pander it as a definition and/or origins of the idiom. And certainly not as absurd as you claim it to be.

BTW & to underline, I am not saying that I understand what the hell Ratliff is saying here.

[Larry Kart]

Couw -- I'm afraid you're leading me down the rabbit hole here, but how can you say " I am not saying that I understand what the hell Ratliff is saying here" in the same post in which you say "the passage could as well translate to something more like that the 'best' in jazz combines all sorts of influences to a coherent whole"? If you don't "understand what the hell Ratliff is saying here," then any guess on your part as to what he meant is admittedly just that -- a guess. And guesses don't belong with phrases like "could as well," no? Or could I "as well" be Alice in Wonderland and you the Cheshire Cat or the Mad Hatter?

Also, while you're welcome to your impression that what I wrote about Mobley is a bunch of hooey, fact is that others here have felt otherwise and said so. Don't think that anyone here has claimed to find Ratliff's account of Moran enlightening. That doesn't prove that what I wrote isn't hooey; it does suggest that there is a limit to mere logic chopping.

[JSngry]

Jim, you scrutinised and came to something "spledidly true," how is it that does not reveal "essential correctness" then? Playing the devil's advocate, why is "(not) getting" what Larry meant with his Mobley passage different from (not) getting this passage by Ratliff?

For me, it's simple - with Larry's writing, I immediately (usually) get a sense of recognition that what he's said rings fundamentally true for me as well as for him, (or, when I disagree with him, that I clearly understand what it is that we disagree on), and further contemplation, when needed, usually confirms that. The only time he "loses" me is when he references things of which I am less than familiar. But that's my problem of not being as exposed to vaious authors, poets, painters, etc. as he is. If nothing else, it provides stimualtion to maybe someday get outside what I already know.

With the Ratliff passage, I had to say, "What the fuck is THAT supposed to mean?" And even after I've figured out what I think he MIGHT have meant, I'm still not sure, and probably never will be.

Now, I've read Ratliff often enough to know that is worst sin, imo, is being bland, both in what he reviews and how he reviews it. But this passage is just plain wack.

Again, just my opinion.

[Nate Dorward]

Might as well post the piece here. It's about the worst piece of Ratliff's I've seen, actually, just in the proportion of cant to content. I hate reading this kind of stuff because it then makes me wonder about Moran..... & while I'm not 100% sold on Moran, I think he's better than this, anyway. --N

*

Tangling Up the Blues in Long Tendrils of Jazz

By BEN RATLIFF

In five years as a bandleader, the jazz pianist Jason Moran has developed such an aptitude for the curious juxtaposition of idioms - jostling jazz against opera, stride piano, film music, pop, the music of human speech patterns - that he was starting to need a challenge.

He chose a good one: blues. Jazz and blues are so obviously related in black American culture, musically and socially, that it might require a different mindset to thoughtfully combine them. Perhaps a mindset that's less restless and arch, more ready to buckle down and deal with the genealogy of jazz as it has been most reliably laid out. If that's what you're thinking, Mr. Moran has made an end-run around you.

Many jazz musicians regard blues as a harmonic structure in which to fit swing rhythm and jazz-group interaction - as, for example, John Coltrane did on one of his best records, "Coltrane Plays the Blues." But when Mr. Moran thought blues, he also thought of shuffle beats and Texas guitar players; blues-as-blues style, not jazz-as-blues or merely blues form. To that end he hired the guitarist Marvin Sewell as a fourth member of his band, Bandwagon.

That's the premise, anyway, but Mr. Moran doesn't let premises dictate very much. "Same Mother" (Blue Note), Mr. Moran's blues record, is not as much about the blues as it is about his memory and imagination and, inevitably, his compositional style, equally full of tumultuous group interaction and serious, gentle Ellington-ballad harmonies. A bit like Cassandra Wilson's "Belly of the Sun," it's a generalized and creative evocation of the sound and feel of Southern blues and manners.

The album reaches the stores next week, but Mr. Sewell has been playing live with the trio (Mr. Moran, the bassist Tarus Mateen and the drummer Nasheet Waits) for long enough that he has absorbed its springiness, its raw, abrupt shifts in tempo and mood and volume.

Playing amped-up slide-guitar lines on electric guitar, and unusual harmonies on acoustic with a special tuning, he is a necessary part of the band's new music. Aside from plenty of blues scales, blue notes and shuffle rhythms, the set at the Jazz Standard on Wednesday night included an actual piece of blues-guitar repertory: "I'll Play the Blues for You," recorded in 1972 by Albert King.

Yet at the same time the quartet did what the best jazz groups do: render material neutral, if not irrelevant. The set also included a version of "Joga," which Mr. Moran identified as having been written by "the blues artist Bjork," and a tape of a complex African drum chant over which Mr. Moran fitted a version of the jazz war horse "Lover." It didn't quite caramelize, but it was done with great confidence.

I can imagine coming away from the show impressed with Mr. Moran's ideas but frustrated with him as a jazz pianist per se. In performance he doesn't spend much time evenly working out variations through successive choruses, and he isn't that concerned with speed and touch. But he makes a case for himself through other devices: dynamics, repetition, aggression, ways of making a tune's momentum crumple and then reconstitute. And anyway, with Mr. Moran, it always comes down to the band - a formidable thing.

Edited January 29, 2005 by Nate Dorward

[couw]

Couw -- I'm afraid you're leading me down the rabbit hole here, but how can you say " I am not saying that I understand what the hell Ratliff is saying here" in the same post in which you say "the passage could as well translate to something more like that the 'best' in jazz combines all sorts of influences to a coherent whole"? If you don't "understand what the hell Ratliff is saying here," then any guess on your part as to what he meant is admittedly just that -- a guess. And guesses don't belong with phrases like "could as well," no?

no?

I always thought that "could" belonged to the realm of possibilities, as do guesses. I guess I could be wrong, though...

I would admit that guesses do not exactly belong with "the hell don't understand," but they do belong to "could as well," IMHO.

I guess we could as well agree to disagree on this.

Or could I "as well" be Alice in Wonderland and you the Cheshire Cat or the Mad Hatter?

o yes, THAT is ALWAYS a possibility when having me around. Even if I don't use Colgate Blue Minty Gel nor wear a fancy hat.

Also, while you're  welcome to your impression that what I wrote about Mobley is a bunch of hooey fact is that others here have felt otherwise and said so. Don't think that anyone here has claimed to find Ratliff's account of Moran enlightening. That doesn't prove that what I wrote isn't hooey; it does suggest that there is a limit to mere logic chopping.

The hooey part is your words and my mouth. I never said you wrote hooey, did I?

To hide behind the fact that no one is defending Ratliff on this particular board is an argument I am not going to accept. Then again, I WILL gladly accept your take on the man's writing as I will accept that of others on this board.

I will now read the piece Nate has posted. Maybe I will have formed an opinion myself after reading two of the man's pieces.

[couw]

Again, just my opinion.

thanks for the reply. much appreciated.

edit: this looks silly, but it is serious, ok?

Edited January 28, 2005 by couw

[.:.impossible]

eh hem. sorry to interupt, but this is the piece in question...

[couw]

eh hem. sorry to interupt, but this is the piece in question...

drats, read the same piece twice and didn't even notice.... :rsly:

[cannonball-addict]

The album reaches the stores next week, but Mr. Sewell has been playing live with the trio (Mr. Moran, the bassist Tarus Mateen and the drummer Nasheet Waits) for long enough that he has absorbed its springiness, its raw, abrupt shifts in tempo and mood and volume.

What the F^&* was he thinking as he wrote this paragraph???? How does the introductory clause relate to the rest of the nonsense in this paragraph? Looks to me like sloppy copy.

[cannonball-addict]

Christiern, do you know how he got this job? I know he was a student at Columbia and that probably put him in with the right people. And that's probably why the NYTimes always is eager to take stories from Schaap. Let's not excuse the low-rate work of Jon Pareles - the critical jack of all trades. That guy doesn't get jazz worth s^&*.

cb-a

[7/4]

Christiern, do you know how he got this job? I know he was a student at Columbia and that probably put him in with the right people. And that's probably why the NYTimes always is eager to take stories from Schaap. Let's not excuse the low-rate work of Jon Pareles - the critical jack of all trades. That guy doesn't get jazz worth s^&*.

cb-a

Wasn't he also on WKCR? It seems like I've heard his name for years, but when I met him last Summer at a concert, he said he was only at the Times for about 10 years.

[mailman]

I heard Moran and his quartet on Tuesday but not the same set as Ratliff. I can see how it might have been difficult to write about because it was not entirely successful-at least to these ears. Moran's playing didn't really stand out and some of the concepts he was dealing with (those tapes again) sometimes seemed forced. The band played very well and Sewell is an excellent guitarist. I did here the first set of the engagement and perhaps things have jelled more as the week has gone on. Ratliff's writing is pretty sloppy here but the music was sometimes less than coherent.

[Larry Kart]

"I always thought that 'could' belonged to the realm of possibilities, as do guesses. I guess I could be wrong, though...

"I would admit that guesses do not exactly belong with "the hell don't understand," but they do belong to 'could as well,' IMHO."

Couw -- "Could" and "could as well" don't mean the same thing. I'm looking at The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. It gives three meanings for the phrase "as well": (a) in addition, also (b) to the same extent © with equal reason or result." "Could," then, would cover guesses or unsupported and/or off-the-wall suppositions; "could as well" would not.

"The hooey part is your words and my mouth. I never said you wrote hooey, did I?"

No, but you quoted Dan Gould to that effect, and then tip-toed behind a smiley face. "I always thought that 'could' belonged to the realm of possibilities, as do guesses. I guess I could be wrong, though...

"I would admit that guesses do not exactly belong with "the hell don't understand," but they do belong to 'could as well,' IMHO."

Couw -- "Could" and "could as well" don't mean the same thing. I'm looking at The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. It gives three meanings for the phrase "as well": (a) in addition, also (b) to the same extent © with equal reason or result. "Could," then, would cover guesses or unsupported and/or off-the-wall suppositions; "could as well" would not.

"The hooey part is your words and my mouth. I never said you wrote hooey, did I?"

No, but you quoted Dan Gould to that effect and then tip-toed behind a smiley face. Have you said anything on this thread or elsewhere that suggests you disagree with that estimate of what I wrote about Mobley? Like what I wrote or not, I don't care -- but own up to what you think.

[Larry Kart]

Sorry for the repeated passage. Should be easy to sort out, though.