Jump to content

I Do Not Like Dave Brubeck


AllenLowe

Recommended Posts

I was going to post this on the recent Brubeck thread, but I do not want to be accused of being a troll. Let's all be civilized here and disagree politely - I once described Brubeck's playing as being like someone who's always shuffling a deck a cards but never actually playing cards - I think he is completely sincere in his playing, but does not have the tools to do what he thinks he wants to do, which is to play around with and alter rhythm and tonality. He skirts around the issue, uses a lot of modern mannerisms, but just never seems to get to the point, to develop his ideas or make them into anything interesting - I do like the Octet Recordings, however -

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, I've gone from loving him to hating him to finally accepting that he is what he is, which is sincere and aware, and letting that suffice. Some of his playing I've actually come back to liking, but I can't say that he's somebody who resonates with me at any level other than appreciation. But apreciation is a good thing in and of itself, so let me pat myself on the back. :g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DizzySpells

Allen, I've gotten used to the fact that just about anything I like, you don't. That's fine, especially since I think the points you make are valid ones.

What I have a problem with is this (and that it is not aimed towards you, not at all): Who is this music recorded for and how many people are going to sit in front of their stereo wondering about "altered rhythms and tonality" as well as "modern mannerisms"?

It is my old problem with jazz critics that they view this music from a vantage point that is far removed from the audience's experience. It is a rather elitist stance that does contribute to informed discussion, but not much else.

I've been making music, with interruptions, for nearly thirty years now. I've taken the road from copying the simplest stuff to studying twelve-tone music ... and back again.

Today, I just sit back and enjoy "Strange Meadow Lark" because it is a beautiful tune.

Does this make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I mean to say is somewhat along the lines of what Diz is saying. It just doesn't matter to me about how you view his talents and what credit you give him. I view his talents differently. And discussing it doesn't alter that. So I have already said enough!

It wasn't personal, except in that it all seems so subjective to me and therefore, "it ain't necessarily so" and "so what?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to post this on the recent Brubeck thread, but I do not want to be accused of being a troll. Let's all be civilized here and disagree politely - I once described Brubeck's playing as being like someone who's always shuffling a deck a cards but never actually playing cards - I think he is completely sincere in his playing, but does not have the tools to do what he thinks he wants to do, which is to play around with and alter rhythm and tonality. He skirts around the issue, uses a lot of modern mannerisms, but just never seems to get to the point, to develop his ideas or make them into anything interesting - I do like the Octet Recordings, however -

Hmmm

I'm not a musician, and I don't have a lot of theoretical (just heretical) musical knowledge, but I don't think you are right in your blanket statements about Brubeck's stuff.

I'd say that perhaps one reason you think he's musically barren is that he's not trying to do the things you think he's trying to do.

Not to say that I'm not occasionally driven up the wall by Brubeck's "locked hands" stuff (like on some of the live college recordings), or by what I perceive to be his pretentiousness (including some of the octet stuff in the latter category), but I do think that when he succeeds, he succeeds (a lot of his Columbia material).

--eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, it does make sense - to address Dizzyspells - but I don't think I'm being elitist in my dislike, even though I may couch it in terms that most people would not use -there is a certain sense that he has made modernism palatable, which is not necessarily a bad thing - Monk is accessible, too - it's just that Brubeck is limited musially. Interstingly, those solo recordings of his in which he just PLAYS without working so hard to sound "out" are good solid examples of mainstream jazz piano -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I do think he is trying to do those things - to play with form and rhythm, to open up song form, to add dissonance and to take the music both outside and back in - I just don't think he succeeds - compare his playing to that of someone like Paul Bley on standards -

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DizzySpells

I'm not sure if one can really be elitist in one's dislike (if one really likes music, that is), but I often hear critics dismissing musicians because of some historical, technical or genre categorization. I'm not saying you do that, because I could phrase my dislike of the Art Ensemble in similar terms, but I often wonder what role the actual music plays in criticism.

Your answer satisfies my curiosity though. I think, if I may rephrase that a bit, that Brubeck doesn't fulfill your expectations in many areas, and that's cool.

Hell, I have plenty of recordings here that I would fault for exactly that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen, I've gotten used to the fact that just about anything I like, you don't. That's fine, especially since I think the points you make are valid ones.

What I have a problem with is this (and that it is not aimed towards you, not at all): Who is this music recorded for and how many people are going to sit in front of their stereo wondering about "altered rhythms and tonality" as well as "modern mannerisms"?

It is my old problem with jazz critics that they view this music from a vantage point that is far removed from the audience's experience. It is a rather elitist stance that does contribute to informed discussion, but not much else.

I've been making music, with interruptions, for nearly thirty years now. I've taken the road from copying the simplest stuff to studying twelve-tone music ... and back again.

Today, I just sit back and enjoy "Strange Meadow Lark" because it is a beautiful tune.

Does this make sense?

:tup

Very good points, Dizzy! Also quite to the point ;)

And for those looking for whatever, "intellectual stimulation", they can still concentrate on Desmond, no? I mean, I absolutely love his playing, and on the outside it's beautiful, but on the inside, there's a lot more to it, I think. But then beauty itself is not a simple concept, either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that may be YOUR idea of the purpose of the board. I guess I view it differently. I'm just tired of "jazz criticism" overall on the board and off, and don't feel I can contribute in that type of discussion.

So I just wanted to say I disagreed and really enjoy Brubeck and bow out, so I'm bowing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I like a lot about Brubeck's playing is his at times totally wack take on a standard's harmonies. What keeps me from going any further with most of it is the metronomic aspect of his polyrhythms (i.e. - the "obviousness" of the math of what he's doing), and the "cheeriness" of all of it, which is admittedly a subjective evaluation on my part. I know that he's a thoughtful, sensitive man with a genuine love of/for life, but there's a lack of emotional variety in his playing (as I feel it, anyway) that just doesn't give me too much more to think about other than that he's a thoughtful, sensitive man with a genuine love of/for life. Which is a good thing, certainly, but still...

Interestingly, though, when I first started getting into hardcore Latin pianists like the Palmieris & Papo Lucca, my more hardore jazz friends couldn't deal with it. At all. "Sounds like Brubeck", was the sniffed standard dismissal, and it is one that is, objectively, not totally ill-considered. Why I love them and can't but respect him, I don't know, but Brubeck's playing still strikes me as uni-layered, both technically and emotionally. What you hear is exactly what you're getting, and all you're ever gonna get. I guess it come down to the point that what that "that" is is not something that connects too deeply with me personally.

But still, the cat's take on harmony can be very cool in and of itself, so that's the connection for me where it exists, and it is not without its pleasures and rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine that Brubeck has a very different perspective from Bley. I like them both, though neither is my favorite pianist.

It seems to me that Brubeck has always worked more towards the "popular" side of jazz, so his experiments were maybe lightweight compared to how others dealt with similar things. But he did get certain things into the public consciousness and I think the reception that he got in the 1950s and 1960s was good for music and creativity: I don't think the college crowd would have got behind someone else who wasn't as audience-minded.

Post-Desmond, Brubeck continued to experiment in his own (sweet) way, doing the orchestral/religious things, the Two Generations, the album with Braxton & Konitz, and the group he had with Jack Six, Alan Dawson, and Gerry Mulligan was a good one.

For the last 25 years it seems to be coasting, though. But he does put on a nice show - last saw him maybe 12 years ago - and the group (Jack Six, Randy Jones, Bob Militello) was adept - handling spontaneous meter changes wonderfully. I don't have all his records, don't need them mainly because I don't find all that much variety - but just last week I listened to Tritonis from 1980 - Chris Brubeck is a very good trombonist, wish he'd play more.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike and Jim, thanks for those perspectives - my problem, I think, is that I just find Brubeck to be so amateur in his sound - I have tried very hard to like him, without success - like Jim I appreciate his take on standard harmony, but I just don't think he's up to the tasks he prepares for himself, musically - it's like he's always prepping himself but never actually performing the task - it's like a surgeon who opens up his patient and than passes the scalpel to someone else ("here, Desmnd, make something sensical out of this") -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DizzySpells

Very good points, Dizzy! Also quite to the point ;)

And for those looking for whatever, "intellectual stimulation", they can still concentrate on Desmond, no? I mean, I absolutely love his playing, and on the outside it's beautiful, but on the inside, there's a lot more to it, I think. But then beauty itself is not a simple concept, either...

Flurin,

As usual, we are on the same wavelength. :tup But because this discussion is one I'd really like to get into on this board, I'll play the devil's advocate a bit. ;)

Everyone who's been to my place can attest to the meter of Desmond I have. I love his playing, the intimate (too me) tone he can produce on his instrument, the uncanny ability to reduce his playing to melody, to restrain himself, and his wonderful sense of rhythm.

But.

I do think that Desmond never took any risks. He milked his ability and fame for what it was worth and, for most sessions he participated in, left it at that. He was utterly predictable.

This doesn't stop me from listening to him - not at all, because I often prefer predictability (Jeez, I'm conservative) - but it makes me wonder what he was in fact capable of. I, for my part, would have loved to see him venture into unknown territory, and he hardly ever did. That, I think, is sad.

I think Allen touched on a good point. At some point I expected Desmond, just to stick with him as an example, to surprise me, and he didn't. My expectations weren't fulfilled, because I think he was capable of a lot more. Where I might be different, maybe, is that I still love to listen to his music knowing that, and that I turn to others to supply me with what I expected from him.

So, to sum it up, I wouldn't fault Desmond for not doing what I expected him to do, although I'm quite sure he had the ability.

Ball's in someone else's court now ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's like a surgeon who opens up his patient and than passes the scalpel to someone else ("here, Desmnd, make something sensical out of this") -

Another adjustment in my perspective towards the relative lack of melodicism in his playing (as opposed to his composing) came when I learned of his physical limitations that were brought on by an accident back in the 40s(?). Severely limited his right hand sngle line capabilities, or so I've heard. So maybe he sublimated his melodic energies into the other aspects of his playing, I dunno.

Still not as emotionally "nuanced" a player as I prefer, but for sheer lyricism, when you got Desmond on board, hey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion.

I like Brubeck, and enjoy the records I have of his. I'll agree with Ubu that there is always Desmond who is superb and the writing and arrangements to enjoy if Brubeck's playing doesn't hit the spot.

Something I find difficult to square personally is the huge success Brubeck has had which has evaded many other equally (or maybe more so) talented musicians.

As an awkward cuss, I usually swerve away from the most popular stuff, sometimes because its over exposed (I never need to hear Take 5 again) but more often its that I think that I maybe know better than what is 'popular'.

Brubeck then is someone who its taken me a while to like, but for me there is plenty to enjoy in the records. Been listening to Brubeck Plays Brubeck recently (courtesy of another thread here) and though I'm not sure about all of it, I've been coming back to it plenty and enjoying what I hear.

When Miles (or Gil Evans?) covers your tunes something is going right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm like Sangrey, I respect and appreciate Brubeck more than I care to actually listen to him. But one thing I truly enjoy about his music is his sense of humor, and I wonder how much of that was inspired by Desmond's presence? I mean, you can truly hear how much they enjoy playing together.

Having said that, the Carnegie Hall CD is an absolute MONSTER of an album!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, I've gone from loving him to hating him to finally accepting that he is what he is, which is sincere and aware, and letting that suffice. Some of his playing I've actually come back to liking, but I can't say that he's somebody who resonates with me at any level other than appreciation. But apreciation is a good thing in and of itself, so let me pat myself on the back. :g

I can very much relate to what you're saying, Jim. I've never considered him an essential artist nor have I ever valued any of his recordings greatly (with the possible exception of my 1st Brubeck acquisition, a red vinyl Fantasy of JAZZ AT OBERLIN). Certainly his piano playing can often sound ponderous, subtlety not being his strong suit. Yet all these years later, I notice quite a substantial number of his records on the shelf. Is it due to the presence of Desmond on the vast majority of them? Possibly to some extent, but also I suspect because as you say, he's always been "sincere and aware" and his playing does communicate an essential honesty, and that's worth something. That, and once in awhile the essential thing in music occurs, I am moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...