Get Used to It

[Guy Berger]

link

Trygve Seim, the saxophonist in a Norwegian quartet billed as the Source, is an original—his veering tenor and soprano on the group's eponymous second ECM release leaves no doubt about that, especially following the rigorous melancholy of his writing for larger ensembles on 2000's The Source and Different Cikadas and two other ECMs under his own name, 2002's Different Rivers and last year's Sangam. But the question I can hear the jazz police asking is whether that much originality is desirable in a foreign musician.

"Originality" has become dissociated from "origin," Raymond Williams holds in Keywords: "Indeed, the point is that [originality] has no origin but itself." The problem in a nutshell, the Stomping the Blues crowd would say. It's probably just as well Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Artist" seems to be the only work of literary theory on their advanced reading list; otherwise they'd pervert Williams's cultural materialism to support their argument that jazz becomes something else, something not nearly as vital, when it loses touch with its blues ancestry. Though homegrown avant-gardists, white and black, have been frequent targets of such criticism, Europeans are automatically suspect as much on account of geographical distance as race. European jazz was OK—flattering, actually—so long as Europe remained primarily a market requiring local rhythm sections and everybody agreed that with inexplicable exceptions like Django, European musicians were no match for their American models. But the increasing dominance of elements from their own cultures is an affront to both American and black exceptionalism—though I doubt the affronted would ever put it that way...

[Niko]

i suppose this text is the answer to some sort of very rude attack

[Guest youmustbe]

One of his better articles. He's right...the Europeans, I don't know if I would call it 'Jazz', have the sound for today, whatever one might think of it. I don't care for it, for one.

But, it's about time everyone stopped pretending that Jazz is still a Black music. Blacks lost interest in Jazz in the mid-sixties. Also, maybe at this point at the beginning of the 21st Century, iimprovisation, like Symphonies or Sonatas are not what hits the spot musically.

No big deal.

[king ubu]

some Beachwood, N.J. chap's letter was published in July 2006 downbeat:

In your issue (May '06) featuring the European jazz scene, you missed a great opportunity to educate these cats across the pond on what real jazz playing is. Without the blues, boogie-woogie, ragtime and stride, we would not have the jazz foundation. Europeans bypassed the building of this foundation, therefore they don't swing. The results are clear in hte music of In The Country, Esbjörn Svensson, Misha Mengelberg [ha! what a representative listing! What/Who is "In the Country" anyway? - king ubu] - I could go on and on. Their insularity oozes out of their music.

Now seriously no one can tell me Mengelberg don't swing - that's just plain shit! And without the simple harmonies of yurpeen folk music and classical music, there'd have been no harmonic foundation for jazz... it wasn't just blues that stood at the beginning, was it? Crap!

[Alexander Hawkins]

Misha swings like crazy, NO doubt. And if there's a drummer in the world today who can get a groove going like Han Bennink, show me.

[Niko]

some Beachwood, N.J. chap's letter was published in July 2006 downbeat...

it's a pity they didn't let that guy write the article, might have been very instructive (more for Louis Sclavis and John Surman, however, than for the reader...)

[Nate Dorward]

some Beachwood, N.J. chap's letter was published in July 2006 downbeat...

it's a pity they didn't let that guy write the article, might have been very instructive (more for Louis Sclavis and John Surman, however, than for the reader...)

Haven't seen the issue but isn't that the dread pianist/polemicist/hoaxer Jack Reilly?

[king ubu]

some Beachwood, N.J. chap's letter was published in July 2006 downbeat...

it's a pity they didn't let that guy write the article, might have been very instructive (more for Louis Sclavis and John Surman, however, than for the reader...)

Haven't seen the issue but isn't that the dread pianist/polemicist/hoaxer Jack Reilly?

Yes it is - though I have never heard of this moron...

[king ubu]

And on a more positive side, let me add a for Trygve Seim!

[Niko]

on the negative side let me add that jack reilly put a copy of his letter to the editor on his blog

http://www.sequenza21.com/reilly.html

another for this one and not only to keep things balanced

edit to add:

here is what reilly answered to a Jim Smart who wrote some comments on that letter - if this is poetry it sure is the most unfriendly and arrogant poem i have ever seen... it sure is weird

All commentators are non Musicians.

J. Smart is a commentator.

Therefore, J. Smart is a non-musician.

AND:

All non-jazzers are out of the loop.

J. Smart is a non-jazzer.

Therefore J. Smart is out of the loop.

(definition of "out of the loop: One who has not entered the "arena" of a practicing jazz improvisor).

JAR

Edited July 24, 2006 by Niko

[Lazaro Vega]

All non-jazzers are out of the loop.

J. Smart is a non-jazzer.

Therefore J. Smart is out of the loop.

And this type of attitude is why today's jazz lost its audience. You can talk about re-issues and compeating with the past, and that's a factor, but this kind of "if you don't know, you're not welcome and in any case your opinions are ill informed and invalid on their face" is the most alienating, audience deflating, belittling point of view an artist or writer on the arts can take. What's worse is it sounds like the writer is defending a status quo that is false or at best imaginary: the only constant in jazz throughout its ENTIRE development is change. Blues and swing mutated in the 1960's, they didn't go away but became another part of themselves, and an element of the a music which was always comprised of various elements, i.e. a fusion of influences formed into a personal music. The process was always greater than the sum of it's parts. To point out two important parts of jazz as the only valid parts, and then not recognize them when they change, is to follow a map that will surely get everyone lost.

[Johnny E]

Has Jack Reilly ever LISTENED to Misha Mengelberg? Or John Stevens or Willem Brueker or Albert Mangelsdorff or Alex Von Schlippenbach or Kenny Wheeler or Fred Van Hove or Georg Graewe or Irène Schweizer or Lars Gullin?

Maybe we all should write more. If Downbeat lets this nincompoop spew his ignorance on their pages, I'm sure 75% of the posters on this board could - only better and more knowledgeable.

[Niko]

All non-jazzers are out of the loop.

J. Smart is a non-jazzer.

Therefore J. Smart is out of the loop.

And this type of attitude is why today's jazz lost its audience.

I looked again at this passage some days ago and (what I had not noticed initially) he does not answer that to someone who criticizes his letter the way I might have done but to someone who wrote (not with these words) "well, Jack, you know I'm a fan of yours but you might be slightly wrong with this letter, because here in Scotland (?) there are three guys [names didn't tell me anything] who really swing - I suppose if you ever had heard them you wouldn't have written your letter this way but you might consider listening to them"

[fasstrack]

All non-jazzers are out of the loop.

J. Smart is a non-jazzer.

Therefore J. Smart is out of the loop.

And this type of attitude is why today's jazz lost its audience. You can talk about re-issues and compeating with the past, and that's a factor, but this kind of "if you don't know, you're not welcome and in any case your opinions are ill informed and invalid on their face" is the most alienating, audience deflating, belittling point of view an artist or writer on the arts can take. What's worse is it sounds like the writer is defending a status quo that is false or at best imaginary: the only constant in jazz throughout its ENTIRE development is change. Blues and swing mutated in the 1960's, they didn't go away but became another part of themselves, and an element of the a music which was always comprised of various elements, i.e. a fusion of influences formed into a personal music. The process was always greater than the sum of it's parts. To point out two important parts of jazz as the only valid parts, and then not recognize them when they change, is to follow a map that will surely get everyone lost.

Lazaro: The basics of jazz are important. And they are widely felt. When I went to Holland in '01 I heard so many fine players, the greatest among them the tenor player Ferdinand Povel. He's just beautiful, period. I think where the 'police' go wrong is 'overtelling'. When it starts swinging your feet will tell you. You don't need a wag. But writers and other assorted wags need a gig, I guess.

As far as the European jazz tradition I've heard so much about (but didn't get to sample it in the Hague, as the folks I met there are into bebop and standards) they have every right to it. Who the hell are we to tell them how to play their jazz or do anything. There's a line where pride ends and arrogance begins. We don't even have to get into how American smugness is viewed worldwide. It is despicable.

Jazz is an international language. People from all cultures swing. I've heard it with my own ears. The Europeans were swinging in the 30s. Django and Stephan and on and on. They knew this was a great thing and wanted to get in on it. And they were loved in the states. Also Europeans have embraced our music and sheltered our musicians for so long we coud be a hell of a lot less snotty toward their contributions. I don't blame them one iota for being pissed or defensive. Also they have their own culture and traditions that we have borrowed liberally from. Try playing jazz music without harmony or form and see how far you get. And don't tell me about free jazz. Those guys have their patterns and cliches too, just like straight-ahead guys do. Also, I bet European 'home-grown' jazz is as good or bad as any other music---depending on the level of artistry of those involved, or lack thereof. A no-brainer.

I don't know what they sound like in Norway, never having been there. But I bet had Charlie Parker heard their music, his ears and creative spirit being as big as they were, he would've encouraged the fuck out of them.

I finally heard Mangelsdorff after he passed away thanks to the efforts of programmers at WKCR FM here in NY---true jazz devotees and disseminators. What a monster! He could play some serious bebop and swing and whatever else he got into he got into. It took balls. Good for him. Finally, regarding my own ignorance, guys were talking about Jiggs Whiggam in Holland. I didn't even know who he was.

Reminds me of the title of Oscar Levant's autobiog: A Smattering of Ignorance.....

[Lazaro Vega]

Of course musical basics are important, but the generation who challenged what those basics are, both in classical music and jazz, made inroads into new methods and practices which are far more valid musically, and more akin to the shattering truths of early jazz, then they're given credit for.

[fasstrack]

Of course musical basics are important, but the generation who challenged what those basics are, both in classical music and jazz, made inroads into new methods and practices which are far more valid musically, and more akin to the shattering truths of early jazz, then they're given credit for.

They're not more valid. Just because something is new doesn't make it an improvement. If it is an improvement it doesn't negate the foundation on which it stands. It wouldn't even be there but for that foundation. Most of the real innovators in life know they didn't magically appear from nowhere. Let's give everyone credit.

[king ubu]

fasstrack, I enjoyed reading your longer post a lot

What Lazaro said was that they (you know what it refers to) are more valid than they're given credit for - that's totally (and sadly so) true, isn't it? Sure, maybe Ornette isn't a very easy character etc, but hey, he's a giant, he's among us - who knows, who cares? Even many people posting here consider Jimmy Smith and Grant Green and Hank Mobley more important still today... not that that's not ok, but there's more than that...

Maybe innovations building upon (challenging something is at the same time building on it, isn't that true in almost all cases?) basics, rules, roots, whatever, are more valid than sort of museum-like recreations of past achievements (Wynton etc.)? I'd say yes, but even that is debatalbe, I assume.

And one more point: the "rules" and "foundations" may be somewhere hidden very early, in the dark (myths? or at least being mythologized?), but then what's considered by many to be "foundations" or "rules" haven't been there from the beginning... what today's mainstream (which hasn't evolved muchly since around 1960) is built upon is a fundament that was revolutionary, too, in the 40s, wasn't it? So maybe the "set of rules" itself is evolving, too? Most likely...