Iverson and Tristano

[Tom Storer]

I remember years ago I got a tape from him when he was unknown and I was just starting to produce records. I sent it off to somebody, can't remember who, and eventually he got some kind of deal with whomever it was.

That's the kind of insider detail that makes Organissimo indispensable!

[Tom Storer]

I still say that framing any discussion of Tristano (or "Tristano" is you want to deal with the entire "school") in primarily racial terms is, at this point in time, missing the point more or less entirely. Yeah, it was a motivator then, yeah, it was a "factor" in its time, pro and con, but like damn near any discovery of merit, it's moved far beyond those specifics of its time and into the general musical genetic gene pool, perhaps in relatively small doses so far, but you know, once things get in, it's hard to get them out except by brute ugly force.

If this is something that has begun happening just in the last 10-20 years or so, well, hey, it had to happen at some point, dig? And to miss that it has happened/is happening now is to miss the times in which we are beginning to live, which has unfortunately become the norm for jazz, but still, jeez, does it always have to be so damned....oblivious to its anachronistic self?

Iverson's discussion was a discussion of Tristano, about the musician, not about what has happened in the last 10-20 years. He had thoughts about that particular aspect of music and how it was operating in Tristano's time, so he wrote it up. What you seem to be saying is that he shouldn't have written that article, he should have written another one.

[JSngry]

Well of course he thoughts about that particular aspect of music and how it was operating in Tristano's time. But do what? What new nuggets of wisdom and flashes of illumination are to be found there. at this [opint in time? Mot nearly as much as acknowledging what went on then, but, oh by the way, alot of good that all did, because here, look at all this that's happening now, where the Tristanomusic is incorporated alongside other jazzmusics, and people are doing it for musical, not socio-politcal reasons. Let's look at the past as having been resolved, or at least being in the process of resolving instead of looking at it like there's still some semi-black hole in the fiber of the universe where Lennie still lives, still suffers his pains and indignation and is still present to hurl it all right back.

Lennie's dead. Warne's dead. Lee's older that god. But damned if I don't hear their language more now - if only through osmosis - than I did when they were alive (or younger than god). So why does the"interest" seem to be in studying the dead as if they are still alive instead of considering what the dead hath wrought in their wake?

The dead are fixed quantities, and they don't fight back. You can go there and tell a story, reconstruct, hell construct a history, and people will come from miles around to go to the party. In the meantime, the real dead have disintegrated, flown away, and their remnants have landed all over and amongst us now, and those remnants have quite often assumed new, much less conspicuous lives.

Why don't we look at how those guys played, what devices they used as part of their process, and then look at how many of those devices are now part and parcel of today;s language. A lot of it kinda got here by circuitous routage, but got here it did.

So that's one thing to talk about. The "whiteness" of Trisatano is another thing to talk about. So, for that matter, is the"blackness" of Louis Armstrong and the "whiteness" of Bix Biederbecke.

I think America is a lot more comfortable discussing its progress than actually going on ahead and living it, playing it out in real time.

Somebody get that word to Iverson, that he doesn't need to look back to find out what happened - WE are what happened, and although, yeah, sure "why" is important, what's even more important is whatcha' gonna do with it now, peeples, whatch'all gonna do with it now?

Whatever it is, I sure as hell hope it ain;t all gonna be in some damn museum or classroom.

[Fer Urbina]

Hmmm. . .Per. . . I can see Monk as "very black." Very original, and yet I so often hear a sort of black stride piano underpinning. And the interest in the beat and the playing with the beat seem very much unlike what a white pianist would have arrived at.

I see your point. But it could be said that Hank Jones and Monk (and countless others) shared the same basic heritage (blues, spirituals and stride), and they're both black people, and still they have completely different styles. So, who's blacker? And is that blackness what made Monk play piano the way he did, and what made Tristano dislike him so much? I don't think so, personally.

I admit I get a bit oversensitive with matters relating to race, authenticity, etc.

F

[jazzbo]

There can be many different reflections of style within "black piano". . . that's all I can say. I'm generally pretty cautious with these things too, but I admit I do think in some instances of "black piano" and "white piano". . . .

Ayway, Monk really does seem a "black artist" to me, right or wrong. And yes, indubitably individualistic.

Edited January 28, 2009 by jazzbo

[jostber]

Tristano's great blues "Requiem", his tribute to Charlie Parker, sounds pretty black to me.

[danasgoodstuff]

Black is black

I want my baby back

Grey is grey

Tristano is otay

[AllenLowe]

what can I do?

cause I,I, I, I am a jew...

[danasgoodstuff]

I shoulda seen that coming...but I didn't, thanks for making me laugh.