Coltrane, Jazz aesthetics, etc.

[couw]

where can I go to have my jeans embroidered?

where can I go to have my poodle clipped?

where can I go....

questions, questions, questions...

Edited January 22, 2004 by couw

[JSngry]

Down, Billy, DOWN!

[Dr. Rat]

I'm not saying that jazz musicians don't listen to other stuff, but that the aesthetic standards are influenced to what I would say is too great an extent by those created in the 1960s and by the direct inheritors of the 1960s giants (e.g. Zorn).

So that someone who puts out a good organ trio record seems ready to apologize for it ("At home, I listen to Stockhausen" or "We'd like to play Ornette Coleman, but . . ." or "What we'd really like to do is play so loud that people's ears would bleed and OSHA would come shut us down (if there still was an OSHA), but then they wouldn't give us this gig anymore) and claim allegience to something more challenging and "artistic."

--eric

Dude, I say this with much love, but...

WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN????

Seriously, much love. But I just GOT to ask.

This, by the way, was not a veiled reference to anyone in particular. Certainly not our hosts, whose record we played the hell out of, btw. Thanks, guys, and please make more.

We get lots of B3 recordings. The reference was generic, Organissimo is definitely NOT.

Now you might wonder what world I'm living in, BUT I do have the opportunity to talk to a fair number of musicians, and I find Jim's unambiguous enthusiasm for the greasy, dirty and direct is not usual amongst younger jazz musicians (anyone less than 60, say).

What I usually here about what I'll call "direct" music is that it pays the bills, or is an interesting thing to throw in to set you up for the real meat.

I do not get the impression that young jazz musicians consider "direct" music they play to be art, even when they can do it pretty well. They seem sheepish about it.

A thought experiment:

Imagine two young trumpeters, both equally skilled, both equally inspired.

One whose style most directly reminds you of, say, a young Braff.

Another whose style reminds you of say, Lester Bowie.

Do these folks get the same sort of feedback from their peers, fellow musicians, and the jazz cognoscenti?

Of course not.

As Jsngy points out, styles change and every style change has been more or less "enforced" by musicians and "hip" fans. But when was the last time jazz style had a revolutionary change? Forty years ago?

I don't think the current idea of what constitutes jazz "art" has anything to do with the zeitgeist anymore. It's just an arbitrary taste. I think its time we stopped thinking of being current a la 196-something as some sort of necessity for young jazz musicians to become artists.

I propose we should be looking at that as one path amongst many, not the sine qua non of contemporary jazz art. True, open stylistic eclecticism. With an acknowledgement that "art" can be reached by many paths at any time.

(Jazz after all isn't like science. It isn't progressive--It isn't going anywhere. there's no unified field theory of music over the horizon. There is just difference. The likes of Coltrane are to be praised for finding new, viable ways, but for us each way ought to be equally possible and laudible.)

We hear talk like this sometimes from musicians and jazz fans, but that isn't the operative ethic. Usually what you hear is Marsalisites utterly repudiating this way or that, or avant-gardists making it perfectly clear that they consider anyone not now working their forty-year-old patch to be nothing more than a hidebound entertainment technician. And this is what the kid who sounds like Braff is likely to be told.

I think its time the AG folk acknowledged that they are not the wave of the future and that being difficult to like does not confer aesthetic superiority.

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

But if you're not going to admit that there are a good number of people who just LIKE the stuff for the same reasons that ANYBODY likes ANYTHING

I admit it. When did I deny it? I think I've been pretty careful throughout this thread to acknowledge that just because I don't like it doesn't mean that other people can't (you can look back if you like).

I think what I started trying to argue was that McDonough does have a point, asshole that he might be.

What I have tried to argue following on that is that there is a certain "culture," a certain set of standards and expectations build around the aesthetic (or perceived aesthetic) of late Coltrane (most prominently) and other sixties innovators that has outlived its usefulness as a general standard to be applied to the music at large, and is in fact harmful to it.

Lastly, I'd like to argue that that culture ought to become the object of opprobrium, not the supposed "old-fashionedness" or "conservatism" of anyone trying to make their way outside of it.

[Jim Alfredson]

Everyone knows tangin' the hump and kickin' bass on a greasy B3 shuffle equals aesthetic superiority.

[JSngry]

I know the "type" of people you're talking about, and I agree with you as far as you go. But the "call" for, what, "open-mindedness"(?) as it pertains to stylistic diversity that you issue is something that already exists in musicians and fans alike. If you haven't experienced it in numbers to convince you otherwise, I'm sorry, but I have, and it's something that I take for granted myself.

The "cliqueishness" of audiences and musicians who hold up only one (or a few) "genres" as "the real deal" is something that has been in place ever since Armstrong took jazz away from being a purely ensemble music, and although those partisans can make an awful (in several different ways) lot of noise, they're another one of those "facts of life" that I find it more than easy to ignore. Nobody will ever convince these people otherwise, so on with the show, if you know what I mean. The people who can't hear anything before the "avant-garde" are "missing the point" just as much as those who can't hear anything after it as far as I'm concerned, and I'm NOT alone in this regard.

Now as for your thought experiment:

Imagine two young trumpeters, both equally skilled, both equally inspired.

One whose style most directly reminds you of, say, a young Braff.

Another whose style reminds you of say, Lester Bowie.

Do these folks get the same sort of feedback from their peers, fellow musicians, and the jazz cognoscenti?

Of course not.

I'd suggest going back to the mid-70s for the whole Scott Hamilton/Warren Vache thing, and seeing how that played out. There were those amongst the community of "their peers, fellow musicians, and the jazz cognoscenti" who hailed these guys to no end, and those who reviled them equally. Such is life, and the beat goes on.

Myself, I'd be thrilled if either one of these hypothetical guys showed signs of sounding like a young themselves, which is something I hear distressingly little of these days. I'm not into "retro" ANYTHING if all it entails is re-creation for its own sake, and frankly, that's what most of the new players of the last 20-25 years bring to the table as far as I'm concerned. Those who dig these players, of course, hear it otherwise.

Hey- retro-Ayler sucks just as much as retro-Hubbard does in my opinion. I hold Ayler QUITE high in my esteem, but just because a cat works out of that bag doesn't mean he's got it going on. Imitation is still imitation, no matter what it is that's being imitated. Some people decieve themselves otherwise, probably because the more time that passes by, the more chances there are for imitators to be documented, so it's easier to claim "newness" in terms of relative documentation. Yet that is a fallacious assumption. The meat of any music is in it's substance, not it's style. Now, what those terms actually mean is going to vary on an individual basis, but I think there's every bit as much "snobbery" in cetain elements of the "straight ahead" camp as there is the "avant-garde", and it's ALL bullshit if you ask me.

The vocabulary and procedeures of the "avant garde" have been around long enough now that any objective assessment of jazz as a whole must include them and thier "legitimacy". What that means is that the so-called "avant garde (a term I reall don't care for, really) ISN'T avant-garde, it's just another way to play music. As in all kinds of music, including "straight ahead", you're going to have players who do something personal, and players who "latch on" to the trappings of a style simply for the sake of "belonging" to a certain camp, for wahtever reason(s). The same applies to the appreciation of these musics - there will be those who like it for genuine reasons, and those who like it becuase it's "cool" in their eyes. And believe me, this happens in ALL genres of the music.

Life's too short to get hung up on what's wrong at the exclusion of what's right. Yes, there is "pseudo-ism" to be had, and it's not limited to the avant-garde, trust me. PLEASE trust me. The "hipster" phenomenon, the "fan" (and musician) who wears music as a lifestyle accessory and nothing more, is QUITE old, and can be found today at any jazz event, be it a Dixieland gig, a bebop gig, an organ gig, or an avant-garde gig. Oh yes it can, and in equal numbers at each. Of this, I'm MORE than certain.

For all the bullshit surrounding this music, ALL of it, there's much genuine beauty to be had as well. In ALL of it.

Take your pick.

[JSngry]

What I have tried to argue following on that is that there is a certain "culture," a certain set of standards and expectations build around the aesthetic (or perceived aesthetic) of late Coltrane (most prominently) and other sixties innovators that has outlived its usefulness as a general standard to be applied to the music at large, and is in fact harmful to it.

With this, I have NO argument, so long as it is not used to attempt to "turn back the clock", which is what a lot of people try to do.

Hey - it (the "avant-garde" - a term that ha absolutely no true musical meaning, btw, which is why I don't particul;arly care for it. It's a "badge", pro or con, nothing more) happened, and a lot of it was good, a lot of it no so-good, some of it outright terrible, and some of it truly great. Just like any other era.

For sure, it's time to move on. Has been for quite a while now, if you ask me. But let's not bring along just a part of the past when we do (whichever part(s) that may be). Let's bring it ALL along. Doing otherwise ain't reality, it's wishful thinking.

Actually, I think that jazz is dead, whether or not we realize it. Fortunately, "jazz" is just a word....

[JSngry]

BTW - are you familar with the non-Ellingtonian writings of Stanley Dance? He takes a position similar to yours, only in regard to the deleterious effects of all things be-bop and beyond. However, he's THOROUGHLY grounded in the music he champions, and in his weaker moments admits to, if not exactly a liking of, at least a respect and personal affection for things and people outside the realm he champions.

A great writer, one of my favorites, actually, and a great champion of some great music, proof that "limited" tastes and genuine aethetic perispacity are not exclusive qualities, which is a point I sense you trying to make here.

[Dr. Rat]

On Hamilton and Vache: I think that their reception is the sort of "disfunctionality" in the community that I'm talking about. It would be very cool if guys like this would just be absorbed into the scene, playing with a lot of different kinds of musicians. But instead, perhaps through their preferences or because of the way their careers immediately became divisive issues, their careers seem to be marginalized or boxed in.

I'm interested in some of the stuff Nagel-Hayer has done lately (and folks like Andy Biskin and Ted Nash) to create a music that, I think, is thoroughly its own thing and employing the past without the usual thick overlay of (essentially cowardly) irony. I think efforts like these might be a beginning of a truly open, respectful ecelcticism in jazz. But I think, in spite of what musicians might say about being tolerant, that this situation is exceptional.

You are right about the sort of disfunctionality I'm talking about being multi-faceted and having a long history, I emphasize the AG facet perhaps because I am relatively young and there are few 35-year-olds anxiously awaiting the new Ben Webster.

But I really do think that from an "ideological" standpoint, the avant-garde guys have the aesthetic highground at the moment.

On young players not "sounding like themselves": I think this has really become a shibboleth, too, and a harmful one. As a young writer I would have hated to have been obliged to sound like myself--to have a voice uniquely my own (and therefore in its own way completely new)--right from the get-go or even soon after I got rolling. I think expecting this from young musicians can be nothing but paralyzing. Imitation is part of finding your voice, and artistic maturity can come quite late. I think it would be better to tell young players to "keep growing," not "sound like yourself."

My own aesthetic values a well-done reprise with a promise of more over (what I see as) usually empty novelty. (Making me a neo-classicist to your romantic).

[rockefeller center]

Hey, WNMC! What's up with that smiley?!

[Dr. Rat]

Stanley Dance: Now that mention it, yes . . . I think at elast some of all this is a reprise of an essay by Dance I read in an old Da Capo anthology I've got.

I'll see if I can't find it.

Thanks for the tip, Stanley probably said it all quicker and easier and more elegantly than me.

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

Hey, WNMC! What's up with that smiley?!

It was an accident

[Dr. Rat]

How do you do that ball thing?

I stared at that for 15 minutes.

--eric

PS: OK, I'll break down and admit smilies have their uses.

[Dr. Rat]

So, Eric, are the over 50 hours of jazz your station puts out available on the web? Are you world wide with it, or limited in bandwidth?

we are at wnmc.org. All kinds of kooks from way up north play music from all over the damned place.

That's our tagline.

--eric

[rockefeller center]

How do you do that ball thing?

I stared at that for 15 minutes.

--eric

PS: OK, I'll break down and admit smilies have their uses.

I made two animated gifs (inspired by this thread) and mirrored them. You stared at that for 15 minutes? Respect! What were you staring at when your photo was taken?

[Dr. Rat]

How do you do that ball thing?

I stared at that for 15 minutes.

--eric

PS: OK, I'll break down and admit smilies have their uses.

I made two animated gifs (inspired by this thread) and mirrored them. You stared at that for 15 minutes? Respect! What were you staring at when your photo was taken?

At the prospect of a future of true socialism, of mutual respect and an end to alienation . . .

Actually, at a fire extinguisher outlet in the ceiling which I was imagining sprinkling water onto the brand new board which cost us 10K.

--eric

[JSngry]

On young players not "sounding like themselves": I think this has really become a shibboleth, too, and a harmful one. As a young writer I would have hated to have been obliged to sound like myself--to have a voice uniquely my own (and therefore in its own way completely new)--right from the get-go or even soon after I got rolling. I think expecting this from young musicians can be nothing but paralyzing. Imitation is part of finding your voice, and artistic maturity can come quite late. I think it would be better to tell young players to "keep growing," not "sound like yourself."

Indeed, which is why I said I'd be thrilled if either one of these hypothetical guys showed signs of sounding like a young themselves, emphasis added ex posto facto. I agree that imitation is part of the growth process, and I'll even go so far as to say that "growth" and "innovation" are two terms that only occasionally intersect, popular perception to the contrary. To me, "NEW!!!!" is as much a shibboleth as "UPHOLDER OF THE TRADITION!!!" I don't spend much time listening to Hamilton (personal preference, nothing more), but I hear him having developed into a pretty personal and effective, within the paramaters of the idiom in which he chooses to work, player these last few years. More than that, you cannot ask of anybody. Nearly everybody works within parameters. Even "NO RULES!!!" is a rule, albeit one which gives me a deeply cynical, "yeah, ok, go ahead on with your bad self" smirk these days. Many have tried to run, but none have been able to hide. Some things you just got to find out ofr yourself, I suppose...

I like "new" and I like "the tradition", but by themselves, what have you got besides so much so what? Making and keeping it real (another term that really means nothing, but what's a mutha to do?) is the name of the game in my book, and there's any number of ways to do that. I just hate to see some of those ways automatically assumed to be more real than others, regardless of the agenda being pushed, neo-, retro-, or huevo ranchero. Real is real, and bogus is bogus, period.

How's that for absolutist relativism?

[rockefeller center]

Actually, at a fire extinguisher outlet in the ceiling which I was imagining sprinkling water onto the brand new board which cost us 10K.

Hehehehe

[Dr. Rat]

I think JSngry and I have either discovered we agree or have agreed to respectfully disagree about all possible issues here. (?)

Unless someone wants to propose another way into this (in which case I suppose I can still counterpuch), I think I'm out of words (beleive it or not)

Thanks to all you Oragnissimites? Orangatangs? (especially to JSngry) for the tolerance and the "frank exchange of viewpoints."

I think I wasn't careful and that I learned something.

Hope this all wasn't just plain tiresome. If so, an extra helping of gratitude and a free beer if you ever end up at this end of the earth.

--eric

[randissimo]

I think JSngry and I have either discovered we agree or have agreed to respectfully disagree about all possible issues here. (?)

Unless someone wants to propose another way into this (in which case I suppose I can still counterpuch), I think I'm out of words (beleive it or not)

Thanks to all you Oragnissimites? Orangatangs? (especially to JSngry) for the tolerance and the "frank exchange of viewpoints."

I think I wasn't careful and that I learned something.

Hope this all wasn't just plain tiresome. If so, an extra helping of gratitude and a free beer if you ever end up at this end of the earth.

--eric

Hey Eric, I have been enjoying all of the exchanges on this thread.. Very provocative indeed! By the way, we should put our heads together and figure out a way to get Organissimo a gig in TC. I'll be at 310 this Saturday playing for Dave Chown's CD release party.. Stop by if you get a minute...

[JSngry]

I think JSngry and I have either discovered we agree or have agreed to respectfully disagree about all possible issues here. (?)

Unless someone wants to propose another way into this (in which case I suppose I can still counterpuch), I think I'm out of words (beleive it or not)

Wore you out, eh?

JUST KIDDING!!!!

[Dr. Rat]

Randy-

I will definitely make a point of it. And now I've gotta go because I said I was in this archived public forum.

See you there,

--eric

PS: Again, thanks for that push on the Chown record: just what the doctor ordered.

[randissimo]

PS: Again, thanks for that push on the Chown record: just what the doctor ordered.

Eric,

I'm glad you like the Cd.. It was a unique experience for me doing that session.

Dave Chown comes more out of a Classical piano background than Jazz and doesn't very often work with a rhythm section.

Knowing this, Jack and I played the session with a different approach. We wanted to get Chown's music into a relaxed, playful, and spontaneous zone. Apparently it worked! See you on saturday..

[Dr. Rat]

Another thought.

You can examine the arts, or any other subject, from a number of directions. For example, I feel the political/economic situation in the last days of the '70s and the '80s had a big influence on the ultimate direction of all arts (and much else) in America. Exchange and interest rates at the time had a more profound influence than individual tastes.

Aesthetics, and the perception of same, are affected by other outside pressures, not just "purity".

Just wanted to follow up on this

I am certainly on board with Chuck on this one. Jurgen Habermas wrote some very good stuff on the economic crisis of the seventies/early eighties, Legitimation Crisis, I think, is one where he gets serious into the interaction between the sputtering of the economic system and ideological and cultural issues.

Definitely worth checking out.

[Jim Alfredson]

Hey Eric, I have been enjoying all of the exchanges on this thread.. Very provocative indeed! By the way, we should put our heads together and figure out a way to get Organissimo a gig in TC. I'll be at 310 this Saturday playing for Dave Chown's CD release party.. Stop by if you get a minute...

Ah Randy. Always pushin'.