This reminds me of a project I had to do for school in which we had to research the origins of the word jazz. We needed non-internet sources so I went to the library. I found all sorts of books, but the most recent was published in 1965 or 1970. There were several from the same vintage as the Panassie book. These books had faint whispers of the bebop movement, but chose to stick to more established "negro music." The best was from a late 50s book stating that John Coltrane was a talented new player, but the author expressed doubt as to whether he would last and make any mark. Similar assesments were made of Bird, et al in the earlier books. I'm sure we will laugh in 20 years about the critics inaccurate/poor assesments of current geniuses. Some would say that said geniuses don't exist. Will they eat their words? Zach
on 8/23/02 12:11 PM, Zachary Steiner at zsteiner@butler.edu wrote:
This reminds me of a project I had to do for school in which we had to research the origins of the word jazz. We needed non-internet sources so I went to the library. I found all sorts of books, but the most recent was published in 1965 or 1970. There were several from the same vintage as the Panassie book. These books had faint whispers of the bebop movement, but chose to stick to more established "negro music."
But nobody could as yet tell what mark be bop was making or would make. Also, honestly, I don't think the musicians knew exactly what was going on, even through the early 1960's. Someone like Hank Jones was at home on many bop-oriented bandstands, but also played a great deal with Benny Goodman. Herbie Hancock even played with Benny.
The best was from a late 50s book stating that John Coltrane was a talented new player, but the author expressed doubt as to whether he would last and make any mark. Similar assesments were made of Bird, et al in the earlier books.
In Trane's case, Sonny Rollins was so much the voice of the future that the only chances of his dethronement would be extreme circumstances, and that's what happened -- Sonny's retirement, Trane's playing with Monk just as Monk was artistically exploding, Coltrane's ability to form a group that would be both a commercial and a critical success etc -- so I don't really fault the critics as much for missing on the Coltrane pitch. What's really interesting is the people who they would claim were making the jazz that "everybody" would be playing in the future -- Tristano, Ornette etc, which is to say people whose influence is felt a lot less than that of the 1950's Miles bands.
I'm sure we will laugh in 20 years about the critics inaccurate/poor assesments of current geniuses. Some would say that said geniuses don't exist. Will they eat their words?
Not likely. And most of the geniuses in question will probably not have much to eat anyway, words or otherwise. skip h
What's really
interesting is the people who they would claim were making the jazz that "everybody" would be playing in the future -- Tristano, Ornette etc, which is to say people whose influence is felt a lot less than that of the 1950's Miles bands.
And ofcourse, speaking of 50's Miles: nowadays most people know about Miles records from 1956 on (that's after the heroin addiction). So the knowledge of the 1949-1955 period is spotty to say the least: birth of the cool, walkin' and the two Blue Note albums will be best known to most of us. The bulk of the 'prestige' recordings just lies there. While the critical assumption of this day is, that many early Miles albums are 'uneven', it made them lesser known over the years, too.
I'm sure we will laugh in 20 years about the critics inaccurate/poor assesments of current geniuses. Some would say that said geniuses don't exist. Will they eat their words?
It can all be camouflaged under the 'not my taste anyway' banner. I listen to people who explain why they don't like Coltrane, think the Beatles are overrated, or try to make the point that funk musicians can't write proper songs. It's great to find counter examples in a discussion, but it is also great to learn something for yourself, from different lines of thinking. Regards, Remco Takken
on 8/23/02 2:08 PM, Remco Takken at r.takken@planet.nl wrote:
What's really
interesting is the people who they would claim were making the jazz that "everybody" would be playing in the future -- Tristano, Ornette etc, which is to say people whose influence is felt a lot less than that of the 1950's Miles bands.
And ofcourse, speaking of 50's Miles: nowadays most people know about Miles records from 1956 on (that's after the heroin addiction). So the knowledge of the 1949-1955 period is spotty to say the least: birth of the cool, walkin' and the two Blue Note albums will be best known to most of us. The bulk of the 'prestige' recordings just lies there. While the critical assumption of this day is, that many early Miles albums are 'uneven', it made them lesser known over the years, too.
The first-ever review of a Miles recording was a Charlie Parker release, and he was dismiised as a Dizzy clone. I forget who wrote that, and I'm sure the the person who wrote it is glad that I forgot who he was.
I'm sure we will laugh in 20 years about the critics inaccurate/poor assesments of current geniuses. Some would say that said geniuses don't exist. Will they eat their words?
It can all be camouflaged under the 'not my taste anyway' banner. I listen to people who explain why they don't like Coltrane, think the Beatles are overrated, or try to make the point that funk musicians can't write proper songs. It's great to find counter examples in a discussion, but it is also great to learn something for yourself, from different lines of thinking. Regards, Remco Takken
True. As someone who is not an extreme post-Atlantic Trane fan, I know I'm not towing the party line the way I'm supposed to in some quarters. But I also know that, when you hear someone say "Coltrane was boring" or, for that matter, that funk guys can't write proper songs, it's usually because the have such a narrow view of what form is allowed to be. They want the stuff to fit in a box, and they hate anything that defies the shape of the box. And the last person who told me the Beatles were overrated had the joy of picking himself off the floor of a bar in Cudahy, WI. skip h
I'm sure we will laugh in 20 years about the critics inaccurate/poor assesments of current geniuses. Some would say that said geniuses don't exist. Will they eat their words?
It can all be camouflaged under the 'not my taste anyway' banner. I listen to people who explain why they don't like Coltrane, think the Beatles are overrated, or try to make the point that funk musicians can't write proper songs. It's great to find counter examples in a discussion, but it is also great to learn something for yourself, from different lines of thinking. Regards, Remco Takken
True. As someone who is not an extreme post-Atlantic Trane fan, I know I'm not towing the party line the way I'm supposed to in some quarters. But I also know that, when you hear someone say "Coltrane was boring" or, for that matter, that funk guys can't write proper songs, it's usually because the have such a narrow view of what form is allowed to be. They want the stuff to fit in a box, and they hate anything that defies the shape of the box. I concur. I never really thought funk or Coltrane, for that matter, were admired for their songs. Funk is for the groove - a great groove is a rare thing - and the way it makes you feel (like dancing). Coltrane for prodigious playing and stretching what can be done with simple rhythms and chords. I always admired the near meditative state it seemed like Coltrane achieved while playing and despite the chaotic façade of his later work it is actually quite conducive to meditation for the listener. I would like to know some GOOD reasons why Coltrane isn't so hot. I'm genuinely curious. I don't want to hear that he's boring or sounds bad. Zach np: Miles Davis - Water Babies
on 8/23/02 3:13 PM, Zachary Steiner at zsteiner@butler.edu wrote:
I would like to know some GOOD reasons why Coltrane isn't so hot. I'm genuinely curious. I don't want to hear that he's boring or sounds bad.
My own misgivings about the Impulse period are basically that the range of material is not as particularly wide as I would like. Coltrane seemed intent on finding an area and refining it relentlessly, which I admire, but is not always what makes for satisfying listening. The guy was such a master that I would have liked things more if he had taken the varietal nature of form as strenously as Monk had, which is, for my money, why Monk's stuff has stayed so fresh. As for the free stuff, Trane's records are always hit and miss for me. OTTH, the Wayne Shorter output on Blue Note is really satisfying to me, because he really explores a variety of harmonies, tempos, soloing orders etc, and because he was just as stylistically diverse in his own soloing. skip h NP: glenn gould, and lots of it
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:30:23 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
on 8/23/02 3:13 PM, Zachary Steiner at zsteiner@butler.edu wrote:
I would like to know some GOOD reasons why Coltrane isn't so hot. I'm genuinely curious. I don't want to hear that he's boring or sounds bad.
My own misgivings about the Impulse period are basically that the range of material is not as particularly wide as I would like. Coltrane seemed intent on finding an area and refining it relentlessly, which I admire, but is not always what makes for satisfying listening. The guy was such a master that I would have liked things more if he had taken the varietal nature of form as strenously as Monk had, which is, for my money, why Monk's stuff has stayed so fresh. As for the free stuff, Trane's records are always hit and miss for me.
The Impulse! period lasted six years. Checking what he did in 1961 next to what he did in 1967, I see significant differences (and most of those who do not like modern jazz see some serious differences). It is ironic that we are expecting old masters to move steadily when most of the alleged avant current players seem to stick to the same kind of music for decades... I mean, a large portion of what is called free improvised music is barely different from what Bailey/Parker/Oxley/etc did more than 30 years ago! And what about the free-jazz revival? Do you see progress? Coltrane was such a master at what he did that I am happy that he took time to linger on that for a while. Yes, you don't need all the Impulse! records from a creative point of view, but from a pleasure point of view, they are worth their price. You seem to imply that he could have spent his energy in a more creative way... He is dead, right? What do we know? If he had moved to Hollywood to write soundtracks, I might have agreed with you. I miss what he could have done if he had not died so young, not what he might have done during his life, for what he did is almost untouchable (IMNSHO). Patrice.
on 8/23/02 3:51 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
The Impulse! period lasted six years. Checking what he did in 1961 next to what he did in 1967, I see significant differences (and most of those who do not like modern jazz see some serious differences).
If we're gonna be specific abut it, there are really two Impulse periods -- the Quartet period, and the post-Elvin period.
It is ironic that we are expecting old masters to move steadily when most of the alleged avant current players seem to stick to the same kind of music for decades...
I couldn't agree more. But, in the cases of certain artists, I see periods where they're stuck. For me, Trane, Bill Evans, Sonny Rollins, and Lee Morgan -- all of whom I love -- each had static periods.
I mean, a large portion of what is called free improvised music is barely different from what Bailey/Parker/Oxley/etc did more than 30 years ago!
I agree. Many of them are totally revivalists parroting old licks. Kind of like the Stray Cats.
And what about the free-jazz revival? Do you see progress?
It depends on who you're asking about. In the case of Ellery Eskelin, I would give major props for progress and musicality. In other certain cases, I'm not convinced.
Coltrane was such a master at what he did that I am happy that he took time to linger on that for a while. Yes, you don't need all the Impulse! records from a creative point of view, but from a pleasure point of view, they are worth their price.
I don't Coltrane's mastery is at issue as much as the haphazard feeling I get with regards to the way the bands were put together after ASCENSION. I don't like haphazard ensembles. I like real direction in the performance, and, frankly, with rare exception, Trane was by far the most qualified player on the bandstand after a certain point. I have to wonder what would have been recorded if he had, after the quartet split up, mounted a stable ensemble with non-shifting personnel, and really developed a group vocabulary again, kind of the way Sun Ra did.
You seem to imply that he could have spent his energy in a more creative way... He is dead, right? What do we know? If he had moved to Hollywood to write soundtracks, I might have agreed with you. I miss what he could have done if he had not died so young, not what he might have done during his life, for what he did is almost untouchable (IMNSHO).
About all we know of art -- past trivial and speculative theororizing -- is what we like. As for whether he would have done a different kind of great work had he come to Hollywood to write music in the service of film, I have no idea. If you see film music as a dead end and are using it to insult me, it's not gonna work, because the best of film music is as amazing as the best of any other genre. If Trane had moved to Hollywood and aspired to be the next John Williams, obviously it would be a cop-out. But if he had come here and was writing on the level of a Jerry Goldsmith or a Kenyon Hopkins, it would have been a whole other kind of greatness. As to any musician's output being "untouchable", it gets real touchable the minute he offers it for sale and someone gets to decide whether he/she got the desired value for the $. I think it's ridiculous that Coltrane is sacred & untouchable but Prince isn't. skip h NP: the complete blind willie johnson
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:19:24 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
You seem to imply that he could have spent his energy in a more creative way... He is dead, right? What do we know? If he had moved to Hollywood to write soundtracks, I might have agreed with you. I miss what he could have done if he had not died so young, not what he might have done during his life, for what he did is almost untouchable (IMNSHO).
About all we know of art -- past trivial and speculative theororizing -- is what we like. As for whether he would have done a different kind of great work had he come to Hollywood to write music in the service of film, I have no idea. If you see film music as a dead end and are using it to insult me,
I did not intend at all to insult you (I did not know you were writing music for films)! My reference to Hollywood was just the usual cliche of the artist having to compromise to make a living (like Faulkner and his salt mines). Anyway, I did not create the cliche that working for Hollywood is like selling your soul to the devil :-). And yes, there is a lot of film music that I like (although I could survive without Zorn's ones).
it's not gonna work, because the best of film music is as amazing as the best of any other genre. If Trane had moved to Hollywood and aspired to be the next John Williams, obviously it would be a cop-out. But if he had come here and was writing on the level of a Jerry Goldsmith or a Kenyon Hopkins, it would have been a whole other kind of greatness.
As to any musician's output being "untouchable", it gets real touchable the minute he offers it for sale and someone gets to decide whether he/she got the desired value for the $. I think it's ridiculous that Coltrane is sacred & untouchable but Prince isn't.
But Coltrane died young and at its peak in creativity (or close since for many that peak was in 1964). Coltrane is not a holly cow, but he is the closest I can imagine of one (and for good reasons). Patrice. PS: Skip, you almost seem in sync with Stanley Crouch :-) (read the last issue of DOWN BEAT).
on 8/26/02 9:55 AM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
My reference to Hollywood was just the usual cliche of the artist having to compromise to make a living (like Faulkner and his salt mines).
Anyway, I did not create the cliche that working for Hollywood is like selling your soul to the devil :-).
Like so many cliche's, it's a stupid one. Any context is only as good or bad as what you do with it. Look at the script Raymond Chandler and Billy Wilder did for DOUBLE INDEMNITY. Or just about any Coen Bros movie. You can make a living out here by doing quality. You just have to have a certain amount of flair in your presentation.
But Coltrane died young and at its peak in creativity (or close since for many that peak was in 1964).
I think his recorded peak was the solo on "Someday my Prince Will Come", which should tell you how out of touch I am with the fashionable take on Coltrane.
Coltrane is not a holly cow, but he is the closest I can imagine of one (and for good reasons).
I have to pay the same $ for his records that I have to pay for anyone else's.
PS: Skip, you almost seem in sync with Stanley Crouch :-) (read the last issue of DOWN BEAT).
I read that. I see his point, but would never support his malice. Besides, Crouch thinks anybody who plays jazz but does not have a walking bassline and at least a dozen Ellinton-isms per tune is somehow not playing jazz. He clearly needs a girlfriend. skip h
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:03:47 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
I'm sure we will laugh in 20 years about the critics inaccurate/poor assesments of current geniuses. Some would say that said geniuses don't exist. Will they eat their words?
It can all be camouflaged under the 'not my taste anyway' banner. I listen to people who explain why they don't like Coltrane, think the Beatles are overrated, or try to make the point that funk musicians can't write proper songs. It's great to find counter examples in a discussion, but it is also great to learn something for yourself, from different lines of thinking. Regards, Remco Takken
True. As someone who is not an extreme post-Atlantic Trane fan, I know I'm not towing the party line the way I'm supposed to in some quarters. But I also know that, when you hear someone say "Coltrane was boring" or, for that matter, that funk guys can't write proper songs, it's usually because the have such a narrow view of what form is allowed to be. They want the stuff to fit in a box, and they hate anything that defies the shape of the box.
You are absolutely right, and people dissing Coleman, middle/late Coltrane, Ayler, etc (the list is long), should learn to adjust to boxes of different shape and size :-). Patrice.
on 8/26/02 12:04 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
You are absolutely right, and people dissing Coleman, middle/late Coltrane, Ayler, etc (the list is long), should learn to adjust to boxes of different shape and size :-).
Patrice.
or else the people defending these things should realize and maybe even admit they're just trying to say their preferred box is somehow superior to somebody else's. skip h
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:43:15 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
on 8/26/02 12:04 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
You are absolutely right, and people dissing Coleman, middle/late Coltrane, Ayler, etc (the list is long), should learn to adjust to boxes of different shape and size :-).
Patrice.
or else the people defending these things should realize and maybe even admit they're just trying to say their preferred box is somehow superior to somebody else's.
I would not go so far. It simply shows that when you build a reasoning to explain other's limitations, be careful that it could not be used against you :-). Patrice.
on 8/26/02 1:08 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:43:15 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
on 8/26/02 12:04 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
You are absolutely right, and people dissing Coleman, middle/late Coltrane, Ayler, etc (the list is long), should learn to adjust to boxes of different shape and size :-).
Patrice.
or else the people defending these things should realize and maybe even admit they're just trying to say their preferred box is somehow superior to somebody else's.
I would not go so far. It simply shows that when you build a reasoning to explain other's limitations, be careful that it could not be used against you :-).
Patrice.
Perhaps, if you're arguing that your box is superior. If your execution is relatively spotless, however, you don't tend to worry about it as a musician. And if you refuse to accept that Coltrane box is inherently superior to, for example, punk rock box or techno box, you're probably in much better shape than someone who pounds his chest over and over that FREE IMPROV IS THE 'REAL' MUSIC, or whatever other cultural bigotry types to which you might be exposed. skip h
participants (4)
-
Patrice L. Roussel -
Remco Takken -
skip Heller -
Zachary Steiner