George Clinton is, of course, one of the great political philosophers, but I'll have to differ with him on this one; no army, no nation. (And as linguists will tell you after having well dined, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy). Nations are top-down affairs; where they get hold of a music - or a religion - they roll it out and snip off the fuzzy bits. Free musics take to the hills (I'm thinking of James C. Scott's great book "The Art of Not Being Governed"). They work through networks, which are more fluid affairs, leading to fleeting coalitions, dissolutions and sudden apparitions, as well as longer lasting friendships and alliances. (I think I've said before that if you want to know where jazz went and where it may be coming from next, one of the best indexes over a number of years was to keep an eye on what Don Cherry was up to and who he was playing with).
*I'll rest with that link to a short biography of Cherry. Highly recommended and much to our propos.
and yet here you are, an unwary conscript soldiering in prose for the benefit of our great nation.
Nations are top-down affairs
Yes they are. Again I repeat, with the groove our only guide we shall all be moved. The groove issues the marching orders for jazz. Sure some try to confuse the groove just as air ships try to confuse gravity but in the end gravity always prevails.
Spanish fan calls police over saxophone band who were just not jazzy enough Festival-goer claims it was 'psychologically inadvisable' for him to hear Larry Ochs Sax and Drumming Core perform
Follow up to the Larry Ochs story. Mr. Jazz Purist, Wynton Marsalis, has inserted himself into the story. First we have the police and courts deciding what is jazz and what isn't, and now Mr. Marsalis wants to reward the fan who started the whole mess - if he can be found.
OK, that's it. I can't make the damn url live even following written instructions. I have tried 3 different variations. Just copy and paste and laugh at me.
I posted this in Thom's thread but I want you guys to respond to this
OK I heard a quartet tonight tenor sax, drums, double bass and electric guitar (stratocaster) that launched into a third, everybody is drunk anyway, set and proceeded to quickly deteriorate into noise. Well I gotta finish my beer anyway so I am listening to this crap when the guitar player decided to explore the limits of his instrument by playing harmonics. This was quickly followed by the bass player who got some harmonics out of his instrument that I didn't think was possible on an acoustic bass. Now the tenor dives into mess by playing in the upper register of his instrument and all three are vamping chords in this high pitched caterwauling that was a cross between music and a lonely alley cat with too much time on his hands all while the drummer is rocking out like it's the last set he's ever gonna play. And they were beginning to find some interesting chord type substances when they finished it off with a swinging rendition of Now's The Time
This could be the new thing (but it still involves Charlie Parker)
Seems to me that description could apply to a non-mainstream jazz gig from any time in the last 40 years, JUJ. There is no "new thing" in jazz - at best, it was a label ascribed to the burgeoning free jazz movement almost half a century ago.
Yeah, that's kind of my point (although, on a theoretical level I accept that there very well could be a new thing someday)
My overarching theme in this is that musicians should quit looking for the new thing and just play the music.
I definitely fall into the Wynton Marsalis camp on this issue (and for the record not everything Wynton plays falls squarely in the tradition). I think that it is up to the guardians of the tradition (now there's the name for my next straight ahead jazz combo Guardians of the Tradition, huh huh?) to protect the integrity of the tradition. And if Wynton is willing to take on that role then I am prepared to join the fray and do battle with the interlopers to defend the honor of jazz.
I had never heard of that Larry Ochs dude in the article and still haven't listened to any of his music. I am sure he is a very fine fellow and an equally fine musician, and if he wants to play spaced out free form music without the benefit of boundaries and rules then I say more power to him if he can find a paying audience. But I also say that he is not entitled to contaminate the already confused and ill defined art form of jazz with that crap
OK, confused jazz neophyte here. I was with you up to the point you sided with Wynton. But as I understand it Wynton says no to free jazz. So no late period Coltrane? No Albert Ayler? No Ornette Coleman? Etc. etc.? I mean I get that just because you're improvising with a sax or a trumpet doesn't make it jazz. I mean there's a sax in Wolf Eyes for shit's sake. But, I need it on a lot better authority than Wynton Marsalis's if I'm gonna agree that Coltrane ever played anything but jazz, or that Albert Ayler was not a jazz musician. (I can be flexible on Miles' fusion stuff but I can't really see that Wynton has the right to criticize him either - except that Miles opened the door to it by calling someone else's music (Coltrane? Ornette?) "chinese music" or something.)
But is this what you're saying? Are you hardline Ken Burns and Wynton Marsalis, no free jazz, no fusion, no new thing? Because I must respectfully disagree. In my opinion Wynton's the one not playing jazz. He's a very talented musician playing a form of early to mid 20th century composed music, and the compositions just happen to have "insert improvisation here" written into them. Real jazz, to me, was/is always about stretching out and experimenting and trying something new. Syntax is important, but syntax, without freedom, without experimentation, with stringent limitations = composed music.
(I can be flexible on Miles' fusion stuff but I can't really see that Wynton has the right to criticize him either - except that Miles opened the door to it by calling someone else's music (Coltrane? Ornette?) "chinese music" or something.)
I don't know how Wynton feels about late period Coltrane or Albert Ayler, but I have heard him speak very glowingly about Ornette Coleman. I am pretty sure he thinks late period Miles Davis music sucks.
I don't know that I am prepared to follow Ken Burns into battle on this issue but I watched the whole 10 or 12 hours of his jazz documentary and I don't recall having major disagreements with it. Some of the criticisms of perceived bias for or against certain periods or artists may have been valid but somebody gets left out of any type of documentary. On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary.
I guess the whole free/alternative/traditional jazz argument boils down to the fact that there are some musicians who want to lead the genre into a direction that many of us do not want to go. And not only do we not want to go in those directions but don't want to acknowledge music that goes there as legitimate heirs of the tradition. Not until these "new" directions are connected directly to what came before.
to be honest I really enjoyed Burns' documentary too - it was pretty much my introduction to jazz - and I don't really fault the guy for having a sort of cut-off point. Sure, documentaries have to end somewhere.
But this business of Wynton supporting calling the cops on somebody who has a strong jazz background because they're doing something you don't approve of? What gives Wynton or anybody else ever that right?
And free jazz, as opposed to plain free improvization, is directly connectable to what came before - you can follow the dots from pretty much any free jazz recording to the most conservative mid 50's hard bop album, and in most cases it won't be that many dots.
And maybe that's what makes jazz? An ability to connect it to the accepted cannon through reasonably sized steps?
I can understand not wanting to follow where someone wants to lead. That's discriminating taste. But I can't understand the need force a certain definition of jazz on other people. Personally, although I'm not awfully familiar with either, I have a sneaking suspicion that I'd rather listen to ROVA (of which Larry Ochs is a founding member) than Wynton Marsalis. So you, a more experienced jazz listener than me, may want to say I'm not listening to jazz. So fine, you know more about jazz than I do. But do you know more about jazz than Mr. Ochs does? And is that what jazz is? Whatever whoever knows the most says it is? Well then it's more or less doomed to become a dusty academic relic.
Some of the criticisms of perceived bias for or against certain periods or artists may have been valid but somebody gets left out of any type of documentary.
The complaint wasn't that Burns was selective as much as he treats post 1970s, and even much of the 1960s, cursorily. Moreover, his story seems contained to select places and scenes, usually taking place in New York clubs. I would add to this that Burn's oeuvre, not just "Jazz," reveals that he is overly rapt by cultural manifestations of the Civil Rights movement. Armstrong, Ellington, Monk, Gillespie, etc., make great examples of using civilization in the quest for respectability and expression. It is a heroic story. But in all his documentaries, he has ignored how other social and ethnic groups have themselves sought respectability. In particular, "The War" made American war effort look like a Black-and-White affair. "Jazz" has some complexity to it, possible because of its length, but Burns largely presents a story that is about the African-American community.
Clearly calling the cops was a little extreme and Wynton's people seem to be backpeddling on their offer to the disgruntled fan. Apparently they did not intend to go public. But you can clearly see that Wynton would certainly have enjoyed hearing about this episode and in his joyful moment offered up some free music to this guy for having the rocks to pitch a fit.
But I can't understand the need force a certain definition of jazz on other people.
I would simply turn this argument around and ask the question what gives Mr. Ochs the right to play crap and call it jazz. Isn't that forcing a definition of jazz upon me.
@BadThoughts
Jazz as an art form was essentially created by African Americans in a racist segregationist America. That is a fact! To pretend otherwise is a disservice to both the creators and consumers of jazz. Sure there were important contributors to the art that were not African American: Bix Biederbeck, Gil Evans, Stan Getz, Bill Evans, Chick Corea the list goes on and on. But to complain that the story of jazz spends too much time talking about African Americans is the equivalent of saying the Colonel Sanders story spends too much time talking about fried chicken. If you eliminate fried chicken there ain't a whole lot left to talk about.
And it's not really the point that someone might disagree with any or all of those sources and any or all of thos opinions. The point is that a lot of different people respect and appreciate Mr. Ochs as a jazz musician. And what gives any one person, even a respected and talented musician, the right to take that away?
Isn't that forcing a definition of jazz upon me.
No, because you, like Wynton's friend in spain, and like Wynton himself, are free to not listen to Mr. Ochs' sounds.
what gives Mr. Ochs the right to play crap and call it jazz.
I really should hire an editor to stop me from saying stuff like this.
Having called his music crap I now feel compelled to actually listen to his music and form an opinion based on the actually performance rather than my perception of his art based on a description of it.
Comments
*I'll rest with that link to a short biography of Cherry. Highly recommended and much to our propos.
Yes they are. Again I repeat, with the groove our only guide we shall all be moved. The groove issues the marching orders for jazz. Sure some try to confuse the groove just as air ships try to confuse gravity but in the end gravity always prevails.
This is fuckin hilarious
(I wanted an excuse to link to the video).
Festival-goer claims it was 'psychologically inadvisable' for him to hear Larry Ochs Sax and Drumming Core perform
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/dec/09/jazz-festival-larry-ochs-saxophone
Forget how to make the link live, sorry. This is funny, and a great example of how crazy and passionate we jazz fans can get.
except that you use the lower case brackets [ & ]instead of the uppercase ones { & } that I have used
Like zo
What time is it?
Time to march.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/dec/21/wynton-marsalis-jazz-purist-fan/url]
OK, that's it. I can't make the damn url live even following written instructions. I have tried 3 different variations. Just copy and paste and laugh at me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/blog/2009/dec/21/jazz-purist-found-wynton-marsalis
Yeah, that's kind of my point (although, on a theoretical level I accept that there very well could be a new thing someday)
My overarching theme in this is that musicians should quit looking for the new thing and just play the music.
I definitely fall into the Wynton Marsalis camp on this issue (and for the record not everything Wynton plays falls squarely in the tradition). I think that it is up to the guardians of the tradition (now there's the name for my next straight ahead jazz combo Guardians of the Tradition, huh huh?) to protect the integrity of the tradition. And if Wynton is willing to take on that role then I am prepared to join the fray and do battle with the interlopers to defend the honor of jazz.
I had never heard of that Larry Ochs dude in the article and still haven't listened to any of his music. I am sure he is a very fine fellow and an equally fine musician, and if he wants to play spaced out free form music without the benefit of boundaries and rules then I say more power to him if he can find a paying audience. But I also say that he is not entitled to contaminate the already confused and ill defined art form of jazz with that crap
But is this what you're saying? Are you hardline Ken Burns and Wynton Marsalis, no free jazz, no fusion, no new thing? Because I must respectfully disagree. In my opinion Wynton's the one not playing jazz. He's a very talented musician playing a form of early to mid 20th century composed music, and the compositions just happen to have "insert improvisation here" written into them. Real jazz, to me, was/is always about stretching out and experimenting and trying something new. Syntax is important, but syntax, without freedom, without experimentation, with stringent limitations = composed music.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe - by Magritte
The Secret Magritte - by Larry Ochs
Non, ceci n'est pas une pipe!
I don't know that I am prepared to follow Ken Burns into battle on this issue but I watched the whole 10 or 12 hours of his jazz documentary and I don't recall having major disagreements with it. Some of the criticisms of perceived bias for or against certain periods or artists may have been valid but somebody gets left out of any type of documentary. On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary.
I guess the whole free/alternative/traditional jazz argument boils down to the fact that there are some musicians who want to lead the genre into a direction that many of us do not want to go. And not only do we not want to go in those directions but don't want to acknowledge music that goes there as legitimate heirs of the tradition. Not until these "new" directions are connected directly to what came before.
But this business of Wynton supporting calling the cops on somebody who has a strong jazz background because they're doing something you don't approve of? What gives Wynton or anybody else ever that right?
And free jazz, as opposed to plain free improvization, is directly connectable to what came before - you can follow the dots from pretty much any free jazz recording to the most conservative mid 50's hard bop album, and in most cases it won't be that many dots.
And maybe that's what makes jazz? An ability to connect it to the accepted cannon through reasonably sized steps?
I can understand not wanting to follow where someone wants to lead. That's discriminating taste. But I can't understand the need force a certain definition of jazz on other people. Personally, although I'm not awfully familiar with either, I have a sneaking suspicion that I'd rather listen to ROVA (of which Larry Ochs is a founding member) than Wynton Marsalis. So you, a more experienced jazz listener than me, may want to say I'm not listening to jazz. So fine, you know more about jazz than I do. But do you know more about jazz than Mr. Ochs does? And is that what jazz is? Whatever whoever knows the most says it is? Well then it's more or less doomed to become a dusty academic relic.
I would simply turn this argument around and ask the question what gives Mr. Ochs the right to play crap and call it jazz. Isn't that forcing a definition of jazz upon me.
@BadThoughts
Jazz as an art form was essentially created by African Americans in a racist segregationist America. That is a fact! To pretend otherwise is a disservice to both the creators and consumers of jazz. Sure there were important contributors to the art that were not African American: Bix Biederbeck, Gil Evans, Stan Getz, Bill Evans, Chick Corea the list goes on and on. But to complain that the story of jazz spends too much time talking about African Americans is the equivalent of saying the Colonel Sanders story spends too much time talking about fried chicken. If you eliminate fried chicken there ain't a whole lot left to talk about.
This. And this. And this. And this. And this. And several highly ranked albums in the Penguin Guide. Etc. etc. etc.
And it's not really the point that someone might disagree with any or all of those sources and any or all of thos opinions. The point is that a lot of different people respect and appreciate Mr. Ochs as a jazz musician. And what gives any one person, even a respected and talented musician, the right to take that away?
No, because you, like Wynton's friend in spain, and like Wynton himself, are free to not listen to Mr. Ochs' sounds.
Having called his music crap I now feel compelled to actually listen to his music and form an opinion based on the actually performance rather than my perception of his art based on a description of it.
I'll let you know what I think
His first album Black Codes from the Undergroundis still my favorite
might I also recommend
Linky