Pianisms - a view of Monk and a swipe at Solal

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

here is a blog enrty by Ethan Iverson taking a swipe at Solal for being a tad dry and empty and dissing T S Monk .... i am coming round to this view of Solal in recent years myself, but really the point is his commentary on Monk ...

Evidence 1

gigolo

[Pianorak]

Not really qualified to comment on jazz pianism, but was struck by Monk's splayed fingers, reminiscent of Vladimir Horowitz.

[Ian Thumwood]

I would urge anyone with an interest in what the heart of jazz is really about to read the Ethan Iverson blog that Calum has posted a link too. I read quite a few of Iverson's articles and find him to be one of the most perceptive writers on the music that I have come across. Usually I find myself nodding my head in agreement with his observations but I think he was excelled himself with this piece because there are so many issues here that he has nailed exactly. Oddly enough, some of the remarks have also been echoed in an interview I read with Lee Konitz who has worked in a duo with Solal and is perhaps even more qualified than Iverson to address the short-comings in Solal's approach to jazz.

I think that Iverson is spot on with regard to his perception of Solal's playing although the comparison with Monk does not, in my opinion, fully explain why Solal may appear to be such an unsatisfying experience for many jazz musicians and fans. However, I think the fact that Solal's predeliction for "cutesy endings" is not the most obvious problem I have with this musician. Having seen Solal perform twice (the second occasion being a whole, three hour-plus recital of all variety of combinations from solo, with a collection of 6 pianists or with a large ensemble), it is apparent then when he inhabits the "jazz mainstream" his repertoire is extremely hackneyed and full of compositions such as "Tea for tea" or "Caravan" that many performers have ditched long ago. Pretty corny, I would suggest, for 2011. In many respects, he is something of a fossil in the way he performs material which might have been "standard" 50-60 years ago although there is an incredible amount of skill and musical knowledge which is apparent in the manner he subjects the themes to a thorough exploration. He is, I feel, very self-indulgent and the constant stop-start nature of his improvisation prevents him ever really getting inside the "zone" of a tune. The improvisations never seem to take flight and he seems incapable of swinging like someone such as Keith Jarrett when he starts getting in to fifth gear.

With regard to the reaction to Monk's piano playing, Solal's affinity towards 20th Century Classical music and atonalism (check out his Chamber work to see where he is coming from) makes it obvious that he was never going to really "get" what Monk was about. Where Iverson appears to be uninformed is that I really feel that Solal wants to re-clothe jazz in 20th century , classical finery and, like many Frenchman, he suffers from a dislike of much of what the "Anglo-Saxon" world has to offer. It is a very French view of things and one that has a degree of disdain for the mainstream of American jazz. There is , I akcnoweldge, a strong strand in French jazz which has tried to distance itself from the American mainstream and re-caste the music in a recognisably, "Hexagonal" fashion and whereas someone like Michel Portal has been successful in forging an identity in this fashion which I feel is successful, Solal just comes across as whatever the French equivalent of a "little Englander " is! If Francois Mitterand had taken to playing jazz piano, he would have sounded like Martial Solal! I think this explains the ambivalence towards Monk although to accept a billing on a festival dedicated to Monk and then make a comment about liking Monk because he wore a hat on stage shows a supreme lack of respect. You could excuse the comments as the meanderings of an old man but it sounds more like arrogance to me. I'm totally with Iverson in this respect. If you dislike Monk, why are you playing in a festival dedicated to his music? Like Iverson says, he should "Foxtrot Oscar!"

Despite having an amazing technqiue (especially for his age), I don't find Solal to be a pianist who really swings or someone who has a great grasp of the blues. Listening to Solal is intriguing and fascinating but the music is never going to grab you and kick you solidly in the gut. I don't think that the matter of technique / no technique is as clear cut as you might imagine. It is too simplified an argument. However, the issue of technique is never going to go away and jazz fans will forever debate whether the influence of Classical music detracts from getting to the essence of jazz. This used to be central to some of Trevor Cooper's arguments about Gwilym Simcock and are observations which definately prove food for thought. For every cold, clinical player like Solal, there will always be other pianists who have emerged from Classical music and immediately grasped what jazz is all about. Take someone like the Japanese pianist Eri Yamamoto, for example, who I think is a better jazz musician than Solal although far less sophisticated from a European, Classical perception. Yamamoto definately seems capable of hitting the sweet spot that is the nub of what jazz is about whereas that human element is entirely missing from (admittedly my own experience of) Martial Solal. So, I don't think the technique debate is wholly correct although being educated in this environment may account for why a player like Monk might not float a particular musician's boat. Moreover, the issue for me is a failure to get to the "nub" of jazz and, as such, is far more difficult to define. TO my ears, either you have it or you don't. Sorry, but Solal doesn't in my opinion.

thanks again for posting the link.

[amateur51]

Thanks Calum & Ian - this thread is proving to be fascinating.

Keep it coming if you have more to say.

Best wishes

A lil boy lost in the world of jazz

[Serial_Apologist]

But a good place to get "lost" AM51 - a lot of us have managed to "find ourselves" in this music, and I shall be eagerly reading Mr Iverson's article tomorrow, having been rather busy today.

Good points, Ian - and yes, thanks, Calum!

S-A

[Byas'd Opinion]

I said, 'I'm determined to become a musician now. Not a violinist, but a jazz musician who happens to play that instrument.'" - Billy Bang

I think the same applies to Monk. He's maybe not a virtuoso pianist, but he's a great jazz musician who happens to play the piano. To judge him purely by his playing technique is to miss the point spectacularly. If nothing else, he's one of the great jazz composers: Round Midnight, Straight No Chaser, Misterioso, Epistrophy, Blue Monk, Bemsha Swing, and many more.

Besides, if you listen to his earliest recordings - the sideman dates with Coleman Hawkins or some of the earlier Blue Note stuff - it's clear that he was a decent conventional jazz pianist. His style got sparser and more idiosyncratic as he got older, but there's enough evidence there for it to be obvious that this was a deliberate choice - his playing was about choosing the one perfectly chosen if unconventional note or chord rather than pouring out lots of empty runs.

[Alyn_Shipton]

From my personal knowledge of Solal (as evidenced in last year's JL) he has a considerable sense of humour. Not something that I could discern in Iverson's grumpy blog. I have witnessed some of those moments Iverson describes (but admits he has never seen or heard live) when Solal gets into an extraordinary creative zone - in which there is no-one to touch him. A true original. His "cutesy" endings and abundant quotations from standards are often delivered with his tongue as far in his cheek as Frankie Howerd's. It doesn't take away from Monk's importance or originality as composer and player. If you want a perfect insider's view of Monk's technique, try Laurent De Wilde's biography of him. It might make an interesting (but probably equally spurious) debate to ask whether De Wilde or Iverson is the more original player...?

[amateur51]

... his playing was about choosing the one perfectly chosen if unconventional note or chord rather than pouring out lots of empty runs.

Thanks for this Byas - this is what I 'd spotted the other evening watching the clip and I think it's a great talent. His timing was extraordinary too

[amateur51]

From my personal knowledge of Solal (as evidenced in last year's JL) he has a considerable sense of humour. Not something that I could discern in Iverson's grumpy blog. I have witnessed some of those moments Iverson describes (but admits he has never seen or heard live) when Solal gets into an extraordinary creative zone - in which there is no-one to touch him. A true original. His "cutesy" endings and abundant quotations from standards are often delivered with his tongue as far in his cheek as Frankie Howerd's. It doesn't take away from Monk's importance or originality as composer and player. If you want a perfect insider's view of Monk's technique, try Laurent De Wilde's biography of him. It might make an interesting (but probably equally spurious) debate to ask whether De Wilde or Iverson is the more original player...?

Very helpful post Alyn - I shall give Solal more of a listen on Spotify and chase up the Monk biography - how exciting to find great new stuff at my age - I'm 60 at Christmas, y'know!!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep thanks Alyn for that insight into Solal's puckishness .... nonetheless as an adoring admirer of his work in the 20th Century some of his more recent performances leave me a little cold but there is no doubting either his amazing technique or his considerable body of work ...

in 65

1970 [ i think from san tambour ni trompette]


much earlier ...with Bechet

and 2008 from the marvellous album with Dave Douglas on trumpet


i do not accept Iversen or Ian's take on Solal, but the account of Monk is very sympathetic and seriously refutes the demeaning description of his work as nativist or untutored in some way .... he could also play the hell out of a show tune ... as could Oscar Pettiford!

[Ian Thumwood]

The staggering point in this discussion is that there are people like Solal who, in 2011, still don't get Monk. I find this staggering. Byas'd observation is spot on. I'm not surprised by Peterson's lack of enthusiasm nor Tristano's, although I was unaware of the latter's. Tristano is a bit of an oddity and maybe more analytical than any other jazz pianist prior to his time. He is an idiosyncratic as Monk in my opinion and, I would add, no less relevent. Jazz piano is almost certainly it's own oeuvre and the parameters for what might constitute "great jazz" offers a really wide degree of possibilities. I think this instrument has almost certainly evolved both as an instrument within the context of group playing as well as a solo instrument detatched from the mainstream in the music. For me, this is why jazz played on this instrument is so compelling. As a solo instrument, the need to marry up the improvised line with harmony and rhythm in a context that is self-supporting is probably one of the greatest challenges in jazz. Orchestration for large ensembles is probably the only other challenge which is more difficult in a jazz context. As soloists, pianists are the real heroes of jazz. However, Monk's contribution as a soloist and composer is an essential ingredient in the music as, as Iverson acknowledges, Monk's music reaches back into much earlier forms of jazz. In some ways, his approach is almost like a broken down stride pianist. For me, Monk's recognition of the music's past helps make his own work invaluable.

I can appreciate the position from where Solal is coming and, in the context of developments in Classical music, Monk's music is not particularly "Modern" or innovative. The harmonies are very chromatic and often pretty fundamental and his use of whole-tone scales was being explored by Bix Beiderbecke as early as 1919 according to some witnesses. It is a bit difficult to make a case for Monk being a "great modernist" and certainly his musical vocabulary is not in the same league as someone like Bartok or Messaien. For me, it is the idiosyncratic approach to both playing and composer which has very little to do with Classical music which makes Monk's music so enjoyable. His use of time and space in his solo's is exceptional. I would suggest that jazz musicians will be playing Monk's music in 30-40 years time whereas Solal's arid compositions will be lucky to find a champion in the future. As a vehicle for jazz improvisation, there is no need for the music to be over-complicated and Monk is unquestionably one of the most satisfying of jazz composers. For me, it is pianists like Monk, Ellington, Nichols, Hill, Byard and Jason Moran who offer something is not quite so slavish to Western composition that are so compelling. True, I love the work of pianists as diverse as Teddy Wilson ,Herbie Hancock or Keith Jarrett too who are versed in this language and, as such, probably are of more interest to someone like Solal. There is no "correct" way of playing jazz piano but for Solal to dismiss a major figure like Monk so lightly and contemptuously borders on the unacceptable.

Unfortunately, whenever I've seen Solal, the best that can be said if that the music is interesting and there is clearly a brilliant musical mind at work. It has never "connected" with me. I've never experienced him producing anything quite as transcendental as described by Iverson and Alyn although it would be very much the kind of thing that I would enjoy. Personally, I find his approach a bit cold and clinical. I much prefer someone like Paul Bley who often ploughs the same kind of furrow as Solal but whom I find to be far more consistent and rewarding improvisor. Although I am no fan of the gimmicky "The Bad Plus," I feel Iverson is a far better writer about jazz than performer. Irrespective of whatever side of the camp you may be coming from, I found the article interesting food for thought. Solal's remarks were ingallant and perhaps merited Iverson's response - even if the latter exagerates the lack of performers who have failed to graps Monk's music properly. (For what it's worth, the Steve lacy quintet with Misha Mingelberg, Ernst Reijsinger, George Lewis and Han Bennick that played on Radio 3 many moons ago seemed to have nailed the pianist's music as well as the great man himself.)

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er previously re Solal and before that ...


Monk previously

etc

Epistrophy

we all got previous innit

[Alyn_Shipton]

But Ian, I seem to remember you didn't "get" Bill Evans, according to a previous MB. Takes all sorts. But my point was that Solal might just have been gently taking the mickey at an event that (from Iverson's account) seems to have been ultra serious about Monk.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

more Evidence


... the quartet on exceptional form and TM goes dance about too ...

Lulu 1


Lulu 2

on this evidence of Lulu it is possible to infer where a stellar tenor player found inspiration for doing the kind of thing he did to his favourite things

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Frankie Dunlop on drumming for Thelonious Monk

and a response to E I on Solal ...


and much more on Solal in the links below the short piece on Solal at the VV