Busting myths in jazz history

[Ian Thumwood]

[Serial_Apologist]

Off topic.

[RichardB]

Well I tend to trust in my intuitions when it comes to detecting degrees of unpremeditativeness

Of course, as we all do; but your intuition here is without doubt highly trained so that your assessment takes place below conscious thinking. I'm reminded here of Colin McPhee's anecdote about playing piano music in Bali to local musicians in the early twentieth century - their response was that everything from Bach to Debussy sounded more or less the same - because the tuning was always the same. Having had no experience of Western music (of course nowadays it would be impossible to find anyone anywhere in the world who could say that), they had no idea of what to listen for in terms of stylistic and expressive cues, just as when you or I first encountered their music its structures and subtleties didn't immediately reveal themselves. So we are trained, by whatever means, to hear jazz in the way you describe, and to regard notated music in a different kind of light.

[Joseph K]

It can always be argued of course that the "detached" composer at his or her "score" is best placed for receptivity. Given that jazz is equally capable of calling on a broad range of musical means, the main difference consists in that it happens quicker than interpretation or rationalisation allow, and this accounts for its impact. I know how difficult reviewing gigs can be - have I missed some crucial juncture in my write-up? Reflection comes later: whether in tranquillity or not is another matter!

Well put, especially the point about it happening quicker in jazz, wherein lies much of its impact. And of course there is jazz where reflection and after-the-event creative acts occur, e.g. Bitches Brew.

I think Richard B seems wants to focus the attention on the listening subject and a way of listening, but I do think that there is something inherent in the best of jazz that is as you describe. I have often pondered the relationship between what's inherent in some music and the extent to which a listener brings their faculties to perceive what's inherent or not.

[Joseph K]

So we are trained, by whatever means, to hear jazz in the way you describe, and to regard notated music in a different kind of light.

Do you think that one could be trained to hear jazz in an alternative way?

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Well put, especially the point about it happening quicker in jazz, wherein lies much of its impact. And of course there is jazz where reflection and after-the-event creative acts occur, e.g. Bitches Brew.

I think Richard B seems wants to focus the attention on the listening subject and a way of listening, but I do think that there is something inherent in the best of jazz that is as you describe. I have often pondered the relationship between what's inherent in some music and the extent to which a listener brings their faculties to perceive what's inherent or not.

Last sentence "inherent.. to perceive". Isn't this the way at least initially how we view modern/abstract art? We attempt to find form in it, say with Jackson Pollock, who's work however "random" does indeed have form. And with modern abstract music, classical or jazz. To understand humanly is to.look for first the familiar, and then seek to impose a pattern. Which is what we do in everyday life. We interpret in this way.

[RichardB]

Do you think that one could be trained to hear jazz in an alternative way?

I think it's probably too late for any of us! It's just that I'm always suspicious of the idea that some particular expressive aspect of music is "inherent" to it, as opposed to being seemingly inherent to those (like all of us here) who know a greater or lesser amount of how and why jazz music came about, how and why it developed in the way that it did, what the function of its constituent musical elements are and how they relate to one another, and so forth. Maybe it's just a foible of my own, but actually I do find it enlightening to at least try (sometimes) to forget all I know about those things, or, conversely, to listen to "classical" music as if it consisted of them. This has a tangential relationship to the original topic, since I think this is one of the ways of piercing the membrane I was talking about before, between everyday and altered states of consciousness, but without ingesting hallucinogenic substances. Sorry if this is getting convoluted.

[Joseph K]

Maybe it's just a foible of my own, but actually I do find it enlightening to at least try (sometimes) to forget all I know about those things, or, conversely, to listen to "classical" music as if it consisted of them. This has a tangential relationship to the original topic, since I think this is one of the ways of piercing the membrane I was talking about before, between everyday and altered states of consciousness, but without ingesting hallucinogenic substances. Sorry if this is getting convoluted.

For me, I don't consciously think of all I know about music while listening to it. Such things are buried in my subconsciousness so for me it would be a bit futile to try to forget about it. But I do try to cast my mind back to the many occasions I altered my consciousness, hoping to induce in myself a heightened state of concentration. But also these things are sometimes spontaneous - and sometimes, even experiencing an earworm can be a spine-tingling thing. Generally though I try to make for myself the most propitious circumstances to listen to something, even though those altered states are somewhat of a chimera these days. It might be psychological as much as anything, but figuring out jazz solos by ear - working on that sort of muscle - I feel always yields perceptual benefits when listening for pleasure.

[Serial_Apologist]

Last sentence "inherent.. to perceive". Isn't this the way at least initially how we view modern/abstract art? We attempt to find form in it, say with Jackson Pollock, who's work however "random" does indeed have form. And with modern abstract music, classical or jazz. To understand humanly is to.look for first the familiar, and then seek to impose a pattern. Which is what we do in everyday life. We interpret in this way.

That is the basis of theories about seeing pictures in glowing embers, or how images visualised in Rorscach ink blots are supposed to reveal insights into the mind of the person seeing them useful to crime investigators. I have to admit to never actually having read anything about how this is claimed to work.

[RichardB]

That is the basis of theories about seeing pictures in glowing embers, or how images visualised in Rorscach ink blots are supposed to reveal insights into the mind of the person seeing them useful to crime investigators. I have to admit to never actually having read anything about how this is claimed to work.

It's a hypersensitivity to patterns in the environment which has developed over millions of years of evolution - a classic example is that it's better (from the point of view of natural selection) to see the stripes of a tiger in a dark forest when they aren't actually there than not to see them when they are there. So although this propensity is genetic in origin, one of its effects has apparently been to instil attentiveness and eventually the basis of a sense of beauty in how patterns reveal themselves in our sensory input.

[Serial_Apologist]

It's a hypersensitivity to patterns in the environment which has developed over millions of years of evolution - a classic example is that it's better (from the point of view of natural selection) to see the stripes of a tiger in a dark forest when they aren't actually there than not to see them when they are there. So although this propensity is genetic in origin, one of its effects has apparently been to instil attentiveness and eventually the basis of a sense of beauty in how patterns reveal themselves in our sensory input.

Fascinating how what were once objectively threatening or warning signs often sublimate their way into aesthetics as beauty.

[Joseph K]

SA, it's a pity you deleted your long reply to one of my posts. I was looking forward to reading it.

[Serial_Apologist]

SA, it's a pity you deleted your long reply to one of my posts. I was looking forward to reading it.

I just got tangled up in circular self-contradictions, adding on the one hands and on the others to a point of syntactical incomprehensibility. I seem to have rinsed myself out of the conversation, hopefully temporarily! I'll try and re-engage anon - Jay to Zee is now on!

[Joseph K]

I just got tangled up in circular self-contradictions, adding on the one hands and on the others to a point of syntactical incomprehensibility. I seem to have rinsed myself out of the conversation, hopefully temporarily! I'll try and re-engage anon - Jay to Zee is now on!

[RichardB]

I just got tangled up in circular self-contradictions, adding on the one hands and on the others to a point of syntactical incomprehensibility

Sounds like a Dolphy solo.