Allan Holdsworth is Dead

[Ian Thumwood]

I had forgotten all about Stanley Jordan. When his debut was issued there was a lot of media fuss about his unusual technique but the album was really only interesting for the fact that he had such an usual technique. The record seemed hugely radical at the time although it was squarely pitched at the middle-of-the-road listener and what would have been known as FM-friendly at the time. The subsequent albums got successively less rewarding reviews and Jordan seemed to me to be someone who was exposed as a technical innovator but with little to say as a jazz musician. I thought that he had fallen right off the map until about five years ago when he resurfaced in an article which considered his "alternative" lifestyle which would probably is even more radical than his guitar technique ! Not difficult, in these circumstances, to see why the jazz community lost interest in him and perhaps slightly uncomfortable with him now.

Jordan started off as a busker before being signed up to Blue Note around 1985. I think he was perhaps fortunate to get so much media attention at a time when jazz guitar was getting really interesting and the "pop-lite" nature of his playing seemed in contrast to the way that jazz guitar started to change around that time. Not knowing a great deal about guitar playing, the more serious was being played by other musicians whereas "radical" technique seemed to be something pitched between the extremes of Derek Bailey and Egberto Gismonti. If you haven't already checked out Gismonti, he is a guitar player that I would seriously recommend that Joe checks out because his technique and tunings just seem far more radical than a Smooth Jazz artist like Jordan plus the fact that he has the vision for "long range" improvisations in a fashion similar to the likes of Keith Jarrett or Cecil Taylor. Not 100% sure you can call Gismonti a jazz musician, but I would argue he is one of the greatest improvising acoustic guitarists ever.

[Richard Barrett]

If you haven't already checked out Gismonti, he is a guitar player that I would seriously recommend that Joe checks out because his technique and tunings just seem far more radical than a Smooth Jazz artist like Jordan plus the fact that he has the vision for "long range" improvisations in a fashion similar to the likes of Keith Jarrett or Cecil Taylor. Not 100% sure you can call Gismonti a jazz musician, but I would argue he is one of the greatest improvising acoustic guitarists ever.

I agree with thus, although as usual I don't see that whether or not he could be called a jazz musician is of the slightest importance!

[Bryn]

I agree with thus, although as usual I don't see that whether or not he could be called a jazz musician is of the slightest importance!

I concur fully. I often hold back from posting regarding a fair few improvised music events I attend for want of an apposite board on which to place such comments. Neither Classical Forum nor Jazz Programmes seem the right place. Perhaps an Improvised Music sub-forum is called for? For instance, next Thursday I will be attending iklectik to experience performances by Sharon 'mouthcrazy' Gal and Steve Beresford + "sound artist" John Macedo. I doubt a few of the jazzers here would think of what occurs that night as jazz. I certainly don't think of it is such terms. So where to post on such performances?

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I concur fully. I often hold back from posting regarding a fair few improvised music events I attend for want of an apposite board on which to place such comments. Neither Classical Fonrum nor Jazz Programmes seem the right place. Perhaps an Improvised Music sub-forum is called for? For instance, next Thursday I will be attending iklectik to experience performances by Sharon 'mouthcrazy' Gal and Steve Beresford + "sound artist" John Macedo. I doubt a few of the jazzers here would think of what occurs that night as jazz. I certainly don't think of it is such terms. So where to post on such performances?

I don't think "jazzzers here" are of much concern to anyone, myself included. There are what, c. six max who regularly post here. Whatever the state of "jazz" few (and fewer) people seem inclined to debate it in this format. And I'm losing the will. Even US jazz websites like Organissimo are down to about a hard core of ten or twelve. The old Jazz Corner site in the early 2000's was substantially higher, c.100, engaged and impassioned, including reporting the US free scene. The lights are going out all over Selmer-land.

BN.

[Serial_Apologist]

I concur fully. I often hold back from posting regarding a fair few improvised music events I attend for want of an apposite board on which to place such comments. Neither Classical Forum nor Jazz Programmes seem the right place. Perhaps an Improvised Music sub-forum is called for? For instance, next Thursday I will be attending iklectik to experience performances by Sharon 'mouthcrazy' Gal and Steve Beresford + "sound artist" John Macedo. I doubt a few of the jazzers here would think of what occurs that night as jazz. I certainly don't think of it is such terms. So where to post on such performances?

I usually post such matters on the "Experimental, Prog etc etc" thread when I can remember where it is. It's probably the best place, if headings are anything to go by...

I might just catch you at L'Klectik this coming Thursday.

[Ian Thumwood]

I don't think "jazzzers here" are of much concern to anyone, myself included. There are what, c. six max who regularly post here. Whatever the state of "jazz" few (and fewer) people seem inclined to debate it in this format. And I'm losing the will. Even US jazz websites like Organissimo are down to about a hard core of ten or twelve. The old Jazz Corner site in the early 2000's was substantially higher, c.100, engaged and impassioned, including reporting the US free scene. The lights are going out all over Selmer-land.

BN.

Jazz's popularity is cyclical but I also don't think that the way musicians / groups have been promoted since the 2000's has helped. When I was getting in to jazz in the early 80's, the press was still desperate to promote new talent and I think I was fortunate to be around during this decade which was hugely influential. I think the 1980s were as innovative as anything that happened in the 40s, 50's or 60s'. When you think of the talent that was around on a whole array of instruments, the jazz scene was extremely healthy both with musicians from older generations and the wealth of a new generation of players from the likes of the Marsalis's, the Ne--conservatives, the ECM roster, John Scofield, Steve Coleman / M-Base, Henry Threadgill, David Murray or the NYC Downtown scene, etc. Me importantly, the press seemed interested in what was happening. I can't see this happening in 2019 but there is still plenty of interesting jazz to be found albeit I think you have to go out and find it yourself now as, aside from BBC radio, jazz is broadly missing from the national media. When it is promoted, I think it is safe to say that they are more interested in either quality jazz that is more commercial (Gregory Porter, for example) or stuff that it very modish and won't leave a lasting impression - something that I felt probably originated from the fashion for Nu-jazz in the late 1990s / early 2000s which was incredibly shallow insofar as what it had to offer musically.


What I think has been "problematic" is that the criteria by which the music has been judged has changed. I don't think younger fans are particularly impressed by technical prowess or the ability of a musician to express themselves individually. The younger audience is looking for something different which is often groove orientated and I have been surprised by what fans who are in their teens and twenties think is important in the music whenever I have ended up in conversations with them at places like Vienne. I think it is interesting that you have made this comment on the Allan Holdsworth thread because I would see this guitarist as someone very much on the fringes between jazz and rock. Although I am not a fan, I think that Holdsworth had a crossover appeal because a large proportion of rock fans are also interested in the more technical aspect of the music too. I think he reflected the interface between jazz and the more popular rock of the time.

These days technical prowess is a given in jazz and I don't think that today's audience feel that this is sufficient to make the music interesting. To reach out beyond jazz, the music seems to have to take in influences from things like EDM to garner wider appeal. What was interesting last month was to see the spectrum of the audiences listening to jazz. I think that there is always going to be a hardcore who genuinely appreciate the music. Also I think that some of the stuff which seems to be innovative or forward thinking does not necessary translate in to younger audiences - the music in the vein which is obviously jazz is still more popular with an older demographic.

If you were twenty, would you choose to listen to music that was made 40-50 years before you were born ? The likes of Miles, Coltrane and Sonny Rollins are hardly going to be relevant to you. I don't think the hardcore jazz will ever vanish but I think it will require more effort to find it out and is unlikely to have a broader appeal to the public.

[Joseph K]

Ian, from about the age of about 16 I started buying jazz records which at that point were at least 30 years old. My curiosity probably would have taken me there eventually, but IIRC it was Radiohead mentioning their Miles influence, then going into HMV and reading the backs of albums like Bitches Brew which persuaded me in the first place. It's a bit ludicrous thinking young people's taste will be crudely put - contemporary = more relevant, whatever that means. I should probably make more effort to listen to contemporary jazz, though what I do occasionally catch often strikes me as disappointingly bland. So older records for me are still a preference. I think records like Bitches Brew or the live A Love Supreme hit a sweet spot between freer jazz and in the case of the former, rock, and the latter, heavy swinging post-bop. So I don't understand how the word 'relevant' can be applied as a value judgement, and certainly not regarding when the music happens to have been made.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Ian, from about the age of about 16 I started buying jazz records which at that point were at least 30 years old. My curiosity probably would have taken me there eventually, but IIRC it was Radiohead mentioning their Miles influence, then going into HMV and reading the backs of albums like Bitches Brew which persuaded me in the first place. It's a bit ludicrous thinking young people's taste will be crudely put - contemporary = more relevant, whatever that means. I should probably make more effort to listen to contemporary jazz, though what I do occasionally catch often strikes me as disappointingly bland. So older records for me are still a preference. I think records like Bitches Brew or the live A Love Supreme hit a sweet spot between freer jazz and in the case of the former, rock, and the latter, heavy swinging post-bop. So I don't understand how the word 'relevant' can be applied as a value judgement, and certainly not regarding when the music happens to have been made.

My point (above) was not about the quality or other of the music, but about the way it's now "consumed", interrogated and regarded. The day, my day c1960, when you brought one or two jazz LPs a month, because of finance and because there were REALLY not that many newly available in the UK other than import, is obviously very long gone. But the one plus was that you listened intently to what you had and it aquired a kind of reverence. That no longer holds as you can click through YouTube to almost everything available. Whether this dilutes attention span and depth, I mumble "too late", it's what it is. But it is reflected in how the music is regarded. One music in a multitude, often filler. So why would even debating it be worthwhile? On to the next. Don't like Coltrane at one hearing? Too demanding, too passé? Hey scroll down, there's a shit load of these jazz fkrs, some with weird names too.

[Ian Thumwood]

Ian, from about the age of about 16 I started buying jazz records which at that point were at least 30 years old. My curiosity probably would have taken me there eventually, but IIRC it was Radiohead mentioning their Miles influence, then going into HMV and reading the backs of albums like Bitches Brew which persuaded me in the first place. It's a bit ludicrous thinking young people's taste will be crudely put - contemporary = more relevant, whatever that means. I should probably make more effort to listen to contemporary jazz, though what I do occasionally catch often strikes me as disappointingly bland. So older records for me are still a preference. I think records like Bitches Brew or the live A Love Supreme hit a sweet spot between freer jazz and in the case of the former, rock, and the latter, heavy swinging post-bop. So I don't understand how the word 'relevant' can be applied as a value judgement, and certainly not regarding when the music happens to have been made.

Joseph

I grew up listening to jazz and if I listened to any pop /rock it was always as a consequence of hearing something in jazz that made me want to check it out whether it was Branford Marsalis performing with Sting or Gil Evans flirtation with Jimi Hendrix. My entry in to jazz was through Swing Era big bands and musicians like Benny Goodman, Lionel Hampton, Count Basie and that coterie of bands. However, I first delved backwards to understand the kind of jazz these bands had evolved from which was really intuitive because in listening to bands like Fletcher Henderson you encounter soloists like Coleman Hawkins and Benny Carter who made me appreciate the concept of solos. The natural step was to follow these musicians as the music evolved into Be-bop so by the time I was sixteen I was heavily into musicians such as Thelonious Monk. Within a year I was obsessed by Gil Evans who opened the door to me to the contemporary jazz musicians of the time. There was never ant disconnection for me between listening to someone like Jelly Roll Morton on one hand and John Surman on the other - it was all the same as far as I was concerned. In fact, by my late teens I was really inquisitive about more "outside" styles of jazz.

I have never been massively in to pop music although I have records in my collection by the likes of Earth ,Wind & Fire, Bjork, Kate Bush, Laura Mvula and Michael Kiwinuka, etc. I quite like this music although I don't find it anywhere as near as rewarding as jazz.

Where I agree with you is that a lot of the recent jazz that has been put out has been unsatisfactory. Recently I have been collecting box sets of albums that I missed in the 1980s by the likes of Arthur Blythe, Paul Bley and Andrew Hill. Some of this stuff is pretty outside (some of the music on the Bley box set is entirely freely improvised yet hugely compelling) but I think all of it belongs totally within the "tradition." To take the example of Paul Bley, a lot of his music has been influential on a number of the younger pianists on labels such as ECM yet I think that Bley is head and shoulders above nearly all of the pianists the German label now favours. Players with the bite of someone like Arthur Blythe are also pretty thin on the ground these days.

I don't feel that all contemporary jazz is poor quality. There is a lot if really good stuff out there yet you have to really hunt it down. There was a thread a few years ago about bands that have had a long existence and how superior they are to ad hoc line ups. I think there is a lot to be said for this but , unfortunately, there are not too many bands around now that seem to exist beyond the tour to promote the disc. Back in the day there were groups likes the trios led by Paul Motian and Keith Jarrett, Jason Moran's Band Wagon, etc, etc that had existed for a period of over ten years and who were able to build up an exceptional rapport. I am not sure that this is so much of a feature in jazz today.

[Joseph K]

This has not long arrived.

If it wasn't already evident, I highly recommend the Live in Warsaw album, BTW. Holdsworth's ideas are full of a most affecting lyrical import, his tone is nasal and vibrato is quite exquisite (it's on youtube for those who are curious...)

[Joseph K]

This features one of Holdsworth's most epic solos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgL7WCE-eZo

Been listening to this a fair amount recently. It is breathtakingly sublime.

[Joseph K]

So, I saw it announced on facebook that there's a new book coming out about Holdsworth & his music called 'Devil Take the Hindmost: The Otherworldly Music of Allan Holdsworth'. I googled the title and found this! -

http://threadoflunacy.blogspot.com/

[Serial_Apologist]

So, I saw it announced on facebook that there's a new book coming out about Holdsworth & his music called 'Devil Take the Hindmost: The Otherworldly Music of Allan Holdsworth'. I googled the title and found this! -

http://threadoflunacy.blogspot.com/

I have to put this down now, otherwise I'll have no supper!!!

[Joseph K]

… from that thread of lunacy site, here are a fair few Holdsworth bootlegs:

https://threadoflunacy.blogspot.com/p/unreal-videos.html?fbclid=IwAR1CYMIbhEDDV1ikxMvpZdwp7-36NhFbH_aHhnPh1W8s9lZqmbU7ZQ4TinE

… though you need, I think, to be on facebook to access them. Also helps if, like me, you're a Holdsworth fanatic.

[Joseph K]

More good news - there's another live Holdsworth record coming out -

https://www.deepdiscount.com/allan-holdsworth-frankfurt-86/767004651927