We're being Gesamped - again!

[Serial_Apologist]

I think the chasm between traditionalists, mainstreamers and modernists in the 1950s was probably a good deal stronger over here than in the States, where by that stage the mutual dismissal personnified by Louis Armstrong and Dizzy Gillespie had given way to a sort of peaceful coexistence, and leading personalities from the West Coast "Cool school" were understood as in continuity with the Lester Youngs, albeit that the compositional terrain had moved on somewhat haphazardly. Here by contrast the modernists were up against the elephant in the room of Trad, and consequent asociation by way of the popularity of Barber and Bilk in the popular consciousness (including mine up to age 15!!!) of jazz with the 1920s. At first glance it may seem surprising that some of our modernists were willing to play more mainstream styles and groups, until one considers the prestige attention devoted to Ronie Scott and his circle including Tubby Hayes especially, which left great players of the calibre of Tony Coe and Kenny Wheeler out on the fringes. It's easy to overlook the fact that Bruce Turner had studied in the States under Lennie Tristano and maintained friendship with Lee Konitz - and bassist Peter Ind was on those great Tristano recordings from '55. Other fine British originals, little indebted to US models in terms of their immediately recognisable identities, pre-Coltrane era-raised people like Dick Heckstall-Smith, Bobby Wellins, Art Themen and Stan Robinson, either continued crossing the mainstream-modern tracks, even essaying freer areas when opportunities availed, rarely saw leadership as being of issue - the next pub engagement was the next oppo for connecting musically, socially and in a few cases not infrequently intoxicatingly, with any notion of petit bourgeois social aspirationism way down on the list of life priorities. Given Stan Tracey's eminence by association with Ronnie's it probably astonished many when he got together with the extrovertest bowler hat from the West to record "Blue Acker" with a big band in 1968; but the above, together with the post-Ronnie's fact of simultaneous burn-out and dosh running out factored in, would equally have played their part. Had Stan thought of joining the British Blues boomers at that time, aside from being musicologically antipathetic to most of what they stood for, he would never have stood the pace. Nonetheless, generous spirited Stan later spoke highly of Acker's musicianship when interviewed by Sue Lawley for Desert Island Discs: as Ian Carr once said, with the coming of free jazz, all hands were thrown up in the air: differences once amounting to theological irreduceables suddenly dissolved.

[Ian Thumwood]

Even more incredible than Brue Turner studying with Tristano was the fact that Bud Freeman had also wished to become a pupil but was turned down by the pianist because he was afraid that he would have a negative effect on Freeman's readily recognisable style. Seeing that Freeman was part of a coterie of player who grew up worshipping Debussy and Ravel, I am not surprised because there was always an element within the older generation who were curious about more modern styles. One of the most informed books about jazz musicians is the Garvin Bushell book which effectively recounts his involvement with pre-swing big bands led by the likes of Sam Wooding before becoming a member of such great bands as Chick Webb and Cab Calloway before ultimately materialising as a sideman on records by both Gil Evans and John Coltrane. At the same time, he was also performing with what you would refer to as "Trad" bands. His assessments are extremely insightful and is clearly one of a multitude of examples of musicians who had a more open minded approach to jazz.

The idea of Mainstream is synonymous with the likes of Buck Clayton but have grown up with this kind of jazz and, to be honest, been fascinated by the whole aspect of these musicians back history and the often surprising forward looking nature of their work, I would find it difficult to be dismissive of what constitutes a wide and varied body of work. I think it says a lot of the music that jazz in this era was capable of accommodating a mass of individualistic soloist who would have been easily recognisable to fans in that era. I am not sure that this is the case with jazz today even if the one ubiquitous Coltrane influence seems to have had it's day. This is why I particularly love musicians like Lester Bowie, Billy Bang, Josh Berman, Jeb Bishop, Jason Moran and James Carter as they all have a bit of the "Swing Era" in their playing and they are generally easily recognisable.

[Alyn_Shipton]

IMHO all this categorisation of jazz has a negative effect on a music that's already in need of as much help to survive as possible. People forget Chris Barber in the 70s playing material by Mingus and Zawinul as well as recording with Paul Buckmaster and members of the ELO. And maybe not many of us recall Ginger Baker and Dick Heckstall Smith as members of Acker's band, but they were. The 'trad' label is as meaningless as 'mainstream' or 'bebop'. So a 'bop' tenorist like Hal Singer is just as at home in a Buck Clayton band (check out the mid-60s Paris discs) as Hawk or Buddy Tate. I grew up playing with the likes of Bud Freeman (when he was based in London) on the one hand and people like Lol Coxhill on the other. All seemed part of a continuum to me. And in between there was orchestral playing - just as challenging, so I find the derogatory comments about Wagner above deeply saddening (though it'd be fair to say tonight's Met performance was patchy). But plenty of jazz gigs can be patchy and that doesn't invalidate the music.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

IMHO all this categorisation of jazz has a negative effect on a music that's already in need of as much help to survive as possible. People forget Chris Barber in the 70s playing material by Mingus and Zawinul as well as recording with Paul Buckmaster and members of the ELO. And maybe not many of us recall Ginger Baker and Dick Heckstall Smith as members of Acker's band, but they were. The 'trad' label is as meaningless as 'mainstream' or 'bebop'. So a 'bop' tenorist like Hal Singer is just as at home in a Buck Clayton band (check out the mid-60s Paris discs) as Hawk or Buddy Tate. I grew up playing with the likes of Bud Freeman (when he was based in London) on the one hand and people like Lol Coxhill on the other. All seemed part of a continuum to me. And in between there was orchestral playing - just as challenging, so I find the derogatory comments about Wagner above deeply saddening (though it'd be fair to say tonight's Met performance was patchy). But plenty of jazz gigs can be patchy and that doesn't invalidate the music.

Apologies for the Wagner denigration. I was being flippant. Although writing songs, he's not for me. As to the "Trad" designation, I remember all too well when UK "jazz" was popularly waistcoats, strangled clarinets and clanking banjos. Some.were OK, most were beer driven torture. I don't forgive easily. When I was interviewed for my first job in architecture, I was asked "Kenny Ball?" because I'd put jazz as a key interest. And this from a supposedly sophisticated panel. Trad was very big with architects then, along with beards and low level corruption/product placement. Although maybe that was just parochial Cardiff.

As to Hal Singer, I knew him from "Cornbread", but almost all those R&B guys had a far greater depth and range. And Singer cut those French albums and "Malcolm X"?

Anyway, although it may not be fashionable, I do believe that labels still have (some) place. How else would we find our way around and badge & bank our diminishing cultural capital.

Btw I thought yesterday's truncated JRR was really good. Hadn't heard that version of Silent Way before.

[Ian Thumwood]

I tend to agree with Alyn's comments but it is really intuitive to read the latter part of the opening sentence, I sentence in conjunction with publication this weekend for the Umbria Jazz festival 2018 that was being given a decidedly lukewarm reception on the JazzTimes website. Not being around for the Trad boom meant that I never really experienced the differing and opposed factions that blighted jazz in the 50's and 60's. It is a bit shocking to see that there is now a wider problem with the promotion of jazz insofar that there seems to be more of a concentration on booking acts that are, to use the favourite work at Vienne, "jazzy" as opposed to being jazz itself. The Umbria festival starts off by offering the more commercial if undoubtedly musical Quincy Jones but later develops to include acts like David Byrne, Massive Attack and Shaggy. There is also a wealth of Brazilian artists who are on the very fringes of jazz if jazz at all. The question nowadays is that the Trad v Modern argument is not longer applicable and that the debate has moved on to Jazz v Jazz-orientated which can include a multitude of sins that may be either good or very bad. I don't think that it is helpful for jazz to define itself with debates from 50-60 years ago but surely there is now a wider debate to be had within the music that somehow ring-fences the wide-ranging and diverse styles of jazz from the broader popular influences ? I would agree to a point that jazz musicians mixing the others from "outside" genres is beneficial (not quite sure if I would personally stretch that statement to include ELO!) but the integrity of jazz needs to remain intact. Adopting a position of being a "jazz consumer" (through CD's, listening to the radio, visiting websites, going to gigs, reading books, etc, etc) it is probably fair to say that, broadly speaking, the "pure" jazz audience now remains a fairly close collection of micro-markets which I can see becoming less divided by factions as jazz is threatened by other musical styles which are getting bolted on to jazz festivals to create some kind of musical Frankenstein's monster.

Picking up on JRR, it is quite noticeable that it is the "purist" stuff that gets requested and not the "jazzy" stuff much loved by the promoters at Vienne or the more "off piste" projects that crop up on JLU from time to time.

[Old Grumpy]

IMHO all this categorisation of jazz has a negative effect on a music that's already in need of as much help to survive as possible. People forget Chris Barber in the 70s playing material by Mingus and Zawinul as well as recording with Paul Buckmaster and members of the ELO. And maybe not many of us recall Ginger Baker and Dick Heckstall Smith as members of Acker's band, but they were. The 'trad' label is as meaningless as 'mainstream' or 'bebop'. So a 'bop' tenorist like Hal Singer is just as at home in a Buck Clayton band (check out the mid-60s Paris discs) as Hawk or Buddy Tate. I grew up playing with the likes of Bud Freeman (when he was based in London) on the one hand and people like Lol Coxhill on the other. All seemed part of a continuum to me. And in between there was orchestral playing - just as challenging, so I find the derogatory comments about Wagner above deeply saddening (though it'd be fair to say tonight's Met performance was patchy). But plenty of jazz gigs can be patchy and that doesn't invalidate the music.

I tend to agree Alyn. Last night I went to see a class local outfit the Strictly Smokin' Big Band featuring once local boy ("born in Pity Me, fact" - as he announced), Paul Booth. Ultra jazzy on the night on both tenor and soprano sax, featuring both standards and his own compositions, I note from his biog a wind ranging interest and practice in music of many genres. Makes him no less of a jazz man IMV.

OG

[Serial_Apologist]

While my thread headline re total(itarian) works of art was, as I said, intended lightheartedly, and was likewise in Bluesnik's replies, there will, surely, be some jazz fans of JRR and JLU who demur at the manner in which it is always minority-following jazz that gets the cuts whenever Wagner comes around once again. Cultural assumptions would seem to be at work here.

I would think that the Trad/vs Mainstream/vs Modern discussion we've been exchanging views on was intended as little more than a rueful look back at a time of sharp factionalism that at the time were often based on false and oversimplified assumptions, in part reflecting trends encouraged by promotion and marketing that to this very day continue to shape careers, musical directions, and all of us, effectively, into demographics of consumerism, ostensibly of other, non-musical people's devising.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

While my thread headline re total(itarian) works of art was, as I said, intended lightheartedly, and was likewise in Bluesnik's replies, there will, surely, be some jazz fans of JRR and JLU who demur at the manner in which it is always minority-following jazz that gets the cuts whenever Wagner comes around once again. Cultural assumptions would seem to be at work here.

I would think that the Trad/vs Mainstream/vs Modern discussion we've been exchanging views on was intended as little more than a rueful look back at a time of sharp factionalism that at the time were often based on false and oversimplified assumptions, in part reflecting trends encouraged by promotion and marketing that to this very day continue to shape careers, musical directions, and all of us, effectively, into demographics of consumerism, ostensibly of other, non-musical people's devising.

Yes, my comments were lightly made. Although I still hold a grudge. You'd be walking down the street quietly whistling "Giant Steps" and a gang of Trad fans would kick you senseless. No wonder the Clyde Valley Stompers were so named...

It is interesting though how people define themselves (me included) through their tastes. The cultural appropriation. Pierre Bourdieu's classic "Distinction", I think I remember, used French lower middle class film fans as an example. The status of knowing who was the second director, third camera, script editor et al. Building social capital out of a kind of in group train spotting. Could never happen in jazz...

BN.

[Ian Thumwood]

SA

I wonder if you had ever heard Jamie Cullum's jazz programme on Radio 2 because I could well imagine this type of programming influencing people's perceptions of the music. I only tend to listen if I am in the car and the radio flags up that there is a jazz programme on. It is always staggering to me that the presentation style is so naff but the track selection is curious because it tries too hard to tap in to some kind of "trendy" perception of jazz and / or jazz based music with the result that anything remotely within the mainstream" seems out of place. It is a travesty of a programme but maybe indicative of the short term attention span people have for anything that is remotely challenging. A lot of the track selection is pop / fusion and I somewhat doubt is going to be on the radar of anyone over the age of 35. Cullum's programme tends to be "too hip" but in doing so entirely misses the point.

I met up with a couple in France last year and we were both complaining about the terrible programming at Vienne. Last year represented a low point and, personally, the bird watching and archaeology aspects of the holiday were far more interesting than the jazz. In fact, I really wish I had concentrated on the archaeology as I came away from the holiday with a headful of questions about the excavations at St Columbe. The bloke I spoke too was really dismissive of the programming and he didn't have a good work for Cullum who was a headline act on one of the gigs. His perspective was the Cullum was "pop" yet , in UK, he remains one of the most familiar faces in jazz in the country. I will be intrigued to read about the ticket sales last year as Vienne has started going along the road as Montreux in having jazz almost gate crashing it's own festival. The genuine fans are being marginalised with a consequence that you feel the likes of Shepp and Sanders who played last year are no longer "outside" but so solidly in the mainstream that they are almost certain to attract an audience amongst people 50 years ago who might has distrusted their music. Any divisions in the jazz audience seem squarely set along differences between generations with an younger audience more enthusiastic about hearing an "artist" working with a DJ who samples John Coltrane than an entirely acoustic set.

It is an intriguing age that we are living in. Consumerism is pushing jazz out of the mainstream and what is taking it's place is often a poor photocopy. At the same time, there is a lot of really fascinating and creative jazz that is around of you are prepared to hunt it down. The recent programmes on Jazz Now have, to be honest, fallen within the categories I enjoy and I would strongly suggest that Bluesnik checks out Jackie Mac pupil Steve Lehman tomorrow. I don't see the genuine audience for jazz today to fall in to any factions even if particular oeuvres have their own, strong adherents. What is good is that since I started to listen to jazz in the 1980s the audience has become more informed and more broad minded about the music and perhaps not so hostile to earlier forms of jazz. What I do find is think is that the jazz audience is often poorly served than it might have been in the past and some of the "big" European festivals are now organised by people who are not particularly savvy about the music. This seems true of Montreux, Vienne and perhaps umbria. It does make you realise just how good the London Jazz Festival is whilst other festivals like Brecon seem more informed by BBC Radio 2 than a genuine affinity for the music. The US scene seems far more buoyant and "switched on" regarding the music so you sometimes wonder if there is a translation issue with non-English speaking countries the prohibits the kind of informed programming that you find in London. I have been tempted by Marciac but it has notorious accommodation issues and the influence of Wynton Marsalis seems to make the music focus of the contemporary mainstream. Gigs do seem to be aligned with whoever has a new album to plug as opposed to something like Vision Festival where the aim of the festival is to stimulate new, creative music.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

SA

I wonder if you had ever heard Jamie Cullum's jazz programme on Radio 2 because I could well imagine this type of programming influencing people's perceptions of the music. I only tend to listen if I am in the car and the radio flags up that there is a jazz programme on. It is always staggering to me that the presentation style is so naff but the track selection is curious because it tries too hard to tap in to some kind of "trendy" perception of jazz and / or jazz based music with the result that anything remotely within the mainstream" seems out of place. It is a travesty of a programme but maybe indicative of the short term attention span people have for anything that is remotely challenging. A lot of the track selection is pop / fusion and I somewhat doubt is going to be on the radar of anyone over the age of 35. Cullum's programme tends to be "too hip" but in doing so entirely misses the point.

I met up with a couple in France last year and we were both complaining about the terrible programming at Vienne. Last year represented a low point and, personally, the bird watching and archaeology aspects of the holiday were far more interesting than the jazz. In fact, I really wish I had concentrated on the archaeology as I came away from the holiday with a headful of questions about the excavations at St Columbe. The bloke I spoke too was really dismissive of the programming and he didn't have a good work for Cullum who was a headline act on one of the gigs. His perspective was the Cullum was "pop" yet , in UK, he remains one of the most familiar faces in jazz in the country. I will be intrigued to read about the ticket sales last year as Vienne has started going along the road as Montreux in having jazz almost gate crashing it's own festival. The genuine fans are being marginalised with a consequence that you feel the likes of Shepp and Sanders who played last year are no longer "outside" but so solidly in the mainstream that they are almost certain to attract an audience amongst people 50 years ago who might has distrusted their music. Any divisions in the jazz audience seem squarely set along differences between generations with an younger audience more enthusiastic about hearing an "artist" working with a DJ who samples John Coltrane than an entirely acoustic set.

It is an intriguing age that we are living in. Consumerism is pushing jazz out of the mainstream and what is taking it's place is often a poor photocopy. At the same time, there is a lot of really fascinating and creative jazz that is around of you are prepared to hunt it down. The recent programmes on Jazz Now have, to be honest, fallen within the categories I enjoy and I would strongly suggest that Bluesnik checks out Jackie Mac pupil Steve Lehman tomorrow. I don't see the genuine audience for jazz today to fall in to any factions even if particular oeuvres have their own, strong adherents. What is good is that since I started to listen to jazz in the 1980s the audience has become more informed and more broad minded about the music and perhaps not so hostile to earlier forms of jazz. What I do find is think is that the jazz audience is often poorly served than it might have been in the past and some of the "big" European festivals are now organised by people who are not particularly savvy about the music. This seems true of Montreux, Vienne and perhaps umbria. It does make you realise just how good the London Jazz Festival is whilst other festivals like Brecon seem more informed by BBC Radio 2 than a genuine affinity for the music. The US scene seems far more buoyant and "switched on" regarding the music so you sometimes wonder if there is a translation issue with non-English speaking countries the prohibits the kind of informed programming that you find in London. I have been tempted by Marciac but it has notorious accommodation issues and the influence of Wynton Marsalis seems to make the music focus of the contemporary mainstream. Gigs do seem to be aligned with whoever has a new album to plug as opposed to something like Vision Festival where the aim of the festival is to stimulate new, creative music.

I think Jamie Cullum's program, or at least part of it, is now being replayed on TSF Jazz in France (no escape). Maybe it's not the BBC edition but it sounds just as chirpy. Years ago when I caught him on R2 he played a lot of stuff recommended to him by Alan Bates (Black Lion). This was a welcome respite as it included Mingus, Jack Sheldon, Vic Feldman, Gerald Wilson, Booker Ervin, Sun Ra, the Strata East label, Soul Jazz, etc, etc etc. Not the usual "Jamie". He is really one of life's mysteries to me. If he was playing in a wine bar you'd say, OK acceptable as background if he keeps it quiet, but a "Major Star"? No idea how that's done.

I will listen to the Steve Lehman, I heard some of his stuff a while back and was impressed but I think he's perhaps moved from that now. I listened to Craig Handy's "Jimmy Smith" second line band this afternoon. Great fun with the sousaphone, a novel idea, which must be exhausting. I am very impressed with Handy, he seems to cover a lot of diverse bases with integrity. One of the good ones.

BN.

[Ian Thumwood]

I think Jamie Cullum's program, or at least part of it, is now being replayed on TSF Jazz in France (no escape). Maybe it's not the BBC edition but it sounds just as chirpy. Years ago when I caught him on R2 he played a lot of stuff recommended to him by Alan Bates (Black Lion). This was a welcome respite as it included Mingus, Jack Sheldon, Vic Feldman, Gerald Wilson, Booker Ervin, Sun Ra, the Strata East label, Soul Jazz, etc, etc etc. Not the usual "Jamie". He is really one of life's mysteries to me. If he was playing in a wine bar you'd say, OK acceptable as background if he keeps it quiet, but a "Major Star"? No idea how that's done.

I will listen to the Steve Lehman, I heard some of his stuff a while back and was impressed but I think he's perhaps moved from that now. I listened to Craig Handy's "Jimmy Smith" second line band this afternoon. Great fun with the sousaphone, a novel idea, which must be exhausting. I am very impressed with Handy, he seems to cover a lot of diverse bases with integrity. One of the good ones.

BN.

I have seen Cullum perform live on three occasions. There was a set I caught with a smaller band where he was surprisingly good but on other occasions he has been truly dire. To be honest, I feel the same about a lot of British jazz at the moment. There are players like Alex Hawkins who I have stumbled upon by accident who are really good and I have found from experience you are often better making your own discoveries as opposed to being given the nod as to what is currently fashionable. If I think about the musicians whose work I have really admired such as Mike Walker or Peter Hurt, for example, they often don't get much media attention. The more modish something is, the more I am off-put about it. Some artists are better than you might anticipate. I was hugely impressed by Stacey Kent at Vienne last year and her work now seems to have gained a mature quality about it which effectively lifts in beyond the more retro stuff she recorded when she first broke on the scene. It is a shame that Cullum gets a lot of the media attention ever if his intention on Radio 2 are well-meant.

The Steve Lehman disc "Mise en abime" is really short and intense but hugely rewarding. It is clever yet visceral at the same time. Two of the pieces are based on Bud Powell tunes although they sound nothing like them. It owes a lot to Steve Coleman but maybe more agitated. I really like this kind of contemporary jazz. You might also want to check our Greg Ward's excellent Mingus-inspired project which takes "The black saint and the sinner lady" as a starting point for a new composition. One of the best albums in the last few years. Coupled with the likes of Henry Threadgill, Ward, Coleman and Lehman are demonstrating that alto players are probably bit more adventurous than their tenor counterparts at the moment.

[Quarky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046cpx0

Mon 19 Feb
11 pm Jazz Now
Soweto Kinch introduces a concert given by American saxophonist Steve Lehman and his octet, recorded in November at The Old Customs house in Tampere, Finland.

I wonder what this will be like.

Not being in the mood for intense concentration, I preferred Emma Smith's offerings from BBC Introducing.

Is it just me , but there usually seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of hype in the introduction preceding an item, and the musical content of the item??

[Old Grumpy]

Not being in the mood for intense concentration, I preferred Emma Smith's offerings from BBC Introducing.

Is it just me , but there usually seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of hype in the introduction preceding an item, and the musical content of the item??

Vespare's theory of relativity?

OG

[Serial_Apologist]

Not being in the mood for intense concentration, I preferred Emma Smith's offerings from BBC Introducing.

Is it just me , but there usually seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of hype in the introduction preceding an item, and the musical content of the item??

And there was I, thinking it was just me!

It's all part of the general hype apparently expected or demanded now by Radio 3's mover and shaker ups. Having done a small number of reviews, requesting those I've written them for never to ask me to review anything I didn't like - jazz in all forms needs steadfast friends - I've come to the conclusion that the jobs on offer as presenters in these programmes, however well paid they may be, are maybe not the kind of thing I could always carry off with a modicum of straight-faced sincerity.

[Serial_Apologist]

Vespare's theory of relativity?

OG

Brilliant, OG!!!