Elchin marvels... and arvoles

[Serial_Apologist]

Sat 11 April
5pm - J to Z
Jumoké Fashola presents the finest in jazz - past, present and future - from her front room. This week's concert features Israeli bass icon Avishai Cohen and his trio of pianist Elchin Shirinov and drummer Noam David. Together they perform tracks from Cohen's latest album Arvoles, which draws from Jewish folk music. And UK pianist Elliot Galvin shares the music that inspires him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6qk

There is no Freeness on Saturday - at 11 pm we are instead invited to Sleep.

Easter Day
4pm - Jazz Record Requests

http://www.alynshipton.co.uk/blog

On Tues 14 April - 9am on Radio 4:
Black Music in Europe: A Hidden History - Part 2 of 3-part repeat programme.
The stories of black musicians in 1960s Europe, presented by Clarke Peters. Also repeated at 9.30pm

[Ian Thumwood]

SA

Not sure if you are being ironic about Avishai Cohen, but he has a massive following on the continent which belies the comparative indifference in the UK. I have seen him on about three occasions and he is a really difficult musician to gauge. He is a virtuoso and he has a knack of finding really decent pianists in a country where you would have thought the jazz scene would have been negligible. In France, he is appears to have the same kind of "superstar" profile as musicians such as EST, Kamasai Washington and Gregory Porter, insofar as there is almost a "pop" following for his music. My initial impression was that he was pretty lightweight and superficial. It took me several numbers when I first heard him before my hostility to his music abated. I think he is one of the musicians I would have to say who have won me over when I have seen them perform live. You end up thinking that, actually, this music is pretty good even if it is not at all taxing to listen to.

He is a brilliant bassist and his groups certainly have an identity. The last time I saw him, he included a few vocal numbers in the set which I did not enjoy so much but I think he is an original. It is very "poppy" and perhaps even commercial yet, setting aside my strong reservations regarding whether Israeli musicians should be supported by jazz festivals, I think there is something really charismatic about both his playing and personality which makes his music difficult to dislike. He comes across as a really humble and personable bloke on stage and you would have to be curmudgeonly not to like what he produces.

Personally, the whole piano trio format that emerged in the 1990s is something I feel was unrewarding. In the case of Cohen, I would have to say he manages to pull the notion of a populist piano trio off and there is often a depth within his music which is totally absent in the rather superficial and glib music of EST who I always felt were a pop act performed by intelligent musicians. I think that a lot of people on this board will actually like Avishai Cohen although I am fully expecting you to be extremely negative despite the fact that, in it's own way, it is fusion. I am expecting Joe to be giving this a big thumbs up though!

[Serial_Apologist]

A lot of today's tracks played by La Fashiolista had rather a samey note-spinning quality to them; but I was impressed by Eliot Galvin - his adventurously original playing, his choices, and his reasons for them, even though his attitudes do smack a tad of your average supercilious University Challenge know-all. Laura Jurd is lucky in having him as a sideman - he didn't include her, did he?!

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Don't know about that but I did hear Jess Gillum say this morning that she didn't know until recently that Mendelssohn had actually visited Italy so that's why his "Italian Symphony" is called the "Italian Symphony". REALLY. "It was sort of a postcard from where he'd been" (sic). Shame it wasn't Torquay. How do you get a job on R3 these days? Just slip in through the fire escape with a spare pair of headphones?

[Ian Thumwood]

A lot of today's tracks played by La Fashiolista had rather a samey note-spinning quality to them; but I was impressed by Eliot Galvin - his adventurously original playing, his choices, and his reasons for them, even though his attitudes do smack a tad of your average supercilious University Challenge know-all. Laura Jurd is lucky in having him as a sideman - he didn't include her, did he?!

I have to listened to some of this on catch up although I heard the bit about the guest musician's inspirations. I haven't heard of Galvin although I think I might have seen him perform with Laura Jurd. I cannot help listening to these kinds of musicians and recalling Cassie Kinoshi's comments about the current crop of British jazz musicians being white , middle class and totally divorced from what jazz is really about. Most of the music he selected had anything to do with jazz. If you like, he would fail the "Jazzrook Test" which if often the kind of barometer I go by. (i.e. In JRR requests and comments on this board. ) It seems that Ligeti is more important to him than any jazz musicians. I wasn't impressed in the least with the exception of the Geri Allen track but even that was not as good as the stuff I am more familiar with.

What is intriguing is that so many of these people selecting music which inspires them have nothing to do with jazz. You would have imagined that this would have been an important criteria of a jazz programme. I thought Galvin was the worst offender so far. It makes you wonder how much jazz these people really listen to. For me, he seems like a classical musician who likes contemporary music but perhaps does not understand jazz. A number of musicians like Christian McBride have chosen some funk tracks where you can understand there is a significance in how he plays as well as a connection to jazz. On the other hand, there is nothing "street" about the likes of Galvin and you could argue that something like the Gorecki choral work is really unhip. I was listening to Galvin and it was clear that he was a product of the college system and could have easily have fitted into contemporary classical music. It was struggling to perceive him as a jazz musician. A total waste of space. Sorry, but I felt he was appalling. I had no idea he played with LJ, but I feel exactly the same about her music. Total sh/te.

It is funny how any "supergroup" with Brad Mehldau or Joshua Redman in it always seems to disappoint. I have seen Redman I think on four occasions. He was incredible with his trio and a guest appearance with the original line up of The Bad Plus was incredible and exceeded my expectations. However, there is sometimes something bland about his playing and he can also be a bit boring. I feel the same about Mehldau too. It is much better to hear him perform live where watching him dominate the keyboard is fascinating. A phrase like "Super human" is not out of place but sometimes I find him a bit pretentious. I love players like Christian McBride and Brian Blade, two names I would say influence me in buying records. The other two can be a lottery.

[Serial_Apologist]

A number of musicians like Christian McBride have chosen some funk tracks where you can understand there is a significance in how he plays as well as a connection to jazz. On the other hand, there is nothing "street" about the likes of Galvin and you could argue that something like the Gorecki choral work is really unhip. I was listening to Galvin and it was clear that he was a product of the college system and could have easily have fitted into contemporary classical music. It was struggling to perceive him as a jazz musician. A total waste of space. Sorry, but I felt he was appalling. I had no idea he played with LJ, but I feel exactly the same about her music. Total sh/te.

Ligeti would seem to have more respect for jazz than you do for Eliot Galvin!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdzvk1BJOBQ

Debussy recognised Ragtime, Stravinsky likewise jazz, Gil Evans Debussy, Mike Gibbs Stravinsky. Examples are legion on both sides of the supposed divide. Bird wanted to study with Hindemith and Varese towards the end of his life. I don't think it helpful if it becomes an issue of where to draw lines over mutual jazz and classical influences.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

John Lewis - Bach?

And less we forget, CHUCK BERRY : "Roll over Beethoven" . Chuck would often close his concerts by duckwalking across the stage playing The Moonlight Sonata.

[Ian Thumwood]

Ligeti would seem to have more respect for jazz than you do for Eliot Galvin!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdzvk1BJOBQ

Debussy recognised Ragtime, Stravinsky likewise jazz, Gil Evans Debussy, Mike Gibbs Stravinsky. Examples are legion on both sides of the supposed divide. Bird wanted to study with Hindemith and Varese towards the end of his life. I don't think it helpful if it becomes an issue of where to draw lines over mutual jazz and classical influences.

SA

I agree that drawing line isn't helpful but I am not sure you are understanding the point I am making. Of Eliot Galvin's choices, 4 out of 5 were not jazz. This not "Desert island discs" or "Private passions" but part of a magazine programme that is supposed to be about the music which influenced a jazz musician. I just felt that his selection was perhaps indictive of why a good proportion of "jazz musicians" (especially from the UK) does not resonate. I very concur with CK's observations which are well-recorded on line and which the feature on Saturday night seemed to illustrate by accident. If you are a young jazz pianist and asked to name the musicians who have influenced you, I would have expected something very much different in respect of the artists you had chosen as being influential. I think I have commented before on an acquaintance I met at Vienne who commented that there is young generation of jazz pianists for whom they no longer have any understanding of what jazz means. He cited the example of Phineas Newborn as typical of the kind of musician who is forgotten by today's pianists. They are more interested in playing in 17/8 than understanding what jazz means. If you had asked that question to a younger pianist thirty years ago names like Herbie Hancock, McCoy Tyner or Chick Corea would have been on every list. A savvy musician might have listed more obscure pianists like Wynton Kelly , Hampton Hawes or Andrew Hill. Instead, young Galvin comes up with just one track and music my Gorecki which has no bearing on jazz regardless of this composer's enthusiasm or otherwise for the music. I was left wondering how much someone like Wynton Kelly or Hampton Hawes would have been on this bloke's radar? He chose a de-construction of a Fats Waller composition but have he ever listened to any Waller?

I can appreciate your argument and the fact that you will be considering this under the wider umbrella of "contemporary music" but as a jazz musician it was a real surprise. He did not seemed to be interested as to whether anything swung. To be honest, I am really surprised that neither Jazzrook nor Bluesnik have picked up on this interview. I felt that the selections did him no credit.

[Serial_Apologist]

SA

I agree that drawing line isn't helpful but I am not sure you are understanding the point I am making. Of Eliot Galvin's choices, 4 out of 5 were not jazz. This not "Desert island discs" or "Private passions" but part of a magazine programme that is supposed to be about the music which influenced a jazz musician. I just felt that his selection was perhaps indictive of why a good proportion of "jazz musicians" (especially from the UK) does not resonate. I very concur with CK's observations which are well-recorded on line and which the feature on Saturday night seemed to illustrate by accident. If you are a young jazz pianist and asked to name the musicians who have influenced you, I would have expected something very much different in respect of the artists you had chosen as being influential. I think I have commented before on an acquaintance I met at Vienne who commented that there is young generation of jazz pianists for whom they no longer have any understanding of what jazz means. He cited the example of Phineas Newborn as typical of the kind of musician who is forgotten by today's pianists. They are more interested in playing in 17/8 than understanding what jazz means. If you had asked that question to a younger pianist thirty years ago names like Herbie Hancock, McCoy Tyner or Chick Corea would have been on every list. A savvy musician might have listed more obscure pianists like Wynton Kelly , Hampton Hawes or Andrew Hill. Instead, young Galvin comes up with just one track and music my Gorecki which has no bearing on jazz regardless of this composer's enthusiasm or otherwise for the music. I was left wondering how much someone like Wynton Kelly or Hampton Hawes would have been on this bloke's radar? He chose a de-construction of a Fats Waller composition but have he ever listened to any Waller?

I can appreciate your argument and the fact that you will be considering this under the wider umbrella of "contemporary music" but as a jazz musician it was a real surprise. He did not seemed to be interested as to whether anything swung. To be honest, I am really surprised that neither Jazzrook nor Bluesnik have picked up on this interview. I felt that the selections did him no credit.

I agree with what I take you to imply by the term "contemporary music". You, I think, and others here on the forum and in the jazz press more generally have rightly drawn attention to the degree (no pun intended) to which many of today's generation of young jazz musicians gained their most formative experiences while at college - a reflection of the increasing likelihood of those choosing this pathway to eventual public exposure coming from middle class backgrounds. While there is nothing intrinsically any more wrong with this than with intellectuals of left wing persuasions from similar backgrounds, jazz having always brought the different classes together on the bandstand, the tipping of the balance in this way does and will affect the character and spirit of jazz - jazz being the musical environment of both musical and self-discovery par excellence, it will (and already has to a considerable extent) become an alternative genre in which to build a career to performance or composition in the classical field. Much - but not all - contemporary classical music seems to have lost the sense of standing for a more equal, enlightened society it shared with modern classical music in the period up to the 1980s, when, in my view, the at one time innovative alternatives between serialism, stochasm, chance, improvisation, electronics and Minimalism were either watered down or precipitantly ditched as part of a bid for [a]historical amnesia under a pretext of breaking with so-called High and Low Culture, masquerading as inclusiveness. While what for many who have come to find modern music accessible in terms of their own background - namely the middle-of-the-road modernism represented by earlier composers such as Martinu, Prokofiev, Honegger, Barber and, dare one say, Britten - that very music would never have come into existence in the form and ethos that it did without the ground-breaking work of cutting edge innovators such as Schoenberg, Berg, Bartok, Varese, and Stravinsky up to 1920.

Today's younger generation of jazz musicians, I would argue, are still drawing on the experiences offered by that "middle generation" of mainly European and American straight composers, who in their own work tidied up the sharp edges of avant-gardism in their own music while at the same time selectively incorporating aspects of its innovations into their own comparatively traditional means of expression, including acknowledging the value of memorable melodic invention, otherwise handed over to the commercial music field. You still hear young jazz musicians extol the likes of Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky and Messiaen, and those at the freer end of the spectrum Schoenberg, Webern, Cage and Stockhausen.

Lastly I take issue with your definition of what it means to swing. Early jazz - its historical connection to a "dark" past forbidden, enslaved and shipped away from Africa - was rhythmically much based on simple duple time structures syncopated and overlayered; rhythmically the history has been one of retrieving its primary rhythmic/motivic connection to the roots, expanding, in dialogue with the Euroclassical models it needed to prove its own equivalence in value, to incorporate those metrical and rhythmical "complexities" that went beyond 2/4. 4/4 and 3/4, as heard through "western" ears coming to terms with 5/4 in "Daphnis et Chloe" and perpetual metric shifts in "The Rite", and connected back to long-established tribal musics in which such apparent complexities were in the basic nature of music.

From the "other side of the picture" Guy Warren is said to have done much towards re-introducing leading American jazz drummers including Max Roach to their own rich African rhythmic heritage before coming to this country in the mid-1960s to work with the likes of Ian Carr and Don Rendell. Trevor Watts is very emphatic about the primacy of metre and rhythm over the harmonic in jazz, even going as far as to belittle the importance of harmony, of which I would nevertheless argue his knowledge to be considerable to go by his composed ensembles such as Moiré Music and the early 2000s Hastings-based Celebration Band. Following I guess Ornette Coleman's collaborations with Joujouka musicians he has often worked with African drummers and those from S America with direct historic connections to Africa. One was the West African drummer/percussionist Mamadi Kamara, who later worked with Andy Sheppard. Having set up his spectacular walk-in kit, before the audience arrived Mamadi would sit in the front row of the arena tuning in to tapes of African drumming - the catchiness of which was infectious enough to draw one into tapping out rhythmic patterns of one's own on one's knees - at which Mamadi would first express surprise and maybe disagreement, and then acknowledge with an "Oh I see where you're coming from! Yes, that's an equally valid launching pad to engage with this performance!" According to a good many musicians African or African-derived rhythmic structures, whether over rhythmic vamps or changing harmonies, are a great stimulus to spontaneous improvisation, in which the patterning mindset of the musician in terms of his or her own expanding musical universe has the opportunity to implant and release tensions against the contrasting background.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Not getting involved in this but at the moment listening to a 4cd box set of early Ronnie Scott, "Boppin' with Scott". Disc one includes a 1949 "live session" from St George's Hall and they have a lot in place already, but it kinds of "jerks" rather than swings, and the drummer, early Tony Crombie drops more "bombs" per second than the Luftwaffe at its most enthusiastic. But, early days and confidence growing. Soon a cheerful Stan Tracey would say, "Bollocks!", to a complaining Stan Getz.

BN.


Btw I listened to Debussy (piano roll) play "Cake Walk" from his Children's Hour for the first time. Fascinating, a totally different phrasing and yes, almost a kind of "swing" in places ...

[Ian Thumwood]

The Avid 4-CD set by Stan Tracey is pretty staggering and is a good indication that some British musicians of that era had caught up quite quickly.

I have been listening to Hampton Hawes today. The "All night Session" recordings appear to have every standard under the sun on them and the whole recording process seems to me to be a marked contrast to how people produce records today. It seems crazy to have produced 3 LPs worth of material in one , night time session. He reminds me a lot of my old piano teacher, Monty Worlock who, himself, was a big fan of Hawes. Players from that generation seemed to have internalised a lot of material, mainly standards admittedly, and I remember hearing him play gigs armed with a little notebook of song titles, all of which he knew. This seems to be to be exactly the same process that Hawes was using and I just feel that ripping through material the four musicians on the record well understood ( as well as a healthy dose of blues) is a marked contrast to the way jazz has evolved these days. Hawes was rooted in Be-bop and owed a lot of his style to Bud Powell although without the almost neurotic attack of the latter. Hawes had a breezier, West Coast feel and the fact that his playing was so indebted to the blues means that it has an immediate appeal.

Hawes is one of those pianists who wins converts upon first acquaintance. I am a big fan of his playing yet it is disappointing that he is one of those players from that era who have started to disappear from view. Until McCoy Tyner came along, there were few pianists who could swing as hard as Hampton Hawes. His styles changed later on and he became looser so that something like "The Green Leaves of Summer" hints at the lose-limbed approach of Keith Jarrett's trio 25 years later.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I've never heard a pianist with a touch like Hampton Hawes, VERY clean, percussive, definitely not hammering, but totally distinctive, at times almost like vibes. Unmistakable. I know he had that condition at birth where you get an "extra" little finger, but that was removed, so...

The other pianist I really like from that period/geography is Carl Perkins who had childhood polio and so was restricted in fully using two hands "normally" but found away around. There's some YouTube video of a Jazz Casual TV broadcast and it's fascinating to see him play. Lovely player. And a natural - when Vic Feldman went to live in the States he became very friendly with Perkins who showed him all his voicings etc, but for which he didn't have names.

[elmo]

Carl Perkins brilliant solo on "Grooveyard" - classic Harold Land as well.

https://youtu.be/CSAr0cj8qGI

elmo