The Ellington Century

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Music Matters this week turns part of its attention to the Duke:

The Ellington Century. We all - well, most of us - lived through it, and are quite possibly living through it still. The title of David Schiff's new book on Duke Ellington stakes a bold but believable claim that Duke was at the centre of 20th century music, and that his influence continues today - as well as making a plea to play Duke's music live rather than rely on his recordings. Ellington is the centre of the Venn diagram of contemporary music, a jazz musician who wrote thousands of works, a composer of genius who was also one of the great improvisers. I talk to David about why it's Ellington's century, and doyen of jazz on Radio 3, Geoffrey Smith, and pianist Julian Joseph, tell me what they make of the book.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

one to catch ...the book

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

one to catch ...the book

£25 is a bargain for a book of this size and scholarship.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there was an interesting debate on the old mb i believe on a book about Ellington .... Alyn was a protagonist mebbe he remembers it ... he is playing at the Oxford Jazz festival a selection of pieces themed around Larkin's telegraf reviews ...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

this was that book

[Ian Thumwood]

This new book looks like an essential read and I think opens such an interesting conundrum that the thread really also needs to be posted onto the Classical section of this messageboard too.

Looking at the influence of Ellington on all forms of musical culture in the 20th Century I would initially be inclined to agree with the premise of this book. Part of me is a bit sceptical to consider Ellington quite in the league as someone like Bela Bartok who probably deserves to be considered the greatest figure in composition during the last century and there are plenty of other composers from the last 100 years who even the most ardent Ellington fan would have to acknowledge superiority. Within the confines of jazz, his greatness cannot be contested. As far as reflecting the "rapidly changing social conditions of modern life" this is difficult to deny (albeit a US-centred vision) and I think that Ellington (and Strayhorn) very much created the language within which jazz composition should be seen to express itself. Looking at the blurb, I am pleased to see that the author considers harmony, rhythm and melody in his analysis and this only serves to make me want to read this book even more.

However, it is interesting to consider just how influential Ellington actually was. Even in jazz circles, I think that very few people were obviously influenced by him - he was always totally original and never within the jazz mainstream. From the 30's there are recording by the likes of Spike Hughes and MBRB which definately owe everything to Duke but few of the big bands in the Swing Era really followed suit with the exception of Charlie Barnet who employed Billy May to write in a very similar style even if the likes of Lunceford frequently recorded his music. Don't think Ellington's band had the impact on his contemporaries as say Basie's 30's aggregation. Later on, I really feel that Mingus borrowed a tremendous amount from Ellington and even the likes of Richard Muhal Abrams have produced orchestrations that sound like the Duke. Today, Wynton Marsalis is another disciple. in the UK we have Stan Tracey. I think Ellington set the agenda and definately established the template from which jazz composition could be considered as "serious" as Classical music. In this respect, I think he might have been the first jazz composer to get recognition from the Classical establishment as early as the first years of the 1930's. Ellington's style is so distinctive that it makes the boundary between influence and slavish copying a bit blurred at times. (Mingus got it right, perhaps Wynton is just too much of a Duke-wannabe????)

Despite this, I really feel that this author might be over-playing Ellington's significance. You can't overstate the importance of jazz as a whole but I am not wholly convinced by the singular significance of Ellington. I don't think too many Classical composers have ever recognise Ellington as an influence - the only one I can recall reading about is John Adams. Whilst Ellington definately reflected the changing society in his music, I think it should be balanced by the fact that Classical music became increasingly less relevant in the late 20th Century to the point that it had become totally irrelevent by the 1970's. By the 1910's Classical music started to divorce itself from any social allegience it might once have had. The cold, academic nature of Classical music exacerbated the situation after the war and even it it endeavoured to reflect totalitariasm, other than Shostokovich, I would have tought the majority of people wouldn't have been listening! I would agree with someone like (I think) Gavin Bryars who made the comment that it is impossible to write relevant Classical music without acknowledging jazz, I think that Ellington is probably only a small part of the whole ingredient. i believe that jazz is probably the most significant "movement " or "development" in the 20th century music and its consequences have been more fair-reaching that Impressionism, Romanticism, Serialism, Rock, Rap, C & W or anything else you might care to mention. For me, this is because jazz deals with improvisation / development which is integral to what makes music "Great." As far as social commentary, i don't think that this need be brilliant music - Billy Bragg excellent for social comment , for example, but absolute carp as music.

Since Ellington's death, jazz composition has come in leaps and bounds and whilst I salute his pioneering work that laid the foundations, many of today's composers are probably writing to a level that is more on a par with Classical music. I don't think that we should forget that much of his work consists of 12-bars blues (albeit in a rainbow of possibilities) or simplistic forms and that the extended works / suites are often song forms bolted on to each other.

The odd thing with Ellington is that , had be been alive now, I strongly believe that his music would have grown in stature. Although I like the stuff from the 1920's, whenever I listen to his later recordings like "The New Orleans Suite", I wish Ellington had lived maybe 10-20 years longer as I think he would have continue to evolve as a creative artist. When I first heard the "The Sacred Concert" I was staggered by his ambition. Even though newer composers like Gil Evans, Bob Brookmeyer, Maria Schnieder, etc have arrived on the scene, Ellington still seems like a giant and even if so-called Modern Jazz composers like Monk, Mingus, Silver, Dameron, etc may have produced an impressive corpus of work, they never surpassed the Duke. For years, Ellington was unchallenged in jazz as the pre-eminent composer.

I'm not enthused by much of the Classical music in the 2nd half of the last century (although I like the first half best of all with Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Jancek, Delius, Scriabin being the pick of the bunch for me) and think Ellington's use of tone colours had little appeal to the more dry, academic and atonal composers that followed WWII. I would almost certainly argue that Ellington had even less influence of pop music after this point and by the time that someone like Glenn Miller had captured popular taste and learned to "manufacture" perfected pop music, it is probably fair to say that Ellington was effectively shunted more towards "art music" than something "popular." Perhaps only Gershwin or Kurt Weill were of a similar genius evem though I prefer DE personally. By the time of the advent of Rock, Ellington must have had zero influence and therefore this author's stance must make quite an intriguing read. From 60's onwards, I would suspect that it would be difficult to argue that Ellington had much bearing on popular music. By the time of his death, Ellington's audience must have wholly consisted of jazz fans and the last vestiges of popular interest evapourated.

This book looks thought-provoking and certainly more interesting that last year's weighty volume that looked at Ellintgon in the context of social history.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I made a general Post about the Music Matters programme on the Talking About Music Board and I hope you don't mind that I've copied this onto that Thread, Ian, in response to your opening statement.

I would only disagree with you about the Music of the Darnstadt generation being "dry, [and] academic": it is a blissful new dawn for many of us, glowing, dancing, rich in new possibilities and astonished at its own audacity.

I first heard Ellington when I was about twelve, on a televised Royal Variety Performance (of all things). Never heard anything like it before - this was the point when I began my awkward lifelong love affair with Jazz.

[Serial_Apologist]

This new book looks like an essential read and I think opens such an interesting conundrum that the thread really also needs to be posted onto the Classical section of this messageboard too.

Looking at the influence of Ellington on all forms of musical culture in the 20th Century I would initially be inclined to agree with the premise of this book. Part of me is a bit sceptical to consider Ellington quite in the league as someone like Bela Bartok who probably deserves to be considered the greatest figure in composition during the last century and there are plenty of other composers from the last 100 years who even the most ardent Ellington fan would have to acknowledge superiority. Within the confines of jazz, his greatness cannot be contested. As far as reflecting the "rapidly changing social conditions of modern life" this is difficult to deny (albeit a US-centred vision) and I think that Ellington (and Strayhorn) very much created the language within which jazz composition should be seen to express itself. Looking at the blurb, I am pleased to see that the author considers harmony, rhythm and melody in his analysis and this only serves to make me want to read this book even more.

However, it is interesting to consider just how influential Ellington actually was. Even in jazz circles, I think that very few people were obviously influenced by him - he was always totally original and never within the jazz mainstream. From the 30's there are recording by the likes of Spike Hughes and MBRB which definately owe everything to Duke but few of the big bands in the Swing Era really followed suit with the exception of Charlie Barnet who employed Billy May to write in a very similar style even if the likes of Lunceford frequently recorded his music. Don't think Ellington's band had the impact on his contemporaries as say Basie's 30's aggregation. Later on, I really feel that Mingus borrowed a tremendous amount from Ellington and even the likes of Richard Muhal Abrams have produced orchestrations that sound like the Duke. Today, Wynton Marsalis is another disciple. in the UK we have Stan Tracey. I think Ellington set the agenda and definately established the template from which jazz composition could be considered as "serious" as Classical music. In this respect, I think he might have been the first jazz composer to get recognition from the Classical establishment as early as the first years of the 1930's. Ellington's style is so distinctive that it makes the boundary between influence and slavish copying a bit blurred at times. (Mingus got it right, perhaps Wynton is just too much of a Duke-wannabe????)

Despite this, I really feel that this author might be over-playing Ellington's significance. You can't overstate the importance of jazz as a whole but I am not wholly convinced by the singular significance of Ellington. I don't think too many Classical composers have ever recognise Ellington as an influence - the only one I can recall reading about is John Adams. Whilst Ellington definately reflected the changing society in his music, I think it should be balanced by the fact that Classical music became increasingly less relevant in the late 20th Century to the point that it had become totally irrelevent by the 1970's. By the 1910's Classical music started to divorce itself from any social allegience it might once have had. The cold, academic nature of Classical music exacerbated the situation after the war and even it it endeavoured to reflect totalitariasm, other than Shostokovich, I would have tought the majority of people wouldn't have been listening! I would agree with someone like (I think) Gavin Bryars who made the comment that it is impossible to write relevant Classical music without acknowledging jazz, I think that Ellington is probably only a small part of the whole ingredient. i believe that jazz is probably the most significant "movement " or "development" in the 20th century music and its consequences have been more fair-reaching that Impressionism, Romanticism, Serialism, Rock, Rap, C & W or anything else you might care to mention. For me, this is because jazz deals with improvisation / development which is integral to what makes music "Great." As far as social commentary, i don't think that this need be brilliant music - Billy Bragg excellent for social comment , for example, but absolute carp as music.

Since Ellington's death, jazz composition has come in leaps and bounds and whilst I salute his pioneering work that laid the foundations, many of today's composers are probably writing to a level that is more on a par with Classical music. I don't think that we should forget that much of his work consists of 12-bars blues (albeit in a rainbow of possibilities) or simplistic forms and that the extended works / suites are often song forms bolted on to each other.

The odd thing with Ellington is that , had be been alive now, I strongly believe that his music would have grown in stature. Although I like the stuff from the 1920's, whenever I listen to his later recordings like "The New Orleans Suite", I wish Ellington had lived maybe 10-20 years longer as I think he would have continue to evolve as a creative artist. When I first heard the "The Sacred Concert" I was staggered by his ambition. Even though newer composers like Gil Evans, Bob Brookmeyer, Maria Schnieder, etc have arrived on the scene, Ellington still seems like a giant and even if so-called Modern Jazz composers like Monk, Mingus, Silver, Dameron, etc may have produced an impressive corpus of work, they never surpassed the Duke. For years, Ellington was unchallenged in jazz as the pre-eminent composer.

I'm not enthused by much of the Classical music in the 2nd half of the last century (although I like the first half best of all with Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Jancek, Delius, Scriabin being the pick of the bunch for me) and think Ellington's use of tone colours had little appeal to the more dry, academic and atonal composers that followed WWII. I would almost certainly argue that Ellington had even less influence of pop music after this point and by the time that someone like Glenn Miller had captured popular taste and learned to "manufacture" perfected pop music, it is probably fair to say that Ellington was effectively shunted more towards "art music" than something "popular." Perhaps only Gershwin or Kurt Weill were of a similar genius evem though I prefer DE personally. By the time of the advent of Rock, Ellington must have had zero influence and therefore this author's stance must make quite an intriguing read. From 60's onwards, I would suspect that it would be difficult to argue that Ellington had much bearing on popular music. By the time of his death, Ellington's audience must have wholly consisted of jazz fans and the last vestiges of popular interest evapourated.

This book looks thought-provoking and certainly more interesting that last year's weighty volume that looked at Ellintgon in the context of social history.

Phew! Where to start on THAT!!??

ALL musics have social allegiances, as you put it, and, whether intended or not by those who make them. Co-option by interests groups means that music can acquire social allegiances willy-nilly: you only have to read the differing arguments on clapping/not clapping between movements at a classical concert to get just one example of how views about, say, 18th or 19th century concert music change with the times.

That said, there have been many composers within the classical field of the 20th century who were at pains to endow music with social and political intent: think not just of the Soviet composers, but, in Germany - Kurt Weill, Hanns Eisler, Paul Dessau, Bernt Aloys Zimmermann, Hans Werner Henze; in Italy, Dallapiccola, Nono, Berio; in this country, Britten, Bush, Tippett, Cardew, David Blake; in America Copland, Blitztein, Bernstein, Cage and the Fluxus group; in Mexico, Revueltas and Chavez, etc etc etc. "Totally irrelevant by the 1970's" raises the question: totally irrelevant to whom? I can remember large numbers of Bristol-based musicians attending new music concerts in the 1980s, digging what they heard in Boulez, Berio, Messiaen etc. Jeff Williams, pianist with the group Sphere, which included Andy Sheppard, explained to me how he was adapting modes of limited transposition into some of his tunes. Elsewhere too: I'm pretty sure the late Peter Saberton had been attending to Elliott Carter when referring to "metric modulation" in his own composed music, which you can download from the tribute I posted.

Consideration of George Russell, himself a strong Duke influencee, imv, is probably germane too, at this point...

Jazz "caught up" with where classical music had been going by the 1960s. Gunther Schuller recognised this. The important thing to recognise imo is that jazz did this catching up on its own terms, matching the towering achievements of harmony, form, instrumentation and outdoing its rhythmic heritage, with improvistion the main drive, shaping the context around itself and the way it took on board eg Schoenberg, Bartok, John Ireland, Stravinsky, Cage, Stockhausen et al.

I could have said that Bartok would probably have placed Schoenberg, whom you omitted to mention, higher up the pantheon of 20th century classical music than himself - "Erwartung", "Pierrot Lunaire", "Moses und Aron", dry, academic??? but that is by-the-by...

As for direct influences living on from Duke Ellington, you could have mentioned Gil Evans more than in passing; also Chris McGregor's Brotherhood of Breath, the various of Mike Westbrook's big bands since the mid-60s, and Barry Guy's London Jazz Composers Orchestra.

Oh...and I've been wanting to say this for two years now, Ian, there's no "A" in "definitely". Two eyes are better than one...

S-A

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there's no "A" in "definitely". Two eyes are better than one...

definitely ...... been wanting to point that out for years ...

[Ian Thumwood]

S-A

I would have totally disagree with your argument and I don't think you have really taken on board the sentiments of the author of this new book. His argument is that Ellington is at the centre of 20th Century music. I think this is a bold statement irrespective of the fact that Ellington set the agenda for jazz composition. Where I would disagree with you is that you have taken a range of composers such as Gil Evans , Mike Westbrook and Barry Guy and labelled them all as influenced by Ellington. If there is any influence, it was probably limited as their music sounds nothing like the Duke's. Evans and Westbrook have always been pretty original and whilst it is true that a significant proportion of composers may have been inspired by Ellington, the work the examples you have suggested is markedly different. It is a bit like saying that Scarlatti is a baroque composer and therefore must have been influenced by Bach. Some of the examples you cite have been influenced as much by European composition as Ellington. The whole point of Ellington was the he was largely blissfully unaware of the European tradition as far as I can understand - there is a famous story about Constance Lambert claiming that Ellington must have been influenced by Frederick Delius only for it later to transpire that Ellington had never heard of him. For me, the "Ellington style" is as much influenced by the timbre of instruments as the unique harmonies. It is also worthwhile pointing out that he employed instruments like saxophones which were rarely used in Classical music and brass in a fashion that was unheard of. There is no precedent for the likes of Bubber Miley, Cootie Williams or Tricky Sam Nanton in Classical music.

As far as 20th Century composition is concerned, the examples you quote may have been influenced by left wing politics in the 20th century but, by the time you get to the likes of Henze, the audience for this kind of music would have shrunk to nominal and esoteric levels. I don't think that Ellington ever isolated the general public to the extent of many of the late 20th Century composers - especially the German ones. Of course, politics is only one element of social history and I would concede that some of Ellington's music did endeavour to capture 20th century urban life whether is was living in apartments ("Harelm airshaft", railway travel "Daybreak Express, etc, etc) or even landscape (Warm Valley".) I would argue that Ellington's work in the early 40's probably did capture social history (at least in the States) in a more varied manner than any of his contemporaries in jazz or classical music. Ellington took inspiration from the world around him and was also capable of creating music that reflected the experiences of his race.

Taking your position that atonal music is core to the development of composition in the 20th Century, do you not feel that David Schiff is taking a very controversial line in elevating the ahcievements of a composer who was so resolutely tonal? For me, even though I am no fan of the 2nd Viennese School which I find cold and acedemic, there is a whole pantheon of brilliant composers like Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Janacek , Messaien , etc who have raised the bar for all sortd of composition and , perhaps, can claim to have had as much influence on jazz composition as Ellington. I would certainly argue that this is the case with the French contingent.

My point was that Schiff is making some very large claims for Ellington here and in doing so, also raises questions about the respective value of Classical music and pop. Music was so diverse in the 20th Century that I think it would be hard to argue that any one composer reflected the last 100 years more than any other. Styles and tastes change and particular names go out of fashion. I would reiterate my point that it could be easily argued that jazz was the most significant development in 20th Century amd concur with your assessment at the rapidity at which it managed to absorb ideas from Classical music. If you wanted to extend things further, surely it could just as well be argued that Afro-American music as a whole has been the dominant force in the 20th Century from Ragtime and the Blues through to Rap. Put into this more commerical context, most 20th Century Classical music would seem insignificant give that Black music has throughout the 20th Century set the agenda for music as a whole with the names you mention taken in such a context seeming to be very much at the periphery.

I applaud Schiff's position even if I am not sure whether I can totally agree with it and believe he may be over-stating Ellington's status. This is definately a book that I would like to get my mits on as it offers a very through-provoking prespective. Good to see that someone is brave enough to produce a book that elevates any sort of black music to a level that serves to favourably contrast it with contemporary "serious" music.

[Serial_Apologist]

Then we must all first read Schiff's book. Defin-I-tely.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

whereof thereof etc

[Quarky]

. Music was so diverse in the 20th Century that I think it would be hard to argue that any one composer reflected the last 100 years more than any other.

Ian seems to have his finger on the button in my view. 20th century music is best characterised as totally chaotic.

But surely there is a great difference, and probably still is in the 21st century, between European and American music ( both South and North America). Might be possible to argue that Duke is at the centre of music from USA, but Duke I gather was at pains to dissociate himself from Classical music (Alex Ross -Rest is Noise).

As regards Classical European music, I would not have thought Duke was a significant influence. And as regards pop music, wouldn't Blues artists be more of a direct influence.

However I have to admit that really I don't know much about the subject. My extensive music library includes Alex Ross' Book and Alyn Shipton's, but I have not studied Alyn's remarks on the Duke. So really I ought to read Alyn's book before buying another.

A couple of random thoughts. Why all the difficulties with Black Brown and Beige? It seems to me a totally integrated work, full of interest, around a common theme. Miles better than most of the new works that are presented at the Proms, Hear and Now.

Second Viennese School? Their value seems to be firstly that they broke up the monolith of 19th Century Classical music, and secondly the subsequent influence they had both on European and US serious composers. But the number of "great" works produced may be not as many as other 20th century composers.

And noone has mentioned Stravinsky yet.

[amateur51]

£25 is a bargain for a book of this size and scholarship.

Currently £15.72 + £2.80 p&p from USA on amazon uk

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ellington-Century-David-Schiff/dp/0520245873/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333744651&sr=1-1

and better for you than all that Easter chocolate, fhg

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Second Viennese School? Their value seems to be firstly that they broke up the monolith of 19th Century Classical music,

?

and secondly the subsequent influence they had both on European and US serious composers.

Including Stravinsky .

But the number of "great" works produced may be not as many as other 20th century composers.

???, ???? and ?????

And noone has mentioned Stravinsky yet.

What has the lead singer of Herman's Hermits got to do with anything?