It never ceases to amaze just how wrong we tend to get jazz in the UK. A brochure for the up-coming season at the Theatre Royal in Winchester fell through my letter box this morning and although I have heard both Oregon and Kenny Wheeler preform at this venue in the past, the quota of jazz is usually very small and typically pretty conservative. I think the last gig I went to was Courtney Pine which was entertaining enough. This autumn, anyone who is so inclined can book tickets to hear this:-
No further details are given as to the musicians other than the leader Ruthie Culver ( a new name to me) although the actors making the readings seem to be given great prominence that the sidemen. (Plough a little deeper in to the website and the names of some equally obscure musicians are revealed. )There was a thread a few year ago about jazz and poetry which illustrated that there are fans but I wonder just how many people will be enthused at hearing jazz versions of poems originally set to music by Benjamin Britten?
The previous thread about keith Jarrett was interesting and informative and whilst there were fans of his solo and trio work, there seemed to be a concensus on this board that what he was producing was a body of serious music. Fundemental to his work was an endeavour to fully express his skills as an improvisor and this is something that he has shared with the great masters of the past. It is hard for me to reconcile this approach which I suppose can trace its origins from Sidney Bechet through nearly 90 years to attempt to perform Britten's work in a jazz style. It seems to me that the strengths of the results will still rest with the works of the composer as opposed to those carrying out the improvising. In jazz, composition has usually gone hand in hand with improvisation as the written parts are usually assmebled to show case the soloist - even if for a series of 8 bar breaks as was the case with alot of composing in the 78 rpm era. Creating "serious" jazz is about having an approach that reflects the ideas of a Jarrett or a Paul Bley. It could equally be about greating music for dancing such as the big band swing of Count Basie or having a popular appeal of Ella Fitzgerald.
I usually like to argue that jazz is a broad church and consider myself to have a varied and eclectic taste. The combination of jazz and Britten seems a step too far for my interest and whilst the sample suggests an approach akin to someone like Norma Winstone, I can't help thinking as to why the classical / jazz crossovers seem to be so popular in th UK. The results are frequently mixed with the music where classical music tries to compromise with jazz as opposed to a "jazzing the classics" approach sometimes sounding a bit cheesy. There are examples such as the group with Kenny Barron and Stefon Harris where the musical intelligence of the performers have succeeded and I am not totally opposed to these mix and match efforts. However, Britten seems so far removed from what jazz is actually about that it is difficult not to be annoyed as opposed to having my natural curiousity. I can't imagine how a key component like the blues would fit in to the interpretation of Britten's music as his compositions seem just too straight laced.
Increasingly, I prefer to listen to jazz that hasn't been f*cked around with. Listening to the likes of someone like David Binney, for example, the music is as intelligent and creative in it's field as anything Britten composed. The best jazz has a degree of bite about it and it should never be twee. It's a bit like Mitterand's description of the French tripe sausage (the andouillette) where he said " the best sausages were those where you could taste the shit." Whilst I have never been able to eat one of these again after reading that description, I think it also hold fast for jazz. The best jazz has an edge to it whether we are talking King Oliver, Duke Ellington, Miles, Jackie McLean , William Parker or John Zorn. Jazzing up Benjamin Britten just doesn't do it. No one in the States is likely consider doing this even if , like Peter Erskine, they are fans of English composers. It is just wrong and, in this case, very , very wrong. With all the many great jazz composers whose works are under-performed, it seems a gimmick to perform the works of this cringingly awful English classical composer in a jazz vein. Jazz-lite for people who don't really "get" jazz. I would also have to say that nothing would appear to be as removed from jazz's origins as the seminal Black artistic statement than Britten's music. Granted that it is 100 years since Britten's centenary but I am sure there other jazz perfomers who were born in 1913 whose work could have been toured around the provinces of the UK.
In summary, what may have seemed like an interesting idea of paper is so divorced from "real" jazz that it is difficult to decide who this would appeal to. No doubt the host of celebrated actors contributing will also add interest yet it jazz is supposed to be "as hinest as your life" this is surely a farce that has little to do with what jazz is really about.
End of rant before I turn in to Trevor Cooper!!
Ian
No further details are given as to the musicians other than the leader Ruthie Culver ( a new name to me) although the actors making the readings seem to be given great prominence that the sidemen. (Plough a little deeper in to the website and the names of some equally obscure musicians are revealed. )There was a thread a few year ago about jazz and poetry which illustrated that there are fans but I wonder just how many people will be enthused at hearing jazz versions of poems originally set to music by Benjamin Britten?
The previous thread about keith Jarrett was interesting and informative and whilst there were fans of his solo and trio work, there seemed to be a concensus on this board that what he was producing was a body of serious music. Fundemental to his work was an endeavour to fully express his skills as an improvisor and this is something that he has shared with the great masters of the past. It is hard for me to reconcile this approach which I suppose can trace its origins from Sidney Bechet through nearly 90 years to attempt to perform Britten's work in a jazz style. It seems to me that the strengths of the results will still rest with the works of the composer as opposed to those carrying out the improvising. In jazz, composition has usually gone hand in hand with improvisation as the written parts are usually assmebled to show case the soloist - even if for a series of 8 bar breaks as was the case with alot of composing in the 78 rpm era. Creating "serious" jazz is about having an approach that reflects the ideas of a Jarrett or a Paul Bley. It could equally be about greating music for dancing such as the big band swing of Count Basie or having a popular appeal of Ella Fitzgerald.
I usually like to argue that jazz is a broad church and consider myself to have a varied and eclectic taste. The combination of jazz and Britten seems a step too far for my interest and whilst the sample suggests an approach akin to someone like Norma Winstone, I can't help thinking as to why the classical / jazz crossovers seem to be so popular in th UK. The results are frequently mixed with the music where classical music tries to compromise with jazz as opposed to a "jazzing the classics" approach sometimes sounding a bit cheesy. There are examples such as the group with Kenny Barron and Stefon Harris where the musical intelligence of the performers have succeeded and I am not totally opposed to these mix and match efforts. However, Britten seems so far removed from what jazz is actually about that it is difficult not to be annoyed as opposed to having my natural curiousity. I can't imagine how a key component like the blues would fit in to the interpretation of Britten's music as his compositions seem just too straight laced.
Increasingly, I prefer to listen to jazz that hasn't been f*cked around with. Listening to the likes of someone like David Binney, for example, the music is as intelligent and creative in it's field as anything Britten composed. The best jazz has a degree of bite about it and it should never be twee. It's a bit like Mitterand's description of the French tripe sausage (the andouillette) where he said " the best sausages were those where you could taste the shit." Whilst I have never been able to eat one of these again after reading that description, I think it also hold fast for jazz. The best jazz has an edge to it whether we are talking King Oliver, Duke Ellington, Miles, Jackie McLean , William Parker or John Zorn. Jazzing up Benjamin Britten just doesn't do it. No one in the States is likely consider doing this even if , like Peter Erskine, they are fans of English composers. It is just wrong and, in this case, very , very wrong. With all the many great jazz composers whose works are under-performed, it seems a gimmick to perform the works of this cringingly awful English classical composer in a jazz vein. Jazz-lite for people who don't really "get" jazz. I would also have to say that nothing would appear to be as removed from jazz's origins as the seminal Black artistic statement than Britten's music. Granted that it is 100 years since Britten's centenary but I am sure there other jazz perfomers who were born in 1913 whose work could have been toured around the provinces of the UK.
In summary, what may have seemed like an interesting idea of paper is so divorced from "real" jazz that it is difficult to decide who this would appeal to. No doubt the host of celebrated actors contributing will also add interest yet it jazz is supposed to be "as hinest as your life" this is surely a farce that has little to do with what jazz is really about.
End of rant before I turn in to Trevor Cooper!!
Ian
Comment