Pearls Before Swine: ECM's Azimuth Albums

[Serial_Apologist]

The implication is that "i don't need the input from Jazz's "black, American" origins as my "personal " influence is more important. For me, I also find this approach disrespectful and perhaps a bit racist but atleast the pendulum has now started to swing the other direction with American musicians taking the initiative.

The implication I take from you is the Marsalisian one that to play jazz anywhere you have to take conscious cognizeance of black American jazz, which to me makes no sense when the music has long gone far beyond that to assume its characteristics as a universal means of expression and practice that tells people, you don't have to be black and/or American to play authentic jazz. This is the saliency - not whether some supposedly rhythmic element that confers jazz authenticity is present or not - whatever authenticity means in jazz terms. Courtney Pine has made the point on many occasions - we don't play American jazz here because our roots are here. I'll find the actual quote if you give me a while.

[Ian Thumwood]

S-A

I'm not quite convinced by Marsalis' arguments as he seems to exclude alot of music that I think is great jazz. The point is that you can listen to King Oliver, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Miles, Parker, Coltrane, Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Henry Threadgill, William Parker, Betty Carter , Dave Douglas, AEoC, etc, etc and you know instinctively that it is jazz. It all comes from the same source. Strip the music of the thread that ties these very different musicians together and I suppose you have something very different. Ok, Pine is perhaps correct to say that he doesn't feel comfortable playing American jazz
but it is a bit of a crap argument when America is now choc-a-bloc full of musicians from elsehwere (Danilo Perez, Anat Cohen, Linda Oh, Eri Yamamoto, Miguel Zenon, David Sanchez, Dave Holland, Lionel Loeke, etc) who have absorbed the influence whilst adding something new. It IS possible to do this without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I think I wouldn't have a problem with the Euro-centric argument is the results offered a compelling alternative to the American model. For many years ECM seemed to ahceive this but you have got to ask the question when so much of the output from a lable such as ACT seems twee in comparison the better jazz musicians of today who have that connection with the original style. Maybe ECM was able to florish in the 70s and 80's at a time when the American approach had fallen out of favour and there wasn't a great deal that was happening outside of the Loft Scene or at least to a jazz audience that didn't have access to the internet.

You can argue just how much players like Lennie Tristano or Bill Evans owed to black influences although I feel that nearly all jazz prior to the late 60's atleast was "on message." Even the stuff by the likes of Komeda and Stanko in Communist Poland were able to produce a "national" style of jazz that tooks it's cues from Miles and Coltrane. I think it is pretty telling how jazz that is closest to the "mainstream" seems to age far better than the more modish stuff that was at least several steps away from the source. The models from the 1920's onwards still manage to endure as jazz even if refracted through the lens of the likes of Steve Bernstein or Josh Berman and other bands as diverse as Count Basie, Bill Evans, Miles Davis or Buck Clayton have established templates which are still relevant and vital in 2013. Something must be right about the music for jazz to be able to do this and you almost get the impression that the very best jazz manages to self-balance itself with groups likes Dave Holland's sounding fresh and contemporary and also in the very best of traditions of Great Jazz.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

The implication I take from you is the Marsalisian one that to play jazz anywhere you have to take conscious cognizeance of black American jazz, which to me makes no sense when the music has long gone far beyond that to assume its characteristics as a universal means of expression and practice that tells people, you don't have to be black and/or American to play authentic jazz. This is the saliency - not whether some supposedly rhythmic element that confers jazz authenticity is present or not - whatever authenticity means in jazz terms. Courtney Pine has made the point on many occasions - we don't play American jazz here because our roots are here. I'll find the actual quote if you give me a while.

"
We dont play American jazz here". So who has Pine been ripping off all these years? Coltrane and Rollins from Mars. A few half baked nods to creationism doesn't change that.

Ive spent the afternoon listening to Albert Ayler, Spirits Rejoice etc. And realised why I bave no real empathy for Evan Parker. Even at its most abstract Ayler is part of that black tradition and its then vitality. "Universal"....polite for white?

BN.

[grippie]

"

Ive spent the afternoon listening to Albert Ayler, Spirits Rejoice etc. And realised why I bave no real empathy for Evan Parker. Even at its most abstract Ayler is part of that black tradition and its then vitality. "Universal"....polite for white?

BN.

BN what have you done? Prompted, I've dug out my Albert Ayler 9 CD Spirit box set

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

BN what have you done? Prompted, I've dug out my Albert Ayler 9 CD Spirit box set

I was playing my copy of Spiritual Unity at 8.00am this morning, well its a shed more informative than the Today Program. What a great record and how great is Gary Peacock on it. To think he went and joined Keef Jarrett and the Mumblers.

O NO I AM TURNING INTO KENNY KINGTONE...Byard Lancaster on

[Quarky]

The implication I take from you is the Marsalisian one that to play jazz anywhere you have to take conscious cognizeance of black American jazz, which to me makes no sense when the music has long gone far beyond that to assume its characteristics as a universal means of expression and practice that tells people, you don't have to be black and/or American to play authentic jazz. This is the saliency - not whether some supposedly rhythmic element that confers jazz authenticity is present or not - whatever authenticity means in jazz terms. Courtney Pine has made the point on many occasions - we don't play American jazz here because our roots are here. I'll find the actual quote if you give me a while.

Hampered in this discussion by knowing less than 1% - 10% about Jazz than other posters, but why should I let that bother me?

Despite being in the Global internet village, Jazz appears to have gone in a counter direction and has become localised, and each locality produces its own "mix" of essential ingredients. There is UK Jazz, European Jazz, Polish Jazz, Japanese Jazz (Yuk! judging by Jon3 last night). American Jazz is the "genuine" form, but in the past there has been different forms according to location, and I wonder whether that is still the case.

All equally valid in my view - just depends on the listener's and the performer's tastes.

it is undeniable that the American Afro element has a much stronger grip on rhythm than the European element in general and is therefore likely to produce better Jazz, but I don't think these days there is a mathematical equation that says stronger rhythm sense = better Jazz. And even if there is, why shouldn't we enjoy music with a weaker rhythmic element?

[burning dog]

[burning dog]

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Hampered in this discussion by knowing less than 1% - 10% about Jazz than other posters, but why should I let that bother me?

Despite being in the Global internet village, Jazz appears to have gone in a counter direction and has become localised, and each locality produces its own "mix" of essential ingredients. There is UK Jazz, European Jazz, Polish Jazz, Japanese Jazz (Yuk! judging by Jon3 last night). American Jazz is the "genuine" form, but in the past there has been different forms according to location, and I wonder whether that is still the case.

All equally valid in my view - just depends on the listener's and the performer's tastes.

it is undeniable that the American Afro element has a much stronger grip on rhythm than the European element in general and is therefore likely to produce better Jazz, but I don't think these days there is a mathematical equation that says stronger rhythm sense = better Jazz. And even if there is, why shouldn't we enjoy music with a weaker rhythmic element?

I don't think its just about rhythm. I think it was Miles who said he knew black drummers etc who couldn't swing a barn door. Its about (or was) a black culture and sensibility that contextulised and informed the music. The cross feeds of black musical forms. The shared experience and mentoring. Roy Haynes is very good on this and why it is perhaps no longer so for economic or spatial reasons.

Re Japan.....Sonny Clark's Cool Strutting outsold Kind of Blue! Hip. Or maybe it was because of the sleeve. Those ankles.

BN.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ankles? ...................... aahhhhhhh those ankles

and Jackie eh?

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

ankles? ...................... aahhhhhhh those ankles

and Jackie eh?

Jazz did have a deft humour back then. I'm reminded of Capuchin Swing with Jackie and his monkey...almost on his back.

BN.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

[charles t]

Hampered in this discussion by knowing less than 1% - 10% about Jazz than other posters, but why should I let that bother me?

Despite being in the Global internet village, Jazz appears to have gone in a counter direction and has become localised, and each locality produces its own "mix" of essential ingredients. There is UK Jazz, European Jazz, Polish Jazz, Japanese Jazz (Yuk! judging by Jon3 last night). American Jazz is the "genuine" form, but in the past there has been different forms according to location, and I wonder whether that is still the case.

All equally valid in my view - just depends on the listener's and the performer's tastes.

it is undeniable that the American Afro element has a much stronger grip on rhythm than the European element in general and is therefore likely to produce better Jazz, but I don't think these days there is a mathematical equation that says stronger rhythm sense = better Jazz. And even if there is, why shouldn't we enjoy music with a weaker rhythmic element?

Such scrootenistic pundit-cy is 'Literate-To-The-Max' and deserving of double exposure.

A just-released ECM offering that could slip into that vErY vAGue unclassifiable category

IS

[Quarky]

Had some difficulty playing Carla Bley track - it would only play at the same time as the Sonny Stitt track from Bluesnik! Never mind, plenty of Bley / Sheppard on Youtube.

Bley, and the Azimuth tracks posted by Tenor Freak, reminded me of the stuff that is played on the Words and Music programme , an occasional series on Radio 3. Frankly, if you hadn't told me that the Norma Winstone track was Jazz, I would not have assumed it was. Great music and very worthwhile listening to, but certainly requires a different mindset ... but nothing to add to the discussion of S-A, Ian and BN.

[Serial_Apologist]

Had some difficulty playing Carla Bley track - it would only play at the same time as the Sonny Stitt track from Bluesnik! Never mind, plenty of Bley / Sheppard on Youtube.

Bley, and the Azimuth tracks posted by Tenor Freak, reminded me of the stuff that is played on the Words and Music programme , an occasional series on Radio 3. Frankly, if you hadn't told me that the Norma Winstone track was Jazz, I would not have assumed it was. Great music and very worthwhile listening to, but certainly requires a diffefent mindset ........

I've learned, from this thread and much more, that jazz means as many things to as there are people who profess to love it.