trb@drux3.UUCP (10/14/83)
Note: I got no response to this when I posted it about a month ago, so
here it is again...
Recent discussion on the net regarding Ornette Coleman in
particular, jazz in general, needs some comment. I believe
the category of jazz is unambiguously defined, and 75% of
what is called jazz today isn't jazz.
Let's start off with Billboard's (and similar) top 100 jazz
albums. It usually consists of people and groups like Pat
Metheny, George Bensen, Bob James and the like. These
people are wonderful musicians, but their music is no more
jazz than that of Steely Dan or Ricky Lee Jones, and no one
considers THAT jazz! The reason these musicians are
considered jazz is that the record companies have no other
category to place them in. You would insult the musicians
by placing them under rock, and yet you insult jazz by
placing them there. Let's start utilizing Downbeat's
category for them - Contemporary music.
In regards to Ornette Coleman, free jazz, avant-garde jazz,
or the so-called "thinking man's music," we need to analyze
music and what makes something jazz. Music has disciplines,
and the basic structures of songs must adhere to these
disciplines. When you stray from these disciplines you
escape the musical aspect and enter a new dimension of
sounds which may or may not be music.
All songs, especially in relation to a jazz discussion, are
comprised of three components: a melody, the harmonic
element, and the rhythmic element. What differentiates jazz
from pop is that you improvise on the melody, while still
staying within the confines of the other two elements. This
is very difficult to do, and accounts for the fact that
there are few musicians who make the grade of jazz musician.
About twenty years ago, Ornette Coleman came onto the scene
and acquired a very large following. His "gimmick" was to
not only improvise on the melody, but to stray from the
confines of the harmonic element and the rhythmic element.
When you no longer have the harmonic element to worry about,
there no longer is any such thing as a wrong note. This
intrigued a large number of people who were not that good
when confined to the absolutes of music. It would be the
same as a mathmetician suddenly throwing out the rules and
absolutes of mathematics and declaring that "anything goes."
When you stray from the absolutes of a discipline, this
tends to confuse the public mind, and provides a great forum
for the followers of this deviation to appear as
"intellectuals." Picasso stated many times that one of his
purposes in his paintings was to cloud the public's
perception of what was art and what wasn't. There are
absolutes in this world, and a sharp person can attract a
large following of "intellectual fools" by making their
discipline "relative" and not absolute.
The free jazz and the avant-garde jazz is a wonderful
example of this. These people have strayed from the
absolutes of music and attracted their following by playing
unrecognizable songs that have no melody, and are not
confined to any harmonic or rhythmic discipline. The
artistic and deeply emotional experience of listening to
their music isn't there, and the listener's ability to
differentiate between talent and noise is diluted.
So what is jazz? It's difficult to define in words, but if
you dragged 1000 people off the street and had them listen
to various types of music, the one that WAS jazz would be
defined by all as such, and the rest would receive differing
opinions.
So, Is Miles Davis a jazz musician? He certainly is
interesting. Here's a man who's technical ability on the
trumpet is nil, his tone is terrible, his musicianship is
questionable to say the least, his ability to improvise on a
melody is poor, and his contempt for his audiences and
followers is astounding. And yet, he remains as a cult
figure with many jazz musicians who can't tell hype from
good music. Columbia records has made millions off Miles,
simply by engaging in an "active measures" propaganda
campaign to convince the public that Miles is the greatest
jazz musician who's ever lived. When Miles has a new album
out, the hype by Columbia and the record stores is
unbelievable. Even when the music is absolute trash, it's
defined as a "new direction in music," and everyone rushes
to hear what it is. The public can be conned so easily. In
short, not only is Miles not a jazz musician, he's not a
musician PERIOD.
Well, I've had a chance to blow off some steam. There's a
great deal of good music out there, but let's be sure we
call a spade a spade; let's keep the jazz name for just jazz
and call the other stuff something else. And let's also
differentiate between good music and the crap that Miles and
Ornette throw on us! (Oh, everyone's the critic!)
Tom Buckleytgd@clyde.UUCP (Thomas G. Dennehy) (10/14/83)
Careful readers will shirley recognize that I am typing this while being physically restrained by the offensive line of the New York Giants. My Blit hates to be flung against the wall after I read ridiculous ravings about a dearly loved art. Tom Buckley, whoever you are or from whatever AI project your intolerant, arrogant, mindless words spew, DON YOUR ASBESTOS. I'm coming out flaming. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > So, Is Miles Davis a jazz musician? He certainly is > interesting. Here's a man who's technical ability on the > trumpet is nil, his tone is terrible, his musicianship is > questionable to say the least, his ability to improvise on a > melody is poor, and his contempt for his audiences and > followers is astounding. And yet, he remains as a cult > figure with many jazz musicians who can't tell hype from > good music... > Even when the music is absolute trash, it's > defined as a "new direction in music," and everyone rushes > to hear what it is. The public can be conned so easily. In > short, not only is Miles not a jazz musician, he's not a > musician PERIOD. > > There's a > great deal of good music out there, but let's be sure we > call a spade a spade; let's keep the jazz name for just jazz > and call the other stuff something else. And let's also > differentiate between good music and the crap that Miles and > Ornette throw on us! (Oh, everyone's the critic!) In "Against Interpretation", Susan Sontag wrote that the function of critic is to tell us "how it is what it is or even why it is what it is but not what it is about".
tgd@clyde.UUCP (10/14/83)
Careful readers will shirley recognize that I am typing this while being physically restrained by the offensive line of the New York Giants. My Blit hates to be flung against the wall after I read ridiculous ravings about a dearly loved art. Tom Buckley, whoever you are or from whatever AI project your intolerant, arrogant, hateful words spew, DON YOUR ASBESTOS. I'm coming out scorching. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > So, Is Miles Davis a jazz musician? He certainly is > interesting. Here's a man who's technical ability on the > trumpet is nil, his tone is terrible, his musicianship is > questionable to say the least, his ability to improvise on a > melody is poor, and his contempt for his audiences and > followers is astounding. And yet, he remains as a cult > figure with many jazz musicians who can't tell hype from > good music... > Even when the music is absolute trash, it's > defined as a "new direction in music," and everyone rushes > to hear what it is. The public can be conned so easily. In > short, not only is Miles not a jazz musician, he's not a > musician PERIOD. > > There's a > great deal of good music out there, but let's be sure we > call a spade a spade; let's keep the jazz name for just jazz > and call the other stuff something else. And let's also > differentiate between good music and the crap that Miles and > Ornette throw on us! (Oh, everyone's the critic!) There are two kinds of people in the world - those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't. I fall into the latter (occasionally tripping, sometimes sliding). I also don't think art can be partitioned into half-planes (the ISes and ISN'Ts). Tell me how it is what it is, or even why it is what it is, but don't tell me what it means and keep your narrow-minded invectives to yourself. Dick Butkus: "Tomorrow night we're going to the ballet". Bubba Smith: "Yeah. I sure hope they do it in English". I'm with Bubba. I study and listen to contemporary music in the hope that sometime they'll start doing it in English. It's a process of mind expansion (oh wow). You wouldn't be reading these high-falutin' words if at the age of 7 or 8, I said "I know all the language I need - anything else simple doesn't conform. They're not good words - in fact, they're not words at all. Period". Maybe we'd all be better off in that case, but that's another subject. Let's expand our musical vocabularies. It's satisfying. It's fun. We'll start to understand. It'll be in English. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Dennehy AT&T BL Whippany, NJ {whuxh|clyde}!tgd
orel@yale-com.UUCP (Matthew R. Orel) (10/15/83)
If you took 1000 people off the street and played them a certain song, and they all identified it is jazz, does that make it so? I'm not so sure. In country music, for example, names like Kenny Rogers are often appearing on the top of the charts (his name, of course, appears on a lot of big charts), but if someone tells me (or 1000 people tell me) that what Rogers plays is country music, I am not likely to hold them in very high regard. I think that most people associate Jazz simply with syncopation and improvisation. If a dixie-land group or a polka band performs at the local club, they are likely to call both Jazz. It's the Paul Whiteman legacy, I suppose (his 1926 classic entitled "Jazz" eloquently explains how he made many millions of dollars raping what Jazz really was). What most Jazz musicians think is Jazz does not seem to be the same as what most laymen think is Jazz. In anycase, I wouldn't trust 1000 people off the street, because what they are likely to identify as Jazz will undoubtedly be a sanitized version of the real thing. I'd fuly expect the same 1000 people to tell me that Styx is really rock and roll (apologies to anyone who actually likes them). As for Miles Davis, well, Tom Buckley is welcome to his opinions. Any critic is. But I still think "Kind of Blue" is one of the finest records I own (even if it is 24 years old) and "Bitches Brew" isn't so bad either. In any case, Miles does have a style of his own, and I, for one, think that what he puts is Jazz (i.e., not trash). Just because he hates his audiences doesn't mean he has no talent...
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (10/17/83)
Very interesting article. Spent 100 lines telling us who DIDN'T play jazz, but not one word about who DOES. Negative criticism anybody? =Spencer
jab@ritcv.UUCP (John A Biles) (10/19/83)
OK, Tom. I agreed with you for a while, but when you started dumping
on Miles and said his and Ornette's music was "crap," I had to
respond.
First, you should check out some early Ornette like the late 50's
albums on Contemporary. These are interesting "developmental" records
that show Ornette's roots. After listening to these, I realized,
"Hey, he really can play." I'll be the first to agree that his music
is relatively inaccessible to most folks, but calling it "crap" is a
little parochial. Like many things in "art," I can appreciate it
without having to like it.
Now to Miles. From what you said, I would assume that you have
listened only to his stuff from about 1970 on. That material, I
agree, is rather depressing; I would say he has run out of steam or
maybe has just gotten so angry that he doesn't want to deal with
people much at all any more. Miles has never been one to respect an
audience (or anyone else), but you don't have to watch him when you
listen to his records.
Miles Davis, almost single handedly, led jazz into 3 different and
important stylistic periods. In 1949, 59, and 69 he released albums
that shaped the next respective ten years of jazz history, and, I
feel, he was the dominant jazz musician through the 50's and 60's.
The 1949 album, "Birth of the Cool" on Capital, was just that, the
birth of the "cool" school of jazz in the 50's. Just check out the
people on that album, Lee Konitz, Gerry Mulligan, Gil Evans, J. J.
Johnson, John Lewis, and so many others. Check out Miles' playing on
Godchild; it's a great solo.
In 1959 the album "Kind of Blue" ushered in a "modal" period where the
emphasis was on scales instead of chords. John Coltrane, Cannonball
Adderley, and Bill Evans were on hand. "All Blues" and "So What" are
here and are classics.
Bitch's Brew (or was it Bitches?) in 69 was probably the first real
"fusion" album. John McLaughlin, Larry Corryel (sic?), Weather
Report, Return to Forever; they're all on that album in earlier
incarnations.
Now about Miles' abilities as a trumpet player. His technique is
perfect for how he "hears" a tune. Yes, he cracks a lot of notes, but
so do Diz and Thad Jones and Woody Shaw and even the nearly perfect
Wynton Marsalis. Even Clifford Brown (my favorite) missed a few, and
that's part of jazz; when you're composing in real time and
performing in parallel, you're gonna miss some. Most jazz musicians
would rather miss a note now and then trying to do something new than
play the same old stuff perfectly. If you want to hear Miles play
fast, try his numerous albums with Bird back in the 40's; he was
maybe the most interesting trumpet player that Parker used in his
working quintet.
Finally a word about Miles' personality. I agree that he is downright
insulting to audiences, jazz "fans" and former colleagues (he's dumped
all over Gil Evans after that fine series of albums in the late 50's).
He's always had something of an "artistic temperment" (ie. been a pain
in the ass to deal with), but until the 70's he made undeniably great
and influential music. He must have something good underneath the
angry exterior, though, because he recently married Cicely Tyson.
Well, the flame seems to be subsiding. Gee, that felt kind of good!
- Al Biles, RIT
{seismo, allegra}!rochester!ritcv!jabjtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim T. McCrae) (10/20/83)
Tom Buckley is missing the point when he says there are "absolutes" in music to which all executed music must be compared. The absolutes to be compared against are the absolutes defined by the particular goals of a musician and/or his/her particular school of music. There is far too much variance in interpretation of "what is good" in music to allow for absolutes. Ornette Coleman wanders, granted. And I've never been a big fan of Miles, either. But what about Bird? When he & the bebop crowd hit the airwaves, the sound was ridiculed as "Chinese music"(no offense to those of you who are Chinese or like Chinese music) and dismissed as garbage, yet the structures and forms of bebop today form one of the "absolutes" of jazz, i.e., if you're going to play bebop, you're going to be compared to Charlie Parker et. al. Jazz in its purist form has as its goal the manifestation of the most private thoughts of the musician in the world of shared sound. Its hard to nail down absolutes out there. There's good & bad jazz, don't get me wrong. More later.