A Lark Ascending

Be nice if they could get their cameras into some concerts that are happening now. They manage to film all the Proms and hours of various singer and musician of the year competitions. And Glastonbury (that might be Channel 4!).

Why does it have to be either/or? Society embraces both change and continuity. Some eras are characterised by change, at other times the continuities take precedence. And the latter is necessary - if you've ever worked in a profession where new initiatives are pouring out almost weekly, you'll recognise the relief when those in control declare that it's time for a period of consolidation. There's a natural rhythm in that. I think we are going through a period of consolidation culturally at present (a generalisation - the overall picture is more varied). I too can despair when I turn on the TV to see members of the public pretending to be Michael Jackson or George Michael; or read of yet another movie remake of a Sixties 'classic'. But this is happening at a time of extraordinary technological and social change (to say nothing of concerns about changing geopolitical balances of power and wealth; and worries about whether we have the long term resources to sustain a constant pace of change). There might be a connection - the instability of everyday life creating a longing for the familiar in culture. We don't live in the musical era of Lewis and Clarke anymore. So much of the unexplored landscape of their time has now been mapped and it gets harder to forge new exploratory routes. It might be that the groundbreaking explorations take place in an area of music that we find hard to recognise as jazz. But I feel...and this is very much a personal hunch, not an assertion of what is...that there really is a lot more marvellous music to be made in C major. Given the speed of change in the 20th C a lot of things were moved beyond before the possibilities were fully explored. One area of music I've very much enjoyed in the last 15 years or so are the many musicians who've revisited the early electric Miles era. Sometimes not going beyond the Miles themes, at other times seeing what else they can do with that palette. I know it's not the same as Charlie Parker or Coltrane breaking through into fresh territory; but it keeps my interest. I could be mischievous (again!) and suggest that your assertion that moving ahead is vital might be questioned. Could be viewed as a very Whiggish interpretation of how things should occur; there have been times in our own culture and in many other cultures where circling in order to find perfection has been placed as of greater importance than constantly trying to move on (I can think of one very good 19thC example of a culture based on the circular belief being virtually exterminated by a culture driven by the concept of progress). I'm not saying I want things like that; just that the idea of 'progress' is actually a very recent concept in the broader historical picture.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but when I listen to an Eric Alexander CD I assume I'm listening to someone working inside a long estabished tradition and not breaking any new ground...and doing it beautifully. Doesn't stop me wanting to listen to a Stan Getz or Ben Webster or Lester Young CD at another time. In fact, it's more likely to encourage me to do just that.

Over Christmas I read a book about Britain from 1964-70. Now we all know these were the Swinging Sixties with no end of revolutions - technological, sexual, musical etc. But what the writer brings out is how a retrospective concentration on 'change' obscures the experience of most people of 'continuity' (two concepts that obsess historians). And that squares with my recollections - I lived in four different places in that time period and, yes, we had a deep freeze and the music was all very exciting but by and large life went on as normal, with gradual changes beyond the surface glitter. I notice the same in writings on 20thC classical music - read most textbooks and it's all about Mahler-Stravinsky-Schoenberg-Webern-Boulez etc. But what were most people actually listening to (rather than the opinion makers)?. I think you'll find far more continuity there than the textbooks suggest. When people write about the past they select and interpret and 'change' makes a better story. And I'd suggest that the history of jazz is written in that way too. A focus on the big changes so it becomes a story of 'permanent revolution' (thank you Trotsky) or 'perpetual change' (thank you Yes). Yet below the glitzy surface I suspect you are looking at far more continuities. And I'd suggest that Eric Alexander is a part of the continuities that are equally a part of the music as the revolutionaries. I do understand JSngry's position and can see why he must feel so frustrated, especially as a musician devoted to doing new things. I'm equally frustrated by the way I see my own job being whittled away as history is replaced by more 'relevant' and 'vocational' opportunities. But I have to say that when I read him (and others) explain why I should listen to a particular artist or recording I'm enthralled; when I read him (and others) telling my what I shouldn't be listening to I raise my eyes to heaven. As Peter says, there does not have to be an either/or answer. Which has been my point all along.

So, let's have a scale of 1 to 10. With 1 as jazz hero and 10 as jazz villain. Now the jazz player who absorbs the jazz past and then uses it to play within that tradition is clearly a 10. And the listener who mainly listens to that type of jazz an 8 (though you might want to reverse those placings as the listener could be acussed of encouraging the player). The jazz player who absorbs the past and then uses it to create something totally fresh gets a 1. The listener who goes out of their way to follow and support the innovative player a 2. So, my question. Where, on that scale, do we put the listener who decides there is nothing in todays music as good as there was in the past and so buries himself in Blue Note LPs or Mosaic reissues? (maybe we could reset the 'reputation' function buttons to do this) ************** My own woolly-minded liberal take is that there's a place for all those things and that they are all happening. And many people happily inhabit several of those responses without any sense of debut-de-siecle angst.

Is that a football or baseball ref? And when did the rules of baseball/football become standardised? Late 19th/early 20thC? So why on earth are thousands of people still turning out playing to those same rules? Surely they should have moved on. The reality is, of course, that when a team hits the field it might play within certain parameters established a century or so ago, but the possibilities for creating a situation of excitement and interest within the time span of the game remain infinite. Which has never stopped the emergence and evolution of other form of entertainment; or the possibility that many people might go to a football game on Saturday and then go snowboarding on Sunday.

I know we Brits seem to be making an excessive fuss about this weather, but...

I would prefer Miles Davis on the road signs myself. 'Directions' or 'Go Ahead John', maybe? 'Circle in the Round' in Birmingham, perhaps.

I only moved into a fully centrally-heated house in 1991. I recall waking up at around 2.00 on New Years morning in the late 80s with icy cold water dropping on my head. Pipe burst! Aaaahhhhh!

Not at all. In a Shakespeare play, they'll (usually!) stick to the text but then personalise it through delivery, phrasing, production etc. And there's a frisson gained by a contemporary audience seeing people of their own time doing it, no matter what some critic says about Olivier's peerless performance in 1953. Similarly, there is an excitement gained by a contemporary audience in experiencing a performance of Mahler 9 by a contemporary orchestra in a concert performance or recording. Of course, there will be those who insist that they only listen to Walter's 1938 recording and cannot see the point of listening to Rattle or Tilson Thomas (though I'll be mischievous and suggest that even though they think they are establishing their superior taste in such a statement, they are actually revealing that they are equally susceptible to recording company marketing techniques...you must hear this historic performance, rather than you must hear this latest electrifying version). Someone like Alexander plays within a particular set of stylistic boundaries, uses the same tunes (or originals modelled on them), follows a pattern of improvising from that time. But he is a live human being and the notes are coming out different. If you are not haunted by the ghosts of the past then having a live player doing that can be very appealing. And for most of us it amounts to nothing more than hearing the musician on the radio or in concert, deciding we liked it, buying and playing the record and enjoying it. If you've grown up with much of the history of jazz then I can see why contemporary performers who choose to perform within a style of the past will not appeal (I grew up with the rock music of the 70s; I've no desire to go and see or buy records of Re-Genesis or the Australian Pink Floyd...but I can see why others do). And you can have both worlds - I enjoy listening to the music made in the past and reading about why it mattered and accept that in historical terms it takes precedence. But I also enjoy hearing it revisited by contemporary musicians, fully aware that no envelopes are being pushed back. What I don't care for are the two extreme reactions - the past is the source and everything must reference that source; and the past is over and done with, everything today must be totally different. Strikes me that there are two types of listener. Those who accept that there exists a multiplicity of narratives, you can't get your head round them all and so select what suits you and respect those that don't do it for you; and those who feel that there is a single narrative that they understand and that everyone else must be made to understand.

And why bother having new productions of Shakespeare or Tennesse Williams plays when we've got enough on video performed by past masters?

An even more famous example of a bunch of people eagerly awaiting 'The End':

Not working at all at the moment. Rang up British gas and they can only come out on weekdays in the current situation which is no good to me as I'll be at work. So I've got an old electric fire going. It seems to have something to do with outlet pipes being frozen. My parents are devils for not putting the heating up if they can wear jumpers. I like the house toasty so I can just wear a t-shirt. But they are from the Depression and Austerity generation whereas I'm from the indulged, Welfare State, spoilt generation!

Yes - I still think mainly in feet and inches (though I find the 'metre' something I can visualise). Miles too on the road signs (the measurement, not the trumpet player). I have to pull my rusty maths* out of the back of my brain when driving in Europe - "80 miles to Paris...divide by 8, times by 5...that's 50 miles." maths* = math to you colonials.

Do you still work in F in the States? I thought it was only Britain that clung on to that sort of thing. I'm not sure how it happened but at some time over the last 10+ years my brain has flipped from F into C. I think it might have been when they started putting temperature readings in the car. They are only in C. As are the weather reports.

Trying to start the 'Jazz is Dead' debate again? Tut! Tut! I though studied world weariness was the province of 17 year olds.

That is only of any relevance if you were around at the time of the trailblazers (unless, of course, you are doing a historical analysis rather than listening for pleasure). If you come from a later era you ought to acknowledge the pioneering work of the trail blazer (assuming you are interested in the history of the music); but I can see why a living player might be of more significance to you. I think this is where a lot of hard core jazz fans lose the plot on jazz singers - 'listen to Ella, Billie etc'. But if you are 25 there's a more direct relationship with someone you might see live. And, of course, there's always the option of loving the 'trailbazers' but also enjoying the take on their work by more recent musicians. I enjoy listening to Young, Getz, Parker, Coltrane, Rollins...but it doesn't stop me enjoying Peter King, Alan Barnes or Eric Alexander. Asserting the latter were of more historical importance...now that would be a different matter.

Very well put, Peter. Acknowledging that we all hear things differently based on our varied experiences and preferences is not the same thing as saying 'it's all good'. It is saying 'you may not be able to hear what I'm hearing but that doesn't mean it's not there.'

I've never even heard of that one! Thanks for bringing John's name up. He's excellent. I saw John, with Ron Matthewson on bass and and Martin Drew on drums, at Ronnie Scott's in London, England, in 1974. They were probably billed as the John Taylor Trio. They were backing up Zoot, who was in his usual fine form too. The temporary Quartet gelled very well, and it was a superb evening. I wish they had been recorded, partly because Zoot's recordings at the time (done in the U.S.) had a mediocre rhythm section, and the one at Ronnie's crapped all over it. I especially remember being blown away by Ron's bass playing: he could do the Ron Carter thing and also the Richard Davis, as well as being his own man. Zoot was looking on in amazement. One tune that I still remember from that night is Fat's Waller's "Jitterbug Waltz"; I'd never heard that tune before, and it was an unlikely selection, but Zoot really dug into the tasty chord changes, which were tailor-made for him (no pun intended). Added: I lie, that selection was on the LP that Miles did with Michel Legrand back in 1958. Ron Mathewson was a beautiful player, sadly long out of action due to illness. Only saw him once with Jimmy Giuffre in the upstairs room of a pub in Nottingham. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Mathewson

Only a couple of years old but I don't see this marvellous disc mentioned much: 'Aurora'

One of my most played CDs of the noughties: The version of 'Estate' is gorgeous.

Second of Downing's 'station' books I've read. This one is set in Berlin (and various points beyond) in early 1939 from New Year to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. A good thriller by someone who has clearly studied the gazeteers of European cities in the 1930s. Would appeal to anyone who likes the writing of Phillip Kerr or Alan Furst.

just wndering bev - are you referring to Redman or Alexander here? Alexander. I have some of Redman's 90s albums but lost interest. I should probably listen to something more recent. There's plenty of warmth in Alexander but it doesn't mean we all hear it; nor should we have to. I don't have the musical knowledge to go all analytical so just have to work on gut-reaction. The fact that he has similarities with George Coleman perhaps explains why I enjoy him. I've always loved Coleman's playing and we don't hear much of him these days.

It is indeed. Have you read Kazuo Ishiguro's 'Never Let Me Go'? Works in a similar sort of distorted near future. The title comes from the tune much beloved of jazzers. Indeed I have read it and liked it very much. I think Ishiguro must be into our sort of music. His recent story collection Nocturnes is based on the experiences of musicians, most of whom are in Great American Songbook mode, rather than classical or pop. He wrote the lyrics to some of the songs on the last Stacey Kent album.

a) vs. = why does it have to be a competition? Maintaining the spirit of the cutting contest? I'd hope music can be about more than 'who's best?' b) I've several of his records and saw him last year. I've always found him a very enjoyable player (especially on ballads), some records more engaging than others. He's working well inside the frontiers but so what? As Schoenberg once said in a very different context, there's still plenty of fine music to be written in C major (or words to that effect).