A Lark Ascending

Back to normal now.

Yes, I'm getting that too - looks like some sort of link has broken.

In the East Midlands it's a common term of endearment. 'Eh up, me duck*' ('Hello, old chap!'). Regularly used by shopkeepers, workmen etc as a way of oiling social intercourse. 'That'll be two quid, duck.' The kids where I work use it regularly. Not sure that was MG's meaning, though. * Pronounced like 'book' rather than 'pluck'.

Very true. My recommendations: Solo: 'Facing You' (relatively short tracks) or 'Bremen-Lausanne' (if you want the full extended treatment). American Quartet: I particularly like 'The Survivors' Suite'; but any of the Impulse albums has a nice mix of his lyrical and more Ornettian side. European Quartet: 'My Song' Jarrett at his most lyrical and melodic. Standards Trio: I suspect you can drop in anywhere and get the jist of this phase. I particularly like 'Tokyo '96'

We musn't forget Davadip and Mahavishnu. You'd have thought the latter, as a plain speaking Yorkshireman, would have been immune. But then Anderson is a Northerner (from't other't side 't'Pennines) too. Whippets and cloth caps are clearly no talisman against the forces of The Beyond!

Blizzard! It's not been bad enough in Notts for my school to be shut so far. But today we've got it good and proper. Nothing to see at all at 5.15 when I got up (I'm 20 miles north of work) but it was already affecting the south Midlands. Got the 'school closed' call at 6.30 (hooray!). Snow started here shortly afterwards and hasn't stopped. To be honest, I'll get far more useful done at home - clear a backlog of course planning. The last few days have been awkward with parents keeping kids home, decimated classes. Hard to know whether to plough on with courses in the knowledge that kids who are away will be bewildered next week; or just do re-enforcement things.

Yes, Keith and Ra were hardly unique in the 60s/70s in that sort of talk (I blame cheap paperbacks of Sanskrit texts and the like). They clearly believed that they were part of whatever master plan the creator had. Now where are those Alice Coltrane records.... Any rock fan who enjoyed Yes albums in the early 70s and, more to the point, was convinced that Jon Anderson's lyrics held a key to the universe was a natural for Jarrett's philosophising. Would certainly have been far more appealling to the spirtual seeker in '76 than Johnny Rotten's!

This is one of my favourite Debussy discs....not piano but has piano on it: Sonata for Flute, Viola & Harp Syrinx for Solo Flute Première Rapsodie for Clarinet & Piano Petite Pièce for Clarinet and Piano Sonata for Violin and Piano Sonata for Cello and Piano Glorious cover too.

Maybe if Keith lives into triple digits, he'll sit in front of the piano an play nothing at all. That will be recorded for one of his classical discs - Jarrett plays John Cage (the extended remix).

A wonderfully balanced post, Randy. I think your first point has a lot in it. Jarrett may have been fortunate just when he emerged as a solo performer. I too was a rock listener, enjoying the extended songs and jamming side of the music. But by 1975 I was finding it less satisfying - partly because the 'major' bands seemed to be running out of ideas, partly because of a weariness with the volume and the rock beat. Along comes this chap playing extended, melodic improvisations, seemingly out of mid-air and without any electricity or a thumped out 4/4 beat. * Right sound, right place, right time. The interesting think with Jarrett was that following him into the Impulse Quartet I met both highly melodic and exotic music (which I expected) and on his more Ornettian tunes an approach to melody that I was quite unfamiliar with. Regardless of all the spiritual/great artist baggage that surrounded him, he helped me hear in a different light. [This may be a reaction peculiar to a UK rock fan - I was not aware of the Charles Lloyd band; I think I first read about Jarrett on a CBS 'Inner Sleeve' advertising Miles' 'Live Evil'. Maybe Lloyd, and thus Jarrett, was already a known quantity to UK jazz listeners. But it's as a solo performer that I first became aware of him through write ups in the 'Melody Maker'/'NME' c. '75.]

Blizzard! First proper snow we've had for years. It was like driving home through an ECM sleeve.

Go for the two volumes of Preludes and the Estampes, Shawn. I wouldn't get too hung up on which is the best version - until you're well immersed in the music you're not going to be able to tell. I've been listening to and thoroughly enjoying this music for thirty years and have never found the need to get anxious about definitive versions. There are pretty inexpensive boxes covering a wide range of his piano music. I have this one which does the job for me: Though mine is not covered with stickers!

That's an intellectual view of things (and let me make clear I'm not trying to dismiss you as an intellectual...I'm well aware your response to music happens on many levels). What most people want out of music is something melodically memorable and/or danceable. Jarrett achieves that (and much else beside) and so makes music that has a wider reach than most jazz. Whether it is 'worthy' or not is something that is of concern to a narrow body of listeners. I have no problem with listeners rejecting Jarrett for whatever reason as a matter of personal preference (despite attempting to overcome a prejudice against Dave Brubeck, probably born of early jazz-fan snobbery, I still can't relate to him). What I find tiresome...and it was there in some of the initial comments in this thread and in just about every Jarrett thread I've read...is the 'I'm irritated by him and you should be too' implication. I know you are not saying that, Jim.

Who writes/improvises memorable, singable melody lines. Which is why he is popular.

How about 'Does Keith Jarrett swing 'hard' enough to spiritually connect with the blues?" Awesome!

By 'ordinary' listener I just mean the person whose listens without being a musician or otherwise professionally involved in music (writer, producer, administrator, record label owner etc). Though in one respect most contributors to a site like this are not going to be 'ordinary' given the sheer volume of music we listen to/purchase. Some draw their sense of identity with the professionals; others with the wider listening public.

I don't. Not saying you do. But I find that more committed listeners - especially those who are musicians or who have a technical musical knowledge - can lose sight (!) of how music sounds to an ordinary listener. And by far the majority of listeners are ordinary listeners. Not sure that's a good idea! However much I enjoy much of Jarrett's music, he has nowhere near the range of Debussy.

Because he has a melodicism that appeals to a wider audience? Because his harmonic language is familiar to a wide audience where more spartan pianists give little for the new or casual listener to hang onto? Because he was an entry point to jazz for so many and is still held in great affection? Plus a large dollop of marketing which has raised him to a status and visibility above other equally enjoyable pianists. Remember, most listeners do not listen to music with slide rule and graph paper in hand. They react to direct emotion couched in a familiar language. Jarrett speaks that language and is not afraid to emote. This is, of course, a reason why many more seasoned listeners don't care for him. They are often suspicious of emotion displayed without irony, rich 19thC harmony, melodies that are obviously pretty. Which is fine - it stops being fine when they slag him off for not fitting with their particular set of rules. Jarrett may be setting out to pander to popularity; but he may equally be quite deliberately aiming to communicate with a relatively broad (in jazz terms at least) audience.

I wouldn't question Coltrane's much greater importance for a moment - but I think that position is based on musical and historical grounds. My point exactly! There's a "level" in Coltrane's work that is not present in Jarrett's. Agree totally...though based on instinct rather than knowledge. I'm not equpped to musically analyse either. I can only react as a listener. Well, I suppose you get an element of that with the vocalising on records; but otherwise...apart from a somewhat sanctimonious atmosphere at times...you're spared it without any visuals (I'm not a DVD buyer - even if I was I don't think I could cope with a Jarrett DVD). I do know what you mean - Over the years I've come to prefer Paul Bley's sparer approach (I mention him, simply because he also does those extended solo pieces quite regularly). And someone like John Taylor might come from the same 'romantic' end of the jazz spectrum but you never feel you are in church.

Subjective indeed. I jettison the 'spiritual' stuff from both of them equally when listening. I wouldn't question Coltrane's much greater importance for a moment - but I think that position is based on musical and historical grounds. Who was/is the most spiritually 'honest' or 'adult'....well, I think that's mainly projection from the listener. From my (very partisan) viewpoint it seems equally daft. But it doesn't stop me enjoying the music.

Yes, that would be interesting. I recall reading one of Gary Giddins collections of reviews where he got terribly upset about the Romantic-era influences on Jarrett. Always struck me as strange that he could be castigated for having Romantic influences; if he'd been influenced by Webern or Boulez he'd have got the thumbs up. Note to musicians - make sure you choose your influences from the approved list. Seriously...maybe he'd blow me away if he had those kind of influences.... Perhaps. But if he'd had those influences he'd be of little interest to the mass of listeners who have gained pleasure from his music over the years. There are other pianists with such influences who can satisfy the more 'discriminating' listener.

When Coltrane did that from at least 'A Love Supreme' onwards he was praised to the skies...or even the heavens! In fact he spawned a whole industry of god-bothering* music and critical word-spinning of which Jarrett seems to be a part. I find I can switch off from all the 'plumbing the depths of one's soul' stuff in Coltrane; just as easy to do it in Jarrett. Best not to read the liner notes or any associated publicity, though. *acknowledgement to Cook and Morton for that term used in relation to 'Live in Japan', I think.

Yes, that would be interesting. I recall reading one of Gary Giddins collections of reviews where he got terribly upset about the Romantic-era influences on Jarrett. Always struck me as strange that he could be castigated for having Romantic influences; if he'd been influenced by Webern or Boulez he'd have got the thumbs up. Note to musicians - make sure you choose your influences from the approved list. I can only guess but I'd imagine he'd played a lot of classic music from all over in his training years; the 19th/early 20thC influences do seem strong in the early records. From the 80s on he seems to get more astringent in his solo music (he often appears to be slowly worrying away at a tiny cell), less likely to give us the relief of a rich, romantic release. I actually prefer the more romantic early Jarrett, even though I'm not that keen on Chopin, Rachmaninoff and the like. Maybe the bluesy/gospel/country bits dissolve some of the sugar for me.

I can't imagine anyone having an objection to reasoned criticism of Jarrett or anyone else. How else do you get discussion? It's the jeering/blanket condemnations that are tiresome.

I've not had much time for Jarrett's pretensions and bad temper over the years; but I've gained great pleasure from much of his music (though I wish he'd try a different format once in a while!). I've not had much time for the pretensions and bad temper of the jazz intelligensia over the years; I've gained considerably less pleasure from their pronouncements and assertions. What I find really puzzling is the utter conviction of both with regard to the rightness of their viewpoint and the idiocy of those who prefer a different path.