Taylor's 'Conquistador'...

[tonym]

Well. It's 9:30 am-ish and I've just finished listening for the first time. In fact it's a Cecil Taylor initiation for me.

I'm aware of Grimes's stuff and that of Cyrille's but I've often wondered what Lyons would sound like.

I'm impressed; in that "I've just had a bucket of cold water thrown over me " way, or having an ex-girlfriend slap your face, even that feeling when you have a swig of fresh orange juice after a hangover.

Is it just me or does anyone else hear a vibist in Taylor's playing. Not so much the technicalities and all that stuff, but just the sound?

This will certainly get it's fair share of play time.

Feel free to rubbish, agree or generally point the finger and ridicule.

[king ubu]

No need to rubbish or ridicule - Taylor's playing is very much that of a percussionist. 88 tuned drums...

ubu

[ralphie_boy]

I dig Lyons work too. Check out some of his leader sessions such as Wee Sneezeawee. Good stuff!

[Tony Pusey]

....or even the Lyons box set on Ayler records if you are feeling flush! B)

[.:.impossible]

That is an interesting observation. I like the comparison. If you would like to compare his playing to that of a vibist, go back in time and check out the Cecil Taylor Quartet Looking Ahead! on Contemporary. 1958.

[7/4]

kicks

[John Tapscott]

Though 80% at least of my jazz listening is in the mainsteam/hardbop/straightahead vein, I must say that this is really great album, easily my favorite Taylor. to Jimmy Lyons, too.

[Alec]

I'm a heritic but, I bought it, listened to it, didn't like it, and traded it.

Just chalk me up to one of those tin-eared, don't get the subtlies, narrow-minded jazz types. B)

[Parkertown]

You have to have a lot of listening under yer belt to get your ears around something like "Conquistador!".

Not for beginners...

[Parkertown]

Same could be said for my avatar...

First time I listened to it:

Now it's: B)

[tonym]

You have to have a lot of listening under yer belt to get your ears around something like "Conquistador!". 

Not for beginners...  

An interesting point, but one I would have to respectfully disagree with, at least to some extent.

A beginner may not appreciate or fully understand what is being played (inside, outside, harmonic or root movement etc., etc.) but they may just appreciate the sound.

Going from relatively 'safe' music to something like this may seem wreckless and exciting and that alone would guarantee some element of enjoyment.

My first jazz album was Ornette's 'Something Else'. My second was Dolphy's 'Out to Lunch'. In some respects quite obvious (they are both readily available and from well known artists) but on the other hand quite naive purchases; in that I thought all jazz would sound like this.

Maybe that's why I posted in the first place. I haven't heard any pianist playing like Taylor before --- it was refreshing and exciting given that I'm a huge Bill Evans fan! In hindsight though maybe it would have been a wise choice for a first jazz purchase --- preparing oneself for that rollercoaster journey.

It won't be my last Taylor purchase and Unit Structures may well be my next.

[John L]

Cecil Taylor is a whole other world of sound. You either enter it or you don't. Some people with very good ears and taste never do.

As much as I love Cecil, I go through long periods of time when I have trouble entering Cecilville. Then there are other times when there is nowhere else I'd rather be.

The 1950s recordings are pretty incredible as they are something like a bridge between the more familiar world of jazz and Cecilville. That is a good place to start. Even if you come to grips with that, there is still a big leap that you have to take in the early 60s to get the rest.

Edited June 9, 2004 by John L

[JSngry]

The thing is, you either go all the way in when you go, or not at all.

It is not music that lends itself to multitasking on the part of the consumer.

[DrJ]

I am intrigued by the whole idea of music "for" or "not for beginners." My take on it is that there is actually no distinction - and in fact those of us with more listening hours under our belts are probably least qualified to make that judgement. Rather, new listeners should just listen to what they feel like listening to and will probably do just fine that way.

I came to become a jazz diehard after being a really eclectic listener, mostly to pop but a little bit of everything and a lot of "border music," stuff that skirts the edges of many genres like Frisell, Wayne Horvitz, Metheny, etc.

So here's the thing: the more I have listened to mainstream, bop and post-bop acoustic jazz, I have experienced the phenomenon of "beyond the boundaries" jazz actually sounding MORE alien on first few listens. Now that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, and in many ways with more listening experience I find that it hits me at a much deeper level after being assimilated, but the point is that when I was a "jazz neophyte" I could listen to that stuff and often it would sound LESS alien to me. This is also no knock on acoustic straight ahead jazz - I'm not saying it lacks adventure when in skilled hands, it's still my "first love," but what I am saying is that there are definite ground rules that people follow in this setting - even someone as adventurous as Cecil Taylor, the framework is still there.

I think all this makes perfect sense - after hours and hours of listening, my ears have become attuned to the usual elemental ground rules (in less inspired situations, conventions) of acoustic "straight ahead" or closely allied types of jazz, so other stuff sounds funny at first - not bad, but jarring a little until immersion.

An example from my early listening to jazz days was Ornette...basically, at that point, it just sounded like great music and I didn't see what all the fuss was about in terms of his "revolution." With hindsight and the ability to mentally compare his work with other contemporary players, I get that now, and if anything I think his music sounds just a bit more "alien" now every time I put it on the player. Now maybe that increases my INTELLECTUAL estimation of his music a little, but not at an emotional level. If anything, it takes me a bit longer to "get into" the Ornette mindset sometimes.

A more recent example is James "Blood" Ulmer's ARE YOU GLAD TO BE IN AMERICA? I finally caught up with this recording a couple weeks back, and have been enjoying it a lot ("jazz is the teacher but funk is the preacher!"). It's not "out" music to me at all but it's definitely pretty far outside the acoustic jazz mainstream...there was a time about 10-12 years ago that it would have sounded perfectly "normal" on first listen, but it took me a couple listens to warm to it now, and I realized it was because it was outside the mainstream mold and my ears just needed a little time to adjust - to the timbre of the instruments (many electronic), the mix, everything about it that is quite a bit different than what one encounters with a typical acoustic set.

So again, it's not about fogeyism or shutting other stuff out, but a relatively steady diet of acoustic bop/post-bop will DEFINITELY affect my "ears" and how they perceive other music on first listen.

As a related issue: if I take a break from acoustic bop/post-bop, listening to other types of music for a while and then come back to it, my enjoyment of the acoustic jazz is sometimes GREATLY enhanced...basically, my ears seem to hear the music differently, everything sounds fresh and new.

Anyone else experience these things?

[John L]

Good post, Dr. J.

Yes, I think that you are right. Part of the problem of "getting" different music that you haven't listened to before is that your ear is programmed to something else. That can cause you to focus on the wrong thing and miss absorbing what needs to be absorbed.

I also find that listening to one sort of music for a long period of time can make other music sound very different, sometimes better (a refreshing change) and sometimes worse (my head is not oriented correctly).

Edited June 9, 2004 by John L

[Alec]

I'm glad to see some debunking of the "not for beginners" myth. I don't ascribe to the belief that there is a "hierarchy" of music with Kenny G at one end and avant jazz at the other and your “coolness” or "sophistication" determined by how far you “advance.”

Some music speaks to you, some doesn't. Some music I hated as a youth, I love now. And visa-versa.

But not enjoying the music is not the same as not appreciating it. I acknowledge Taylor's talent, but there are many other people's music I prefer listening to.

However, next year? Who knows?!

[Parkertown]

I think that's exactly it:

It depends on how you started listening to jazz.

Both TonyM and DrJ admit to having begun their jazz listening with Ornette!! In my own self-paced "jazz education", I started with modern jazz, but not anything outside. Ornette and Dolphy were VERY DIFFERENT for me, when I first encountered them.

Can't say I yet fully appreciate Dolphy. -_-

[JSngry]

Quartet Out has been enthusiastically received by "non-jazz" crowds as disparate as the students and faculty of an inner-city St. Louis elementary school, stoned out alternative crowds in Denton, Texas, and "yuppy"-ish joggers passing by at White Rock Lake who decided to sit down chill for a while. And other musicians, of course. The only audience that consistently gives us problems is the "typical jazz crowd", the ones who seem to think that they already know how the music is supposed to go before you play it and take offense when they're proved wrong.

I suspect our experience is not at all uncommon.

[PHILLYQ]

There's plenty of rockers who dug Sun Ra, Sonny Sharrock, etc. I just bought 'Conquistador' recently, and when I'm in the right frame of mind it just turns my head upside down and shakes out the accumulated crap- cheaper than therapy and just as effective.

[.:.impossible]

It also comes down to the fact that, no matter how technical, or how emotional, or how simple the music is, it either connects or it doesn't. Sometimes nothing can change that, regardless of how many times you've tried. And sometimes trying is the worst thing you can do.

I think this is a very soulful piece of music. Hit me off the bat, unlike another Blue Note recording, Unit Structures, which took its sweet time to reveal itself to me. Conquistador bridged some musics in my mind in ways that I wouldn't have ever considered possible. That's good shit.

[Shawn]

I think this album could be an exception...I've had some "difficulties" with some of the Cecil recordings that I've run across...some I've liked fairly quickly...others I still haven't "gotten my head around" yet. This one however I clicked with right away and the first time I listened to it I just started it over and listened to it straight through again. I think it's a fairly accesible listen.

On the subject of "not for beginners"...I don't totally agree with that philosophy either. I mean, on one hand you could put on Coltrane's Meditations and scare the living shit out of somebody who wasn't "ready" for it...but on the same token you could play Brubeck's Time Out for some people who would probably find it equally offensive.

I remember the first time I ever heard Eric Dolphy, it was one of the alternate takes from the Village Vanguard recordings with Trane (on some old Impulse compilation, can't remember the title)...anyway, after a few minutes of Dolphy's bass clarinet I turned to my friend and said "So, who's strangling the goose?"

But 6 months later I heard the same exact CD again and thought it was the most beautiful sound in the world....didn't even realize it was the same recording until I looked at the CD...