New Yorker article - The Record Effect

[Jim Alfredson]

Guess I did not stop.

←

And I knew you wouldn't!

2. THE primary words used to describe the "qualities" of jazz have been "spontaneous, instant, improvised, etc." Multitudes of illusions can be created with notes played by people in real time.

I don't believe any spontaneity is lost because two different takes are edited together. And it's not like we're going in and changing things note by note, assembling the music as if by machine. If we farge the ending on a tune, we'd back up, listen to the playback, get back into the groove, and go at it again. The spontaneity is still there because we're all playing together, at the same time.

[Chuck Nessa]

No edits, no Black Saint and the Sinner Lady.

Black Saint is a through composed piece and one of the exceptions I mentioned meant to be edited from the beginning.

Edited June 2, 2005 by Chuck Nessa

[JSngry]

good point, but I would answer that recordings represent the history, as novels represent literary history -

Except that in literature, novels (and other works) are the "object of the game" in esthetic and commercial terms. I don't think that you can say that about jazz, at least not until relatively recently, when the the decline of regular live work brought the "project" mentality to the fore.

Put another way - if all we had of Bird was the studio recordings. we'd know that he was a great player, and a bit of a genius. But we'd know nothing of how much of a genius he was w/o the airshots. The airshots are "happy accidents". There's a lot of other players and situations that have not been the beneficiaries of such accidents, so any look towards jazz recordings being the history of the music must be a tempered one, I think.

I'll also say this - when dealing with jazz "history", the differences between "oral" and "written" traditions definitely come into play when it comes to live performances vs recorded ones. The differences have not always been just those of circumstance, either.

[mikeweil]

Standard western notation is very limited in conveying anything more than an outline of music.  We all know Brahms was very meticulous about dynamic markings, but he's the exception.

At the same time Brahms was known to have said "I would be a fool if I played my music the same way every time" - regarding his own performances of solo pianoi and chamber music.

The tendency to notate music ever more precisely came from the experience that there were great local differences in performance practice.

[mikeweil]

The spontaneity is still there because we're all playing together, at the same time.

That's the main difference, to me, between a recording that wants to capture the feeling of a live performance, even in the studio, or a perfectionist production with overdubs a plenty, which is standard in pop music. Much of the time the music is created in the process of afterthought while listening to the tracks as recorded so far - kind of a compositional process without knowing exactly what you want when you start recording.

During recording of the last CD of the Kurdish group I play in I noticed the recording engineers with little or no experience in live recording tend to create a transparent virtual soundstage you never have on stage - and this effect the instrument and equipment industry trying to build the hardware to get that sound live - it should be the other way round, methinks.

[Dr. Rat]

2. THE primary words used to describe the "qualities" of jazz have been "spontaneous, instant, improvised, etc." Multitudes of illusions can be created with notes played by people in real time.

I think the question is not whether these words have been shiboleths in the jazz world--they have.

This is really just our inheritance from Romantic aesthetics, and the question is how far do they really go? The fact that these words have always been valued ones in the world of jazz MAY have to do with something that is essential to the music; or it may just be a reflection of the neo-romantic mindset of many commentators on jazz.

I'd question whether "spontaneity" ought to be the sine qua non of jazz, and I'd also point out that the overvaluation of spontaneity has led to an awful lot of crap being passed off as art, not just in the jazz world, but all over the place.

I think a balance has to be struck between sponataneity and other artistic considerations.

Some value adheres to something that is done and consumed "in the moment," and there is a value in staying close to that, but I think that value can be completely and utterly exaggerated--to the point where the artistic experience is not one of appreciating craft at all but one of experiencing the ontological greatness of the artist or of experiencing the ontological greatness channelled through the artist.

That, to me, is a lot of self-serving hooey. Some people may not mind the "artist as Elmer Gantry" drift of this attitude, but I find it to be kind of retrograde.

But anyway, suffice it to say that the centrality of spontaneity is as succeptible to criticism as over-contrivedness.

There's an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed this week on this general topic that I'll post elsewhere.

--eric

[Joe G]

At some point (earlier than most presume) it stops being a "jazz recording".

Talk to me about Armstrong, Morton, Oliver, Hawk, Ellington, Bird, Trane, Ornette, (or whoever) and then talk to me about "tracking" as it is currently practiced. It may be "something" but it ain't "jazz".

←

I have no argument with this. Nor do I consider myself a jazz musician, strictly speaking. I play the guitar; sometimes I improvise, sometimes it's worked out, sometimes it's standards (or covers), other times it's originals. It's an evolving path, and it ain't over 'till it's over.

Looks like I've opened a can of worms!

Two thoughts, though:

1. Teo did a lot of editing on those classic Miles albums, no?

2. All art is an illusion in one way or another.

1. Haven't you noticed all the "Teo edits" being restored (Miles, Monk, Mingus) - and which Miles albums are you including in "classics".

←

No, I haven't been following the Columbia reissue program too closely. I was thinking of the small group recordings done in the late 50's/early 60's.

[Dr. Rat]

QUOTE(Chuck Nessa @ Jun 1 2005, 07:55 PM)

At some point (earlier than most presume) it stops being a "jazz recording".

Talk to me about Armstrong, Morton, Oliver, Hawk, Ellington, Bird, Trane, Ornette, (or whoever) and then talk to me about "tracking" as it is currently practiced. It may be "something" but it ain't "jazz".

JoeG:

I have no argument with this. Nor do I consider myself a jazz musician, strictly speaking. I play the guitar; sometimes I improvise, sometimes it's worked out, sometimes it's standards (or covers), other times it's originals. It's an evolving path, and it ain't over 'till it's over.

This to me is like a tableau of "What's wrong with jazz today."

Somebody (e.g. WM) comes up with their exacting definition of jazz, and the working musician/concert attendee/record buyer says, "Fine, what I am doing/enjoying isn't jazz." Left unstated is "who the hell wants to be seen as playing or listening to jazz anyway?" [NOT putting words into Joe G.'s mouth, I am sure if he wanted to add this, he would have.]

What's wrong with jazz today is its defenders.

--eric

[JSngry]

What's wrong with jazz today is today.

[Dr. Rat]

What's wrong with jazz today is today.

←

When would you rather it be?

--eric

[GregN]

2. THE primary words used to describe the "qualities" of jazz have been "spontaneous, instant, improvised, etc." Multitudes of illusions can be created with notes played by people in real time.

I think the question is not whether these words have been shiboleths in the jazz world--they have.

This is really just our inheritance from Romantic aesthetics, and the question is how far do they really go? The fact that these words have always been valued ones in the world of jazz MAY have to do with something that is essential to the music; or it may just be a reflection of the neo-romantic mindset of many commentators on jazz.

I'd question whether "spontaneity" ought to be the sine qua non of jazz, and I'd also point out that the overvaluation of spontaneity has led to an awful lot of crap being passed off as art, not just in the jazz world, but all over the place.

I think a balance has to be struck between sponataneity and other artistic considerations.

Some value adheres to something that is done and consumed "in the moment," and there is a value in staying close to that, but I think that value can be completely and utterly exaggerated--to the point where the artistic experience is not one of appreciating craft at all but one of experiencing the ontological greatness of the artist or of experiencing the ontological greatness channelled through the artist.

That, to me, is a lot of self-serving hooey. Some people may not mind the "artist as Elmer Gantry" drift of this attitude, but I find it to be kind of retrograde.

But anyway, suffice it to say that the centrality of spontaneity is as succeptible to criticism as over-contrivedness.

There's an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed this week on this general topic that I'll post elsewhere.

--eric

←

Damn, well put.

Just wanted to add:

Emily Remler has stated that most Jazz musicians work out the meat of their solos prior to the performance. She adds that 90 percent of Wes Montgomery's playing was preplanned. The great myth of improvisation and talent is a construct developed behind the scenes prior to performance and recording.

Regarding editing:

Editing occurs in many forms, self concurrent during performance, a priori, etc... Yet the myth of pure improvisation endures. In short, to the non-musician, the solos might seem totally off the cuff. They generally are not.

Now with that said, I am just makin this stuff up and might have to come back and edit for presentation.

[Christiern]

Haven't you noticed all the "Teo edits" being restored (Miles, Monk, Mingus) - and which Miles albums are you including in "classics".

• Having observed first-hand Miles and Teo at work, I don't see how it could be possible to "restore" that Columbia material. There were usually no complete performances. just fragments assemble by Teo. When I saw the stack of tapes Teo had to work with, I used to wonder how he actually got an album out of it. In 1971, when I interviewed Teo in connection with a Saturday Review story on Miles, he confirmed that there were no numbered "takes," explaining that "there's something new that pops into the music every time, whether it's deliberate or just by accident, no one seems to know quite for sure. The group is constantly building toward a final goal, and we don't stop the tape machines like we used to do in the old days--they run until the group stops playing. Then we go back, listen, and decide between us what should be tacked to what--it becomes a search-and-find routine, and finally it's all there, it's just a matter of putting it all together."
  
  There was nothing to restore, the best one could do would be to issue the unassembled bits and pieces and, for good reason, that has not been done.
  

[Joe G]

Regarding editing:

Editing occurs in many forms, self concurrent during performance, a priori, etc...   

←

Hmmm... I had forgotten the broader definition.

[Joe G]

This is the other aspect of recording that I've been thinking about. The author of that article mentioned "the authenticity debate". Sometimes we refer to recordings as "documents", as in documenting the work, but that doesn't seem right if you're fixing things. If two takes are combined into one, what is that a document of? Not "the moment" obviously. A live recording with no edits would be closer to being a document, I would think. So are edits dishonest in a way?

←

How authentic is it to release something the artist does not think is representative of what he wants to portray? In other words, if there are all these mistakes in there that make the artist cringe every time he/she hears them, the recording is obviously not representing the artist in the way that he/she thinks is right. It's my record, dammit, it should sound like what I want it to sound like, right? A novelist never releases a book without editing, re-writing, etc. Why should music be any different?

←

Back to this: How authentic is it? Perfectly authentic! A mistake is a true reflection of something that's going on inside. Of course, we don't want people to know about our shortcomings and limitations. So we alter the recording to match our desire to be mistake-free, or as close to the ideal as possible. Then we find that if too much of that stuff is taken out, it starts to sound less human. Nobody's perfect, after all.

I have come to one conclusion: recording's a bitch! But it makes you confront a lot of stuff that you wouldn't otherwise.

[GregN]

Chuck says:

"At some point (earlier than most presume) it stops being a "jazz recording"."

I agree. I even think there is something quaint about even the most ragbag recordings of yesteryear.

Field recordings are among my favorites.

With that said, Organissimo's recording was done with minimal editing. And in today's musical context, virtually none.

Unlike many bands of today, Organissimo is just as good and sometimes even better live!! In fact, we will be doing a live recording later this year... and Chuck you are invited to watch.

I understand that you were not attacking Organissimo. Jim just seemed a little defensive (understandably) and it seemed you two were having separate arguments together. O.K. group hug time.

Greg

[Robert J]

Standard western notation is very limited in conveying anything more than an outline of music.  We all know Brahms was very meticulous about dynamic markings, but he's the exception.

At the same time Brahms was known to have said "I would be a fool if I played my music the same way every time" - regarding his own performances of solo pianoi and chamber music.

The tendency to notate music ever more precisely came from the experience that there were great local differences in performance practice.

←

Mike that's a good point.

It fascinates me to think that the performances of classical works (say the 19th century) must have come primarily from reading the music only. How would an entire orchestra get to hear another orchestra's version? What did the composer truly intend for his sound?

May be diffrerent for solo piano repertoire where you had many teachers mucking about, many of them the original composers.

And - to this century - don't we as listeners get a "standard" version in our heads of Beethoven's symphonies - say, from the first recording you ever heard? That's another intersting quirk of listeners - the bias towards the 1st version (at least in classical music) you are introduced to.

[JSngry]

What's wrong with jazz today is today.

←

When would you rather it be?

--eric

←

When would I rather what be?

Things are as they are.

[Robert J]

Field recordings are among my favorites. 

←

Maybe the next Organissimo recording should be done in a field. How about Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor? The bands I heard there always sounded great.

[Joe G]

Jim Sangrey - I'd be interested to read your thoughts. You've alluded to these issues in other threads (documentation, etc). If you're so inclined.

[JSngry]

What's wrong with jazz today is how an honest disagreement over how one's skills are applied gets turned into some pointy-headed "attack" on a never-stated-or-implied "esthetic" that supposedly values spontanaiety over craft to the extent that craft no longer matters. Where that came from, I have no idea, but it sure wasn't from the discussion as it had been going so far.

People having opinions based on totally fucked-up perceptions of what it is they're supposed to be having an opinion about - another thing that's wrong with jazz today!

[Dr. Rat]

What's wrong with jazz today is today.

←

When would you rather it be?

--eric

←

When would I rather what be?

Things are as they are.

←

Sorry to be cryptic (had written crypric!).

What I mean is: if how things are today is unsatisfactory, what's your baseline for comparison, when was it different/better.

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

What's wrong with jazz today is how an honest disagreement over how one's skills are applied gets turned into some pointy-headed "attack" on a never-stated-or-implied "esthetic" that supposedly values spontanaiety over craft to the extent that craft no longer matters. Where that came from, I have no idea, but it sure wasn't from the discussion as it had been going so far.

People having opinions based on totally fucked-up perceptions of what it is they're supposed to be having an opinion about - another thing that's wrong with jazz today!

←

"never-stated-or-implied "esthetic" that supposedly values spontanaiety over craft to the extent that craft no longer matters."

Where did I, or anyone, say this?

--eric

[Jim Alfredson]

It was not my intent to be defensive. Everybody has different views. I feel no shame that there are edits on this record or the last. It is amazing that those records Chuck listed have very few or no edits. That's great. For the most part, most of our tunes don't have any either. But every now and again we have to fix something. I see nothing wrong with that.

As I've said before, records are not reality. They never will be. Music is a completely transient experience. Records attempt to capture that fleeting experience and preserve it. Since a musician knows that his performance is going to be preserved indefinitely and reviewed over and over again, who can blame him/her for wanting it to be right? If a painter only painted on sand, to have each of his creations washed away with the tides, I'm sure no painter would ever edit his material. But since it's on canvas that will last through centuries, you better believe he's going to make it as close to perfect as it can be. That means painting over, re-drawing, changing the palette, etc. etc.

Again, recordings are not reality. How many times at a concert are you able to have one ear 6 inches away from the bell of a tenor, the other ear a couple feet above the drumset, another ear a few inches from the strings of the piano and yet another right next to the acoustic bass, all at the same time? You can't. It's physically impossible. Yet this is the image that recordings present to us. My Leslie had 5 different mics on it (plus another mic on the PR-40 cabinet) in the studio. Randy's drums probably had 10 or 11. Plus room mics. Joe's amps had two or three. Is this reality? Is this capturing sound as it is in real life? Not even close! But it sounds great! All these mics are then mixed by the engineer into a cohesive whole. If something doesn't fit quite right, some EQ frequency might be added or subtracted. If the guitar was a little too loud during the organ solo, he gets turned down a bit with the faders. If the bass drum isn't quite punchy enough, it gets a little compression here and there. Is this reality?! No! But every record made in the last 50+ years has used similair techniques, because it sounds good!

I've had plans to do a live record with organissimo for years. We almost put one out with Arno last year. But is it honest to release a "live" record that pulls the best tunes from multiple shows and venues and puts them together on one disc? Is that reality? Not really. Does it matter?

[JSngry]

Jim Sangrey - I'd be interested to read your thoughts. You've alluded to these issues in other threads (documentation, etc). If you're so inclined.

←

Look, man, to each thier own. If somebody wants to "document" a perfection that doesn't exist in reality, that's cool with me. Of such things are idealism made, and idealism can inspire just as easily as it can deceive, so, yeah.

Otoh, I fully understand where Chuck is coming from. Once upon a time, the "essence" of jazz was being spontaneous and having consummate craftsmanship at your disposal simultaneously. Any "mistakes" that happened were in the heat the moment and were due to "human error", not a lack of skill going into the venture. Such mistakes were tolerated only if the power of the surrounding lack of mistakes were strong enough to create a preponderance of the evidence. This is a world that didn't tolerate flaws as much as it did recognize them as fundamentally human parts of the growth process, and, as such, nothing to hide so long as the greater goal of being spontaneously creative and technically adept wasn't lost.

I can find "technical flaws" in damn near every truly great recorded performance, jazz or otherwise. It's a question of how minor they are, and if they truly take away anything away from the overall weight of waht is being said in the performance. I can also point to any number of performances where the technique is flawless and nothing of significance is being said, just as I can point to any number of performances where the weight of what is trying to be said is diminished by technical sloppiness. Of course, my standards are my own, so your mileage can (and should!) vary.

Also, sloppiness in the heat of the moment is more forgivable, imo, in the early stages of a style, personal or collective. Then, it's more likely to be a matter of something not being reached simply because what that something is is not yet fully clear. But that window of "forgiveness" doesn't last forever, for either individual or collective "visions". Sooner or later, you gots to get a grip on it.

But in today's "jazz world", just as in today's "real world", the dominant esthetic of creators and consumers alike has little room for things like slow but steady pursuit of a vision, forgiveness of minor flaws, or any other such indications that there's a real human undertaking a real task. No, today, most people, it seems, want to hear the "finished product", even if it means finishing it before it's really finished, if you know what I mean. And a lot of musicians fall for the same bait, which is, I suppose, just another sign of the times. And then some know-nothings pop in with "perspectives" full of resentment against shit they don't know anything about other than what they've been told they should be resentful about by god-knows-who and that they've swallowed whole rather than chewing thoroughly. It ain't pretty, but it is today, so there it is.

As far as "documentation" goes, afaic, it's as important or as unimportant as you want it to be. What are you documenting? Why are you documenting it? Who are you documenting it for? What difference in the long course of history will it make if it does or doesn't get documented? To what ends will the documentation be put after it leaves your possession? Etcetcetc?

Those are all very real questions, and the answers need to be arrived at soberly and honestly. The answers will also vary widely from individual to individual. Or, at least, they should. That they too often aren't, and that they don't, is just another sumthin' else. Suffice it to say that documentation in the ears, minds, and hearts, of one person with whom you fully connect in a moment of unrecorded performance is at least as important (probably more important from where I sit) as a recorded document that thousands may hear without really getting your point. But not everybody sees it that way, and for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the matter of "career". But that's just me.

So, hey!

Edited June 2, 2005 by JSngry

[GregN]

Field recordings are among my favorites.  

←

Maybe the next Organissimo recording should be done in a field. How about Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor? The bands I heard there always sounded great.

←

lol... Go Blue!