New Yorker article - The Record Effect

[JSngry]

"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

←

Here, more or less:

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.

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.

←

Or so it seems to me. What you're talking about is valid in and of itself, I suppose, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what Chuck was talking about.

[Jim Alfredson]

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.

←

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.

←

Trust me, there are still plenty of mistakes on both organissimo records. Again, for me it came down to what was just blatantly unforgiveable needed to be fixed.

[GregN]

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!

←

Jazz is dead.

There is a great book on the subject by Goffman on how the whole creation and meaning of the music was in the moment. The symbolic interaction within a community. The bulk of the "Jazz Scene" today is about colleges and narcisism. The rebellious and self-empowering attitude of "darkie having fun", is long gone.

Certainly, Jazz can continue to inspire artists to create. Org is a group of fellas inspired by jazz and a whole bunch of other forms of music. Jazz snobs are becoming exceedingly boring and gradually extinct.

[JSngry]

Jazz is dead. 

There is a great book on the subject by Goffman...

[Dr. Rat]

Here, more or less:

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.

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.

←

Or so it seems to me. What you're talking about is valid in and of itself, I suppose, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what Chuck was talking about.

←

Meaning that craft becomes the medium through which this other, more strictly aesthetic, more ontological experience is conveyed, NOT that it doesn't matter at all. And if you think that's a never-stated aesthetic, given time I can provide you with plenty of pretty unambiguous statements.

And if what Chuck is writing is not about celebrating the value of the spontaneous in jazz, as the absolute essence of jazz, then you'll have to spell out what it is he does mean.

What I am saying is that this is an unbalanced view that, historically, comes straight out of 1960s neo-romanticism, which I'd say is past its sell-by date. Becuase today is today and yesterday ain't coming back.

That may be a know-nothing point of view or one that has started to rankle as nostalgia sets in, but there it is.

--eric

[GregN]

Jazz is dead.  

There is a great book on the subject by Goffman...

And of course, Goffman pointy-headed the stuff..., but the point remains, the culture is gone. Good to see you smile, though.

←

[JSngry]

Yes, greg, Indeed, that specific culture is gone. HAS been gone. Having caught the tail end of its full glory, I don't need a book to tell me that.

But, as if further proof was needed, I submit as evidence

And if what Chuck is writing is not about celebrating the value of the spontaneous in jazz, as the absolute essence of jazz, then you'll have to spell out what it is he does mean.

What I am saying is that this is an unbalanced view that, historically, comes straight out of 1960s neo-romanticism, which I'd say is past its sell-by date. Becuase today is today and yesterday ain't coming back.

That may be a know-nothing point of view or one that has started to rankle as nostalgia sets in, but there it is.

--eric

Who needs a book when you got THAT?

Hell, I'm almost 50, so my life is probably more than half over. I know that Chuck's life is extremely likely to be more than half over. So the future belongs to you kids, as does how you choose to interpret the recent past.

Enjoy!

[Guy Berger]

Out of curiosity, are end-of-track fadeouts (obviously studio trickery, and present on many pre-1970 jazz sessions) legit?

Edited June 2, 2005 by Guy Berger

[Jim Alfredson]

Out of curiosity, are end-of-track fadeouts (obviously studio trickery, and present on many pre-1970 jazz sessions) legit?

←

There was a review I read once about some record (I don't even remember which one) where the reviewer claimed that since every track had a fade-out at the end, it meant that the musicians didn't know where they were going and thus the album was bunk.

Seriously. Jazz reviewer, too. Go figure.

[Guy Berger]

While I enjoy Bitches Brew, for example, it can never measure up in my mind as "real jazz", due to the studio trickery involved.

Well Moose, you can relax because "Spanish Key", "Sanctuary" and "Miles Runs the Voodoo Down" are devoid of trickery and hence "real jazz". Unlike phony jazz performances like "Blue Train" (I believe there's a splice here!!!), "Ah-Leu-Cha" (1955 Miles Davis recording -- spliced in the middle of Mr. Davis's solo), and "Agitation" (1965 -- drum solo and main tune recorded separately).

Guy

[Jim Alfredson]

Yes, greg, Indeed, that specific culture is gone. HAS been gone. Having caught the tail end of its full glory, I don't need a book to tell me that.

But, as if further proof was needed, I submit as evidence

And if what Chuck is writing is not about celebrating the value of the spontaneous in jazz, as the absolute essence of jazz, then you'll have to spell out what it is he does mean.

What I am saying is that this is an unbalanced view that, historically, comes straight out of 1960s neo-romanticism, which I'd say is past its sell-by date. Becuase today is today and yesterday ain't coming back.

That may be a know-nothing point of view or one that has started to rankle as nostalgia sets in, but there it is.

--eric

Who needs a book when you got THAT?

Hell, I'm almost 50, so my life is probably more than half over. I know that Chuck's life is extremely likely to be more than half over. So the future belongs to you kids, as does how you choose to interpret the recent past.

Enjoy!

←

Is that what Chuck means by living in "two different worlds"?

But seriously, I have a great respect for those records Chuck listed that have no edits on them. That's amazing. You know what? If we were playing 6 nights a week, doing our thang, we could do that, too. I guarantee. But as you know, Jim, the environment is no longer there. When Chuck saw us the last time, this past Thursday the 26th of May, it had been a full month since our last gig. And I thought we were pretty rusty. Luckily it was kind of a warm-up to Bakers, where I thought we kicked ass. But the point is, the infrastructure to support this music has been gone a long time. So we make due with what we have.

I'm reminded of a conversation with Joe about a tune Metheny recorded which Joe later found out was completely improvised, on the spot, in the studio. It blew Joe away because it sounded like something that had been composed or at least worked through once or twice. But no, it was off the top of Metheny's head. I remember Joe wishing he could do that.

You know what? He could. If he could dedicate all his time to playing and practicing like Metheny does, he could improvise something just as beautiful. I have no doubt. But he doesn't have that luxury right now. He's got to work his day gig, bring home the bread, take care of business. Same for me. I'd love to practice the organ 8 hours a day. I have new tunes running in my head almost 24 hours a day, but I don't have time to go figure them out. I've got a kid to raise, bills to pay, gigs to hustle, a house to fix, etc. Is it anyone's fault? No. But them's the breaks.

Again, we work with what we have.

[JSngry]

And if what Chuck is writing is not about celebrating the value of the spontaneous in jazz, as the absolute essence of jazz, then you'll have to spell out what it is he does mean.

What I am saying is that this is an unbalanced view that, historically, comes straight out of 1960s neo-romanticism, which I'd say is past its sell-by date. Becuase today is today and yesterday ain't coming back.

That may be a know-nothing point of view or one that has started to rankle as nostalgia sets in, but there it is.

--eric

First of all, that is NOT what Chuck was doing. What he was talking about involves spontanaeity (how do you spell that damn word, anyway?) as part of a significantly more-encompassing esthetic. You can choose to believe that or not, and I suspect your choice has already been made.

Second of all, if you really do need/want it spelled out for you (as I do "spontanaeity"), I respectfully suggest listening more, talking less, and assuming even more less. You're already coming at this from a "second-hand" (at best) pserspective, so the question is - do you want to learn, or do you want to establish your "difference" at any cost? Now there's an esthetic dilemma worthy of further review!

Third of all - I forget what third of all is. If I was a prsioner of neo-romaticism, I'd celebrate the moment and consider it art in its own "special" way.. But since I'm not, (REALLY!), I'll just chalk it up to experience, age, and fatigue (in the midst of one of those periodic bouts of irregular sleep, doncha' know. It SUCKS!) and move on, hopefully back to sleep. One monkey don't stop no show, but a good pillow sure as hell can.

[Joe G]

Out of curiosity, are end-of-track fadeouts (obviously studio trickery, and present on many pre-1970 jazz sessions) legit?

←

There was a review I read once about some record (I don't even remember which one) where the reviewer claimed that since every track had a fade-out at the end, it meant that the musicians didn't know where they were going and thus the album was bunk.

Seriously. Jazz reviewer, too. Go figure.

←

That was a Geri Allen cd!

[JSngry]

Yes, greg, Indeed, that specific culture is gone. HAS been gone. Having caught the tail end of its full glory, I don't need a book to tell me that.

But, as if further proof was needed, I submit as evidence

And if what Chuck is writing is not about celebrating the value of the spontaneous in jazz, as the absolute essence of jazz, then you'll have to spell out what it is he does mean.

What I am saying is that this is an unbalanced view that, historically, comes straight out of 1960s neo-romanticism, which I'd say is past its sell-by date. Becuase today is today and yesterday ain't coming back.

That may be a know-nothing point of view or one that has started to rankle as nostalgia sets in, but there it is.

--eric

Who needs a book when you got THAT?

Hell, I'm almost 50, so my life is probably more than half over. I know that Chuck's life is extremely likely to be more than half over. So the future belongs to you kids, as does how you choose to interpret the recent past.

Enjoy!

←

Is that what Chuck means by living in "two different worlds"?

But seriously, I have a great respect for those records Chuck listed that have no edits on them. That's amazing. You know what? If we were playing 6 nights a week, doing our thang, we could do that, too. I guarantee. But as you know, Jim, the environment is no longer there. When Chuck saw us the last time, this past Thursday the 26th of May, it had been a full month since our last gig. And I thought we were pretty rusty. Luckily it was kind of a warm-up to Bakers, where I thought we kicked ass. But the point is, the infrastructure to support this music has been gone a long time. So we make due with what we have.

I'm reminded of a conversation with Joe about a tune Metheny recorded which Joe later found out was completely improvised, on the spot, in the studio. It blew Joe away because it sounded like something that had been composed or at least worked through once or twice. But no, it was off the top of Metheny's head. I remember Joe wishing he could do that.

You know what? He could. If he could dedicate all his time to playing and practicing like Metheny does, he could improvise something just as beautiful. I have no doubt. But he doesn't have that luxury right now. He's got to work his day gig, bring home the bread, take care of business. Same for me. I'd love to practice the organ 8 hours a day. I have new tunes running in my head almost 24 hours a day, but I don't have time to go figure them out. I've got a kid to raise, bills to pay, gigs to hustle, a house to fix, etc. Is it anyone's fault? No. But them's the breaks.

Again, we work with what we have.

←

I empathize completely. Believe me. Perhaps more than you know...

But that doesn't mean that Chuck is "wrong". Far from it...

We do indeed work with what we have, and we try to do the best we can with it.

But that doesn't mean that Chuck is "wrong". Far from it...

It is a different world today, and it is not in the least conducive to us doing what we want to do, hell, should be doing.

But that doesn't mean that Chuck is "wrong". Far from it...

There are no easy answers.

[Dr. Rat]

Second of all, if you really do need/want it spelled out for you (as I do "spontanaeity"), I respectfully suggest listening more, talking less, and assuming even more less.

So says the man with 14,000 posts!

--eric

[Joe G]

I'm glad you posted this. Having just finished recording, editing, and beginning to mix our second cd, I've been pondering these things a lot lately. It's hard to come to any firm conclusions, I'm finding.

←

There are no easy answers.

←

Five pages later, we come back around to my original thought!

[JSngry]

Second of all, if you really do need/want it spelled out for you (as I do "spontanaeity"), I respectfully suggest listening more, talking less, and assuming even more less.

So says the man with 14,000 posts!

--eric

←

Not yet!

[JSngry]

Besides, when somebody who knows mopre than I do talks, I do listen, and not just for the purpose of finding something to disagree with.

[JSngry]

I'm glad you posted this. Having just finished recording, editing, and beginning to mix our second cd, I've been pondering these things a lot lately. It's hard to come to any firm conclusions, I'm finding.

←

There are no easy answers.

←

Five pages later, we come back around to my original thought!

←

Hey, the classics never go out of style!

[Jim Alfredson]

I'm glad you posted this. Having just finished recording, editing, and beginning to mix our second cd, I've been pondering these things a lot lately. It's hard to come to any firm conclusions, I'm finding.

←

There are no easy answers.

←

Five pages later, we come back around to my original thought!

←

I should listen to you more.

[Dr. Rat]

Second of all, if you really do need/want it spelled out for you (as I do "spontanaeity"), I respectfully suggest listening more, talking less, and assuming even more less.

So says the man with 14,000 posts!

--eric

←

Not yet!

←

Well, God willing.

And we all got our bad rhetorical and reading habits.

Here's a question for you: Say you've got a piece of music you love and have always imagined as a discrete event. You find out it was essentially put together in the studio from several different sessions--that the master looks like a tape collage, etc. etc.

I say, so what? You're supposed to appreciate the product here, not the process.

It's kind of like the curators who suddenly find faults in vaunted masterpieces when the scientists tell them they are forgeries.

--eric

[GregN]

Yes, greg, Indeed, that specific culture is gone. HAS been gone. Having caught the tail end of its full glory, I don't need a book to tell me that.

But, as if further proof was needed, I submit as evidence

And if what Chuck is writing is not about celebrating the value of the spontaneous in jazz, as the absolute essence of jazz, then you'll have to spell out what it is he does mean.

What I am saying is that this is an unbalanced view that, historically, comes straight out of 1960s neo-romanticism, which I'd say is past its sell-by date. Becuase today is today and yesterday ain't coming back.

That may be a know-nothing point of view or one that has started to rankle as nostalgia sets in, but there it is.

--eric

Who needs a book when you got THAT?

Hell, I'm almost 50, so my life is probably more than half over. I know that Chuck's life is extremely likely to be more than half over. So the future belongs to you kids, as does how you choose to interpret the recent past.

Enjoy!

←

Goffman is older than you (he might be dead). I am 42. Goffman was not only a social theorist but a jazz musician. He immersed himself in a band and a sub-culture before he wrote about it. I imagine you would actually enjoy the book.

I imagine Chuck would too. Plus, it has lots of pretty pictures.

[medjuck]

Here's a question for you: Say you've got a piece of music you love and have always imagined as a discrete event. You find out it was essentially put together in the studio from several different sessions--that the master looks like a tape collage, etc. etc.

--eric

←

Good point. I was shocked ("shocked I tell you") to learn how much editing George Avakian used in creating not only Miles Ahead but even the Louis Armstrong-WC Handy record. And as I remember it there is only one cut that is a complete take on the complete Tijuauna Moods.

[GregN]

I'm glad you posted this. Having just finished recording, editing, and beginning to mix our second cd, I've been pondering these things a lot lately. It's hard to come to any firm conclusions, I'm finding.

←

There are no easy answers.

←

Five pages later, we come back around to my original thought!

←

Original thought????

Your thought was hardly original. Just kiddin', love ya.

But seriously, conversations, arguments, and debates are often like good improvisations. Don't be afraid to let things digress and drift just a bit. One never knows where the next cool idea will pop up.

Which brings me back to the whole myth of improvisation. A careful reading of this thread will in fact show the connectedness of many, if not most, of these posts. I am surprised some folks don't see this.

Then again...

[Jazzmoose]

Which brings me back to the whole myth of improvisation.  A careful reading of this thread will in fact show the connectedness of many, if not most, of these posts.  I am surprised some folks don't see this.

Then again...

←

Huh? Who said there was no connection in improvisation? 'Spontaneous' doesn't mean ignore everything going on around you...