Cecil Taylor Documentary

[Chuck Nessa]

Did anyone inform Mr Audubon we spotted another loon?

Edited July 20, 2006 by Chuck Nessa

[JSngry]

Ned Goold wrote: Every art form is based on certain universal elements common to all art and local ones exclusive to it. In Jazz and American popular song of what is generally considered its golden era, the essential ingredient is one of lightness. This is the essence of this music and any attempt to steer it into heavier areas, while perhaps gaining a temporary lyrical power, diminishes its efficacy and hastens its descent into the abyss of insignifigance. Jazz has neither the rythmic complexity of traditional African music nor the harmonic depth of any era of European art music. What it does have derives from a combination of the two plus the all-encompassing blues harmony which pervades everything to some degree. What the blues does is basically turn the root tonic chord into a dominant 7th chord. This feeling of unresolvedness and perpetual forwartd motion (due in no small part to the complex triplet based swing beat) gives American music its unique value. The dominant chord is the essence of funk. When Bird had his famous breakthrough about soloing over the upper tones of the dominant chord it was not new. Pop tunes (whose lyrics were fittingly light) had used those intervals as strong melody notes since the teens, Bird and Dizzy came up with a system for soloing over these complex progressions (with help from Bix and Pres). As heavy as this all is, it never lost is fundamental lightness; Dizzy talks about how Bebop is based on the cycle of dominants. One of Monk's greatest achievements is his reharmonisation of Tea for Two over a cycle. The introduction of "modal" harmony into Jazz is emblamatic of the dissolution of the prime elements which alone make it great. Ornette Coleman tried to further the Bebop revolution, but introduced elements of "spirituality" by emphasising the major sound to the detriment of the dominant; another step backwards. Coltrane's use of an endless minor chord (without even a V to modify it) and group dynamics and climaxes, while perfect for his extremely powerful music, is another huge step away from the essence of Jazz which is like European polyphony where all the parts work together while being independent. The influence of these developments (along with other factors outside of this thesis) has sent Jazz tumbling into the veritable pit of Hell wherein it now resides. (Complete with a plethora of minor imps and demons whose existence is based on the furthering of lies and the perpetuation of this evil and worthless state of affairs). And by the way, I'm playing at Small's every Saturday night (while it lasts) at 7.30 PM, so c'mon down, I'm a beautiful guy once you get to know me.

[JSngry]

Too much math for R&B.

[JSngry]

I still dig Ned Goold's playing, but jeezusfukkinkryst dude, you've given me a mental image of a "dominant chord" as something that wears a full-body black leather suit with no eye holes and wants to stick a baseball bat up my ass. And woe be unto me if I scream in anything other than the painful ecstasy of humiliating surrender. Where's the "lightness" there?

I mean, I'm all for "surrender", but I'd like to think that to what and to whom is as much a matter of serendipity as it is predestined servitude ordained by somebody/something that at any given time may or may not have benevolent intentions towards my ultimate well-being.

"Freedom" and "discipline" are only as useful where they get you. You can never fully escape the cage, but decorating it doesn't make it any bigger, or any less of a cage. You can, however, get inside a bigger cage (or succession of cages), simply by walking out the door and looking around. The door's not locked. They just hang the keys on the wall to make you think that it is.

Oh volunteered slavery...

[Chuck Nessa]

Very nice.

[JSngry]

Well, sometimes joy is it's own reward.

[Lazaro Vega]

The difference in shades of emotion and musical color between Teddy Wilson and Bud Powell, for instance, are striking. Bud's "Over the Rainbow" isn't a sunny thing.

[JSngry]

Well, yeah. But I don't think that Bud's zone was caused by obsessing over cats not submitting to the dominant chord...

[Lazaro Vega]

Right, but what I'm saying is that bebop wasn't all full of light -- there's some considerable emotional darkness, which is part of it's attraction, in Bud's best music. There are recordings where Bud went Goth, even. And, moreover, the idea that musical parts are revolving around each other in their individual orbits and together create a whole isn't "only" European as there are moments in King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band where this sort of collective improvisation, especially during "jammed" sections, is typical of jazz.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Lazaro Vega

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm reminded of an evening (in the '60s) while driving on the south side of Chicago. One half of the couple in the back seat pointed out the window and asked "What's behind that fence". Knowing it was an old cemetery I said "Hundreds and hundreds of dead Negroes".

Not sure why this moment popped into my head but there it is.

[JSngry]

...the idea that musical parts are revolving around each other in their individual orbits and together create a whole isn't "only" European...

Indeed not. I'd be so bold as to say that it is the nature of the universe.

[Lazaro Vega]

Ha!

Chuck!!!!

Yogi Berra on jazz:

Interviewer: Yogi, can you explain jazz?

Yogi: I can't, but I will.... 90% of all jazz is half improvisation. The other half is the part people play while others are playing something they never played with anyone who played that part. So if you play the wrong part, its right. If you play the right part, it might be right if you play it wrong enough. But if you play it too right, it's wrong.

Interviewer: I don't understand.

Yogi: Anyone who understands jazz knows that you can't understand it. It's too complicated. That's what's so simple about it.

Interviewer: Do you understand it?

Yogi: No. That's why I can explain it. If I understood it, I wouldn't know anything about it.

Interviewer: Are there any great jazz players alive today?

Yogi: No. All the great jazz players alive today are dead. Except for the ones that are still alive. But so many of them are dead, that the ones that are still alive are dying to be like the ones that are dead.

Interviewer: What is syncopation?

Yogi: That's when the note that you should hear now happens either before or after you hear it. In jazz, you don't hear notes when they happen because that would be some other type of music. Other types of music can be jazz, but only if they're the same as something different from those other kinds.

Interviewer: Now I really don't understand.

Yogi: I haven't taught you enough for you to not understand jazz that well.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Lazaro Vega

[ep1str0phy]

I still dig Ned Goold's playing, but jeezusfukkinkryst dude, you've given me a mental image of a "dominant chord" as something that wears a full-body black leather suit with no eye holes and wants to stick a baseball bat up my ass. And woe be unto me if I scream in anything other than the painful ecstasy of humiliating surrender. Where's the "lightness" there?

I mean, I'm all for "surrender", but I'd like to think that to what and to whom is as much a matter of serendipity as it is predestined servitude ordained by somebody/something that at any given time may or may not have benevolent intentions towards my ultimate well-being.

"Freedom" and "discipline" are only as useful where they get you. You can never fully escape the cage, but decorating it doesn't make it any bigger, or any less of a cage. You can, however, get inside a bigger cage (or succession of cages), simply by walking out the door and looking around. The door's not locked. They just hang the keys on the wall to make you think that it is.

Oh volunteered slavery...

In my tired and slightly addled state, I daresay this is among my favorite posts since joining this board.

[ep1str0phy]

i especially liked the part where he was enjoying that violinist at the 55 bar. that's the great thing about jazz, especially now that it's considered an art form, everybody can participate whether they're a master or they've been playing for two months. it's beautiful the way he lets his students bypass all that tedious work by telling them to create their own language. what an idiot schoenberg was when he refused to teach 12-tone harmony before his students were thoroughly versed in diatonic traditional practices. thank god jazz has done away with all that.

Yeah. Improvised music is so easy to play, and experience. Thank God I get my challenges from television.

On yet another note--if this is, indeed, Goold speaking, then I am again reminded of just how widely--and secretly--read this board must be. Who the hell is too frightened to join in the dialogue? And why the fuck do all the malcontents gravitate toward this end of the spectrum? (must be more of that revolving around each other in individual orbit thang...)

Edited July 21, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[clifford_thornton]

I listened to Cecil do "Bemsha Swing" right after re-reading this thread last night...

[ep1str0phy]

I listened to Cecil do "Bemsha Swing" right after re-reading this thread last night...

Oddly enough--I think that tune may be instrumental in turning my girl over to avant jazz. A fine treatment, no doubt.

[paul secor]

Just watched this film - I've had it for a few months, but this was the "right" time to watch it for me. There have been complaints on this thread about the editing. Have to say that I found no problem there. I actually enjoyed the way that there were so many things going on, and that they were presented in what seemed to me to be a natural order rather than a logical order.

Watching/ listening to the rehearsals with larger groups and just watching/listening to Cecil play was fascinating.

My only complaint is that there wasn't time for Cecil to tell more stories and to talk about some of his other interests besides music - tho there is a bit of both in the film. That would probably be another film or two.

[ep1str0phy]

So it's funny coming back and looking at this thread because two years out I think I'm better able to comprehend Goold's dominant chord tirades (enough to come to terms with the fact that these comments, not to mention his oh-so-cool Schoenberg name dropping a little ways up the thread, are pure bullshit). Probably fighting words from someone who is just now coming to terms with Schoenbergian analysis and in all realistic-ness would have a hard time cutting Goold at what he does (performance-wise), but these sentiments square with what I understand as a pseudo-academic (ala pseudo-science) trend of employing theoretical buzz words to mask reactionary tendencies.

(And I don't buy the argument that calling yourself "inside-out" automatically means that you've done the work on the music you dismiss. Because, really, saying that you have black friends doesn't mean you're not racist.)

Here's one for Goold--Schoenberg's understanding of tonal harmony was based in the notion that modulation does not occur; rather, tonal music operates in regional "shifts" whereby the central tonality will borrow from outlying tonalities. The sonic quality of much music that can be analyzed in this manner suggests multiple tonalities, though Schoenberg wouldn't write it that way. The first logical connection one can make to free jazz is with Ornette Coleman's emphasis on improvisation on a tonal center and--transcribe the solos, sit down with the music and a pitch pipe--spontaneous and temporary motion to outlying keys (and I say temporary because, due to the largely theme-based approach of his work, he almost always returns to the "home" tonality in his solos).

Now, I can't tell whether Ornette sat down with some Schoenberg before waxing "The Shape of Jazz to Come", but I'm damn sure that his ideas operate--and operate logically--within the parameters of Schoenberg's analytical system.

OK, now--Marco Eneidi showed Cecil Taylor Brahms's Opus 117 (this was years back). Cecil's response was, "Yeah, I know that piece. That's a great piece!" (paraphrase). Cecil has done his homework on pre-20th century music, and you can bet his people have, too. Lots of improvising musicians extending out of the jazz tradition have.

(Tangent: Keith Rowe was singing Brahms's praises to me a few weeks back.)

Don't drop bullshit if you don't know bullshit, Goold.

[blind-blake]

Just saw the documentary on YouTube. See below link. If you have trouble "getting" Mr. Taylor, as I have, you will find this really eye opening. I have a whole new appreciation for the man and the elusive, but very evident, logic of his art.

Edited September 1, 2014 by blind-blake