New Jazz Review Site

[Evonce]

Hey everyone, just wanted to pass along that I've put up my own jazz album review site:

www.jazzshelf.org

Still in progress, but presentable.

[Rooster_Ties]

I just skimmed a couple articles quicky, and I'm impressed. I'll be back for more, for sure!!

Everybody, check this one out.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[brownie]

Yes, this looks pretty good.

Here is a direct link:

http://www.jazzshelf.org/

[John Tapscott]

I really liked your review of Litweiler's "Freedom Princlple". You've nailed exactly the problem with that book. It is quite useful in helping people to hear free jazz with open ears, but unfortunately Litweiler can't excape the trap of putting down musicians who play in a different style or an earlier style. I have come to the conclusion that every musican "hears" the music differently and finds their "zone" at a particular spot along the jazz spectrum. A very few can move back and forth. To say that Dan Barrett should become like Roswell Rudd (or vice versa) is like saying a cat should become a dog. Each musician finds their own vaild place on the spectrum of jazz. And I'm not one who thinks music necessarily "evolves" to something better, different yes, but always better, I don't think so. What the free musicians did was extend the spectrum, rather than provide a direction everyone had to follow.

[JSngry]

I really liked your review of Litweiler's "Freedom Princlple". You've nailed exactly the problem with that book.

I didn't, and I don't see "the problem" as being one. Mr. Litweiller has big ears and very broad tastes. That book is a specific look at a specific subject and is best read in that light, not as a manifesto of one man's attitude towards music and musicians in general.

Just my opinion.

[John Tapscott]

I really liked your review of Litweiler's "Freedom Princlple". You've nailed exactly the problem with that book.

I didn't, and I don't see "the problem" as being one. Mr. Litweiller has big ears and very broad tastes. That book is a specific look at a specific subject and is best read in that light, not as a manifesto of one man's attitude towards music and musicians in general.

Just my opinion.

Jim, I guess you and I are going to disagree on several things today. If Mr. Litweiler has such big ears and very broad tastes, why the constant put-down of mainstream or "non-free" musicians? I think it's fine to draw attention to free jazz and free musicians, if that's your thing, but why not just leave it at that? Why was it necessary in that book to refer to Woody Herman as a 'hack" or some such unflattering term (I'll have to look at the specific reference but it's that or worse). Woody Herman made no pretense to be a "free" jazz musician - that wasn't his thing at all. Woody Herman has a pretty solid place in jazz history and didn't even need to be referred to in a book on free jazz. I think it' was pretty typical of "free jazz" proponents in the '60's and '70's to put down other forms of jazz. Why not invite people in by saying, "OK, you've been listening to bebop and big bands and mainstream and whatever. That's great. So why not give some of this a try. You might like some of it?"

Edited February 4, 2006 by John Tapscott

[JSngry]

The focus of the book was given in its title - the move towards freedom, musical and personal, through jazz, not in jazz. Louis Armstrong was as free as they come, but that was just him. The move towards/need for a personal freedom was/is both a funtion of human nature and the nature of society. It is towards the seeking of freedom in that light that Mr. Litweiller writes. It's not an Overall Critique Of Jazz, if you know what I mean. It's a targeted examination of one element of the music.

As for Woody Herman, hey the guy was a great bandleader and great facilitator of talent and cool guy to work for (by all accounts), but as a player, "hack" although blunt, is not that far off, not realtive to other players both outside his orchestra and within it. His place in jazz history, imo, is as somebody who used his success to provide a "safe haven" for players and arrangers who wanted/needed to function outside the "commercial" norms of the time, but not too far outside them. For that, we should all be thankful (and I am, and I enjoy, really enjoy, a lot of Herman sides from all periods of his career), but it's an insult to all concerned to consider him a "mover" of the music, not when the music under consideration moves from Armstrong to Braxton (and beyond?). In terms of "The Freedom Principle", which is a totally different POV than that of "jazz in general", yeah, Woody Herman is a non-factor. Which in no way diminishes his talents or contributions.

I've read Mr. Litweiller's various writings for over 35 years now, and although he can be pretty brutal in his dismissals of that for which he has little use, to think that he's some sort of "avant-garde snob" who only favors one type of music/musician is a fundamental error. I went into the book knowing this, so I took it as a given. If a reader who had not had that background to his writing & tastes comes away with a different impression, then that is perhaps understandable/unavoidable. Perhaps. But I'm here to tell you that that is far from the actual case!

[John Tapscott]

I hear you Jim. I've read "Freedom Principle" and benefitted from some if Litweiler's insights, and listened to some music as a result. But I would have enjoyed it more and taken it more seriously, if there had not been so many (in my view) gratuitous "cheap shots' at "non-free" musicians.

We should ask "Free For All" if he considers Woody Herman a "hack?" (That's not the exact word. I'll look it up when I go home and post it later).

[DukeCity]

"The Feedom Principle" has been on my bookshelf for years. I guess it's time I crack it open for a look.

We'll have to hear from FFA himself, but from talking to him and other Woody alumni, there was always a pretty good amount of love and respect for "The Chopper". Maybe not the heaviest jazz player ever, but you gotta give Woody props for holding that band together for 50+ years, with a helluva lot of swingin' going on for most of it.

[JSngry]

Well, I guess it comes down to what you consider a "cheap shot", and on that, mileages will vary.

As for Woody, hell, damn near everybody who's worked with him loved the cat, and by all accounts for good reason. He gave the guys in his band plenty of room to do their thing, not his, and that's a rare situation. But I doubt you'd find too many who would claim that he himself was ever the best talent, or even one of the best talents in his own band. Viewed in that light, "hack" (or its equivalent) is a harsh but not necessarily inaccurate assessment by somebody "from the outside".

Of course, bandleading is a unique talent in and of itself, but we're talking playing/writing talent here, which is at once totally the point and totally besides it.

Edited February 4, 2006 by JSngry

[marcello]

Viewed in that light, "hack" (or its equivalent) is a harsh but not necessarily inaccurate assessment by somebody "from the outside".

Just, at the very least, disrespectful and in bad taste, which was one of the problems of attitude during the 60's, of the lesser talented Free players. I know the times were different, and Black Nationalism feelings were high and all of that but, this kind of attitude hurt their cause.

One of my favorite writters, Whitney Balliett, was abel to straddle the gulf between the two camps and write those wonderful articles, of not only the music of say, Ruby Braff, but also of the whole AACM tribe.

“A critic is a bundle of biases held loosely together by a sense of taste.”

Whitney Balliett

Taste, being the operative word here.

Edited February 4, 2006 by marcello

[JSngry]

Like I said, mileages will vary...

What I'd like to know is if anybody here will admit to liking the music of certain "hacks". I will! Some of my favorite music is by "hacks", and I have no problem admitting to their "hackdom", their lack of overall relevancy to the grand scheme of things, just as I have no problem admitting that I enjoy it anyway. Just because.

Honesty and respect are two-way streets, it seems to me, and to defend something for being something that it is not is just as wrong as criticizing something for being something that it is not. The language used may often be a sticking point, but try to look at what is being said rather than how it's being said. Easier said than done, sometimes, but usually worth the effort over the long run. To get to the apples, sometimes you gotta work past the crust. Would that everybody knew how to make a tasty crust, but such is life.

Again, just my opinion.

Edited February 4, 2006 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Viewed in that light, "hack" (or its equivalent) is a harsh but not necessarily inaccurate assessment by somebody "from the outside".

Just, at the very least, disrespectful and in bad taste, which was one of the problems of attitude during the 60's, of the lesser talented Free players. I know the times were different, and Black Nationalism feelings were high and all of that but, this kind of attitude hurt their cause.

In the matter of The Freedom Principle, it might be worth noting that John Litweiller has always been a strong advocate of Warne Marsh & Lee Konitz (in the case of Marsh, one of the strongest, actually, him & Larry Kart), so reading that book with the thought that it's focus is race-specific is not accurate.

Not saying that anybody has/is/will, just that if you have/are/will, that you shouldn't. It's not about that.

[ep1str0phy]

Viewed in that light, "hack" (or its equivalent) is a harsh but not necessarily inaccurate assessment by somebody "from the outside".

Just, at the very least, disrespectful and in bad taste, which was one of the problems of attitude during the 60's, of the lesser talented Free players. I know the times were different, and Black Nationalism feelings were high and all of that but, this kind of attitude hurt their cause.

In the matter of The Freedom Principle, it might be worth noting that John Litweiller has always been a strong advocate of Warne Marsh & Lee Konitz (in the case of Marsh, one of the strongest, actually, him & Larry Kart), so reading that book with the thought that it's focus is race-specific is not accurate.

Not saying that anybody has/is/will, just that if you have/are/will, that you shouldn't. It's not about that.

Just to throw this in the ring (and not directed toward anyone in particular)--if you want to read a pro-avant book that completely shits on the conventions of the "white" jazz contingency, seek out Frank Kofsky's "Black Nationalism and the Revolution in Music." While it's nice to see a traditional "suit" so thoroughly engrossed in the innovations of an ethnic counterculture, the book is filled with so much condescension and vitriol it's unnerving. I'm trying to piece together a thesis on this stuff, and it's remarkably difficult to build a body of sources when a substantial proportion of scholarship on the "free revolution" is just plain angry (or, even worse--in academic terms--provincial).

Edited February 4, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[JSngry]

Hell, I'm a hack for that matter, all things considered. Most of us are, truth be told. But I live with it, at times happily so.

I wouldn't appreciate being called one, but I wouldn't deny it either...

[Free For All]

I think anyone who knew or played with Woody would probably agree that:

1) He was a great bandleader first and foremost. He managed to keep a top notch band together with few interruptions for 50+ years. He had an ear for talent, both players and arrangers. He trusted people to a fault.

2) There's no argument that Woody was a great musician. No, he didn't have the technique on clarinet of Artie Shaw or Bennie Goodman or Buddy DeFranco, and he didn't posess the vocal skills of many other singers of the era (and he would be the first to admit these things) but he always had a deep love of the music, and played and sang with a soulful fervor that brought energy to the band and audience both. He had an alto sax sound that was gorgeous (he loved Hodges). And when he played Mood Indigo in the low end of the clarinet it was an amazingly beautiful sound. He busted his ASS to learn his part on Ebony Concerto!

Many leaders would be afraid to surround themsleves with the talent that Woody sought out. He knew his sidemen were often outplaying him, and he loved that. His best advice to me was to "be yourself"- find your own voice in the music. He was totally comfortable with who he was, that's for sure.

Woody needs no one to defend or apologize for him, and I know no one here (Jim especially) intended any disrespect.

Before I joined the band I used to think "what a great band, too bad the leader's the weakest player" but after spending time with the group I became very aware of his strength, leadership and musicianship. He set an example for all, and pretty much everyone who ever played with him agrees. And towards the end (when he started missing some gigs) there was a huge difference in the energy level of the band when he wasn't on stage. It was hard to play without him, and even though he'd been playing the same thing on Woodchopper's Ball for years and years, when it wasn't there it left a gaping hole in the music.

[JSngry]

Just to throw this in the ring (and not directed toward anyone in particular)--if you want to read a pro-avant book that completely shits on the conventions of the "white" jazz contingency, seek out Frank Kofsky's "Black Nationalism and the Revolution in Music." While it's nice to see a traditional "suit" so thoroughly engrossed in the innovations of an ethnic counterculture, the book is filled with so much condescension and vitriol it's unnerving. I'm trying to piece together a thesis on this stuff, and it's remarkably difficult to build a body of sources when a substantial proportion of scholarship on the "free revolution" is just plain angry (or, even worse--in academic terms--provincial).

Kofsky was an avowed Marxist idealogue who wrote that book totally from that POV. I first read it in 1974 and even then took it with a pillar of salt.

To be sure, you get some good info, but a lot (or should that be Lot?) of one-dimensional ideology pasted on top of three-dimensional realities which in the end weakens his case instead of strengthening it. His interview w/Trane speaks for itself - he keeps trying to put words (or more accurately, slogans of sorts) into Trane's mouth, and Trane politely demurs. Kofsky then attributes this to Trane's "reluctance to speak openly" or something like that. Ideology over truth - fuck that!

Those were angry times, and the anger was more than justified. But like all things, you gotta separate the wheat from the chaff if you want to move forward in a construtive manner. I like Richard Pryor's line - "I can forgive. But I ain't never gonna forget." Kofsky appeared unable to do neither, as Chris Albertson's tellings of his later dealings with him (to be found somewhere in the archives here) would appear to attest. More's the pity.

[JSngry]

Woody needs no one to defend or apologize for him, and I know no one here (Jim especially) intended any disrespect.

Definitely not. Thanks for noticing, and thanks for the portrait of Woody.

[Larry Kart]

I vaguely recall some years back asking John about that Woody Herman remark, mostly from the point of view of "What the heck did you have in mind?" Again, as I vaguely recall, he felt that the Herman band had become a semi-recreative "act" during the Phillips label, Phil Wilson-Jake Hanna-Sal Nistico-Bill Chase era. John's tastes are remarkably and genuinely broad, though, and in no way that I've ever seen are they tinged by political or racial ideologies. As for the broad-minded Whitney Balliett, you are aware that Whitney has little or no taste for bop or hard-bop --e.g. he expressed in the liner notes for John Lewis's "Two Degrees East, Three Degrees West" (in the course of praising Bill Perkins) a deep dislike for Sonny Rollins (I think he called Sonny's tone "ugly," Jim Sangrey will know the exact quote), and he's also on record as saying that Max Roach doesn't swing.

[John Tapscott]

OK. Here's the quote. It's on p. 297 in the chapter entitled "Free Jazz Today." Litweiler is talking about the efforts of Horace Tapscott's UGMAA group to teach music to inner-city young people. He says this kind of education is important because the days of informal jam session and music lessons are over.

Then "The explosion in high school and college jazz bands during the Free era is an illusion; those bands are the heritage of the cheap thrills of Stan Kenton and of mediocre eclectics like Woody Herman."

[marcello]

As for the broad-minded Whitney Balliett, you are aware that Whitney has little or no taste for bop or hard-bop --e.g. he expressed in the liner notes for John Lewis's "Two Degrees East, Three Degrees West" (in the course of praising Bill Perkins) a deep dislike for Sonny Rollins (I think he called Sonny's tone "ugly," Jim Sangrey will know the exact quote), and he's also on record as saying that Max Roach doesn't swing.

As Jim Sangry would say.....just one man's opinion!

But yes, I'm aware of those Balliett sentiments, but there is a lot of hard bop that's a bore, Sonny's tone can be ( especially in the late 50's ) at least called rough, and even though I can understand ( and Allen Lowe agrees with Balliett here) what he means about Max, it's a different kind of swing to my ears.

PS I like John's writing. He get his point accross well.

Edited February 5, 2006 by marcello

[Larry Kart]

OK, John T. -- John L. stubbed his toe that time IMO, apparently provoked by the stage band movement, which certainly had its downside, socially and aesthetically (again IMO). But to describe Herman as a "mediocre eclectic" comes close to being just plain wrong. The First Herd was a great and unique jazz band; the Second Herd likewise (though I prefer its predecessor); the Third Herd had its share of fine moments; and none of those bands happened around Herman by accident. Like John L., I felt that a corner was turned toward re-creation/stasis by the Phillips band, but that option was lying in wait for Woody eventually and probably no matter what, just as it was for Basie; their audiences were more and more made up of people of a certain age who wanted to hear the old stuff, and keeping a band on the road is a costly business. Only Ellington, of bandleaders of that general vintage, could afford to proceed otherwise (i.e. work in new, novel music) to any great extent -- in large part because his band was subsidised by the flow of royalties from his famous compositions, a revenue stream that Herman and Basie didn't have anywhere near as much of as Duke did). Yes, I know that some new music was written for and played by later Herman bands, but my memory is that most of it was fairly cheesy -- yet again IMO. P.S. I like Woody as a player and (in First Herd days especially) as a singer too.

Anyway, I don't think that John L.'s moment of distracted testiness there (I think that's what it was) defines him at all. He's just not that kind of person or writer, and "The Freedom Principle" is not that kind of book.

[Christiern]

Frank Kofsky was a twisted, hateful guy. I speak from personal experience.

[JSngry]

OK, John T. -- John L. stubbed his toe that time IMO, apparently provoked by the stage band movement, which certainly had its downside, socially and aesthetically (again IMO). But to describe Herman as a "mediocre eclectic" comes close to being just plain wrong.

Indeed it does, but otoh, as fine (and occasionally great) as most of Woody's later bands were. I think the "mediocre eclectic" label as applied to the repertoire of those bands is not completely inaccurate, although it is harsh. The old standbys mixed in with whatever the "contmeporary" flavor(s) of the time was/were.

I came up in/around those stage/lab bands and understand exactly what he's talking about. The "eclecticism" of that movement is a result of there frequently being no real core in the first place. You're taking kids whose exposure to "jazz" is often confined entirely to a relatively few records, so you've got to give them material to play that is not completely experientially foreign to them. There's a dilution right there, not for the sake of growth through expansion, but simply for the sake of accomodation (so many of these "schoolkids" would be better served by applying thier "jazziness" to pop music a la Steely Dan than to jazz. That's equally honorable music, probably more reflective of their life experience, and god knows there's a need for it, especially these days...). And when many of the directors have about as much of a clue as to the realities behind so much of this music as do the kids (a situation that admittedly has improved quite a bit over the last 20 or so years), well hey, "mediocre eclectic" is definitely a possible outcome...

Woody's later bands were, if not a product of this movement (there was real, organic talent in most of them at any given time), certainly being spurred on by it, and imo, the material and performances began to reflect a bit of that esthetic. The difference between those goofy-but-cool late-60s Cadet sides and something like the mid-70s "Fanfare For The Common Man" etc. is the difference between a band of seasoned road-dogs playing commercial charts vs a band of mostly eager, talented young players happy to be playing the gig, having the chance to do their thing in such a hallowed setting, as well they should be.

Nothing wrong with that at all, and as I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoy much of it (Bill Stapleton's chart on "Lazy Bird" was love at first listen, and remains so today). And the lineage of badass tenor player in that band continued until the very end (and continues today - Frank Tiberi is a serious MF!). But as far as being an "organic" unit like the Tapscott units to which, in the sentence in question, it was being indirectly compared, c'mon...

None of which is to say that any of this has a bearing on the "worth" of any of the music in question realtive to itself. Good is good, fun is fun, and serious is serious, and both Tapscott & Herman offer those qualities, each in their own way. But if you're talking about which one is a more "direct" extension of the type of "impulses" that Litweiller was (impulses which, I believe, are real), then, yeah, Tapscott comes closer than does latter-day Herman, and by a large margin.

Again, I mean no disrespect/condescension/whatever by any of this. It's all good in my book, and although that's a hoary cliche these days, I truly mean/believe it. All I'm saying is that I get Litweiller's point, even if I myself would not have worded it so, uh..."aggressively", the gist of his point is well-taken here. I don't think that anybody in this discussion would claim that Tapscott and Herman were "playing the same game", so to speak (nor that they should be), and it's precisely that difference which I believe Litweiller was attempting to highlight. AFAIC, if there's a "failure", it's in the words chosen to express the sentiment, not in the sentiment itself.

[JSngry]

keely smith is my co-pilot

Keep an eye on your stick then!