fine ellington article by scott yanow

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Silly argument. Ellington, Porter, Gershwin, Copland, Beethoven, Bach, Manilow , etc were doing different things and comparing this stuff is futile. Duke ain't the songwriter Porter or Gershwin were (though he wanted to be). He is not a composer of Copland or Beethoven stature (though he wanted to be). What he was is a superb jazzman with compositional and "arranging" talent and he changed my life.

This stuff really bothers me. We try to build ourselves up by "being better" than others rather than doing unique things.

I agree completely. What also bugs me is when someone comes out to introduce a jazz concert and gives a fervent speech about how jazz is equal to classical music. A variation on this speech is that jazz is better than classical music. The person giving the speech always seems to shout, and to build to a mighty emotional climax when the jazz-classical music comparison is made. I always think, jazz and classical are not alike, and to compare the two head-on is foolish.

I have noticed that this jazz is greater than or equal to classical music speech is often given by someone raising money, or campaigning for public office.

Even in its more subtle form, I find this very embarrassing, embarrassing for jazz. It sounds like a cover for an inferiority complex. A number of Wynton Marsalis' comments on classical music and jazz really bother me in that respect. He talks as if he is on a mission to prove to the world that jazz can be as "serious" as classical music. He has even made statements to the effect that he only plays classical music for that reason, i.e. to gain more respect for jazz. The effect is just the opposite. Why put jazz on the defensive? It doesn't need to be. We have 100 years of jazz great music, much of it recorded. What else is needed?

Why should jazz be respected? Why should classical music? Why should Mbalax? Blues? Soul? Wassoulou? Reggae? Hip Hop? Gospel?

There's nothing intrinsic in any kind of music that should automatically induce respect.

Of course, one should respect the culture out of which it arises, but that's a different thing.

And a musician should be respected for trying to do whatever it is well, and that's another different thing.

MG

[AllenLowe]

I would disagree on some specifics here - I think Ellington WAS as great (no, a greater) composer than Copeland, whose Americana I find a bit precious and distant (as in vernacular music by someone who never really listened to vernacular music) - Duke wasn't the kind of composer, in a formal sense, that Copeland or Beethoven were but he made his own rules and he was much closer to the Harry Partch ideal of the domestic composer whose work relates to American speech, and contains a deeper and more indigenous kind of expression than, say, Bach or Beethoven -

here's a relevant Harry Partch quote: (from 1941):

"The ancient Greek and Chinese conception...as old as history - that music is poetry, has deteriorated...even when words are used they are merely a vehicle for tones. The voice is just another violin or another cello...with this metamorphosis...the ancient conception...was obscured, left to folk peoples...sailors, soldiers, gypsies...troubadours, Meistersingers, the Japanese Noh and kabuki, the folk music of England and our own southern mountains, the pure Negro spiritual (not 'symphonized') - hearers are transported not by mass but subtlety...the true music of the individual."

I find Ellington to be within this continuum - also, to take this a bit further, find Larry Kart's essay on Ornette Coleman and "pre-tonal" music; it's in Larry's book and I would argue that it explains a good deal of the appeal of American country/blues performance -

Edited August 22, 2006 by AllenLowe

[Lazaro Vega]

Interesting points, Allen. Partch.

As to the defensiveness of jazz to the classical establishment, there's an ingrained prejudice from the general classical audience against jazz, that classical music may be proven "scientifically" to be superior (starting with A 440) and that the classical composer's understanding of the emotions evoked by various harmonic tones shows a more purposeful intellectual control of the musical content than jazz. Something like that. I've heard people say such things before and it's more of an undercurrent.

Gunther Schuller wrote "Early Jazz" to be read by those folks.

[AllenLowe]

I like Schuller but, interestingly enough, he himself has tended to be critical of Ellington's longer works, using "classical" criteria - which I've always felt were not entirely appropriate to this kind of music -

[BruceH]

Silly argument. Ellington, Porter, Gershwin, Copland, Beethoven, Bach, Manilow , etc were doing different things and comparing this stuff is futile. Duke ain't the songwriter Porter or Gershwin were (though he wanted to be). He is not a composer of Copland or Beethoven stature (though he wanted to be). What he was is a superb jazzman with compositional and "arranging" talent and he changed my life.

This stuff really bothers me. We try to build ourselves up by "being better" than others rather than doing unique things.

I agree completely. What also bugs me is when someone comes out to introduce a jazz concert and gives a fervent speech about how jazz is equal to classical music. A variation on this speech is that jazz is better than classical music. The person giving the speech always seems to shout, and to build to a mighty emotional climax when the jazz-classical music comparison is made. I always think, jazz and classical are not alike, and to compare the two head-on is foolish.

I have noticed that this jazz is greater than or equal to classical music speech is often given by someone raising money, or campaigning for public office.

Even in its more subtle form, I find this very embarrassing, embarrassing for jazz. It sounds like a cover for an inferiority complex. A number of Wynton Marsalis' comments on classical music and jazz really bother me in that respect. He talks as if he is on a mission to prove to the world that jazz can be as "serious" as classical music. He has even made statements to the effect that he only plays classical music for that reason, i.e. to gain more respect for jazz. The effect is just the opposite. Why put jazz on the defensive? It doesn't need to be. We have 100 years of jazz great music, much of it recorded. What else is needed?

Nothing.

[alocispepraluger102]

Here are four suggestions (in no particular order). I'm pretty sure that Amazon has these available at low prices.

• Duke Ellington in Person: An Intimate Memoir - Mercer Ellington
  
• The World of Duke Ellington - Stanley Dance
  
• Beyond Category: The Life and Genius of Duke Ellington - John Edward Hasse
  
• The Duke Ellington Reader - an anthology edited by Mark Tucker
  

thank you.

i will be checking my library tomorrow.

my Hasse arrived today

[Guest youmustbe]

Stanley Crouch thinks Duke is the Greatest! Kinda makes you think, eh?

[Larry Kart]

Stanley Crouch thinks Duke is the Greatest! Kinda makes you think, eh?

Think about Stanley or about Duke? And whichever it is (or both), how so?

[alocispepraluger102]

"Beyond Category: The Life and Genius of Duke Ellington - John Edward Hasse"

thanks (to Christiern)for suggesting a fine read. there was MUCH more to the duke than music.

Edited September 15, 2006 by alocispepraluger102

[Kalo]

Stanley Crouch thinks Duke is the Greatest! Kinda makes you think, eh?

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

[Scott Yanow]

Hi there. I just registered with Organissimo and noticed this topic. I appreciate its heading even if no one is actually discussing the article I wrote, ha ha. The piece I wrote was meant as a general introduction and, despite one comment, nothing was stolen or even "borrowed" from any other source.

I look forward to making occasional comments on posts and your comments on my comments. Looks like a great forum.

[connoisseur series500]

Hi there. I just registered with Organissimo and noticed this topic. I appreciate its heading even if no one is actually discussing the article I wrote, ha ha. The piece I wrote was meant as a general introduction and, despite one comment, nothing was stolen or even "borrowed" from any other source.

I look forward to making occasional comments on posts and your comments on my comments. Looks like a great forum.

Glad you plan to contribute to the forum, Scott. I make no comments about your reviews other than I do read them and frequently buy cds based on your reviews. I don't always agree with you, and I sometimes think you're tough on greazzy stuff, but taste is very subjective. No one is correct or incorrect in such things.

Welcome!

[Scott Yanow]

Thanks. I don't expect anyone to agree with me all the time of course. As long as one can read my reviews and figure out from what I say whether they will like the music or not, then I've done my job.

I actually like greasy soul jazz organ. My one reservation is that a lot of those recordings, particularly from the second half of the 1960s, are a bit predictable, but I generally like them.

[Jim Alfredson]

Thanks. I don't expect anyone to agree with me all the time of course. As long as one can read my reviews and figure out from what I say whether they will like the music or not, then I've done my job.

I actually like greasy soul jazz organ. My one reservation is that a lot of those recordings, particularly from the second half of the 1960s, are a bit predictable, but I generally like them.

A lot of "organ" records in general are pretty predictable. And I (obviously) LOVE the instrument!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Thanks. I don't expect anyone to agree with me all the time of course. As long as one can read my reviews and figure out from what I say whether they will like the music or not, then I've done my job.

I actually like greasy soul jazz organ. My one reservation is that a lot of those recordings, particularly from the second half of the 1960s, are a bit predictable, but I generally like them.

A lot of "organ" records in general are pretty predictable. And I (obviously) LOVE the instrument!

The music's supposed to fulfil a social objective, which doesn't place as high a premium on surprise as it does on community unity.

MG