A free jazz player who can't play?

[Rasputin]

I found this amusing piece of journalism while browsing the web, but couldn't find another SINGLE word about this person... Any ideas?

And while we are at it- what's your take? Do one has to do his homework- transcribing Parker, Lester, Coltrane before he has the right to jump into the deep murky water called free jazz? Where is the limit between free jazz (like, structured Ornette Coleman piece) and what sounds to most people as noise- Peter Brotzmann, Charles Gayle etfc?

[Niko]

I found this amusing piece of journalism while browsing the web, but couldn't find another SINGLE word about this person... Any ideas?

And while we are at it- what's your take? Do one has to do his homework- transcribing Parker, Lester, Coltrane before he has the right to jump into the deep murky water called free jazz? Where is the limit between free jazz (like, structured Ornette Coleman piece) and what sounds to most people as noise- Peter Brotzmann, Charles Gayle etfc?

since the thing is called "The Media Mook: Satirical News for the On-the-Go Cynic" i'm not surprised you can't find anything on this person...

[.:.impossible]

My personal opinion is that no one HAS to go through the experiences you list. While incredibly valuable, these experiences will certainly affect a person's individualism, which in many ways is a key component to free improvisation.

Couldn't it be said that knowledge of jazz history might impact a musician's every decision/reaction, thus decreasing the distance that player has from preconception, tradition, and a true free nature?

An extreme example: a savant may pick up a tenor saxophone, having never seen the instrument, or knowingly heard it's accepted uses, and approach it's use in a very different way.

This person may have an incredibly broad and deep emotional spectrum, and an incredibly sensitive ability to interact with others, having never done so in a musical setting.

It is up to the critics to describe the individual's merit.

Maybe that wasn't the actual direction of this topic, but...

[Quasimado]

... It is up to the critics to describe the individual's merit.

Actually it's up to you.

Q

[AllenLowe]

this is an old argument in all forms - and really inspires a certain perverse kind of judgment - if you like a work, and later find out that the artist cannot do anything else (like play tonally) does your opinion then change? Conversely, if you dislike a work, and later find out that the artist is actually very good in traditional forms, is the work you didn't like then a good piece of work?

did we demand that Duke Jordan know how to play like Jelly Roll Morton?

can we like an improviser who cannot read music?

do we demand that Pete Brown play Donna Lee?

Joe Henderson once said, interestingly, that as long as bebop was the dominant form he felt inadequate, and did not believe he could really master jazz - but that Coltrane changed his entire sense of self-esteem, because HERE was a music he could grasp. Do we think less of him now?

Mingus claimed Ornette could not play a bebop head straight - (though who knows, after all, Mingus was Mingus)

and no matter what Mary Lou Williams said, Monk could NOT play like Teddy Wilson -

this is not to say we can or should not judge "free" jazzers - only that they demand their own critical frame of reference -

(on the other hand, ask me about a fairly well-known "free" drummer whom I cannot listen to because he cannot keep straight 4 beat time to save his life, even when he tries; but let's not start that argument again) -

(and I might also argue about my weariness with a lot of open-form jazz, which has the same problems of cliche and repeated gestures that bebop developed over the years)

Edited September 10, 2009 by AllenLowe

[flat5]

Critics have no standards. I only consider the advice of "critics" concerning something I know nothing about. They have never been fair or accurate about me.

[AllenLowe]

you shouldn't assume your own bad experiences are necessarily true everywhere -

there are many fine critics who live wholesome lives and who don't torture puppies or pull the wings off flies (though off hand I cannot think of a single one; give me some time) -

[.:.impossible]

... It is up to the critics to describe the individual's merit.

Actually it's up to you.

Q

You know what I mean...

[king ubu]

If in need of guidance, I guess you could always ask Poppa Lou

[AllenLowe]

hot dog, that's a good idea -

[clifford_thornton]

Critics have no standards. I only consider the advice of "critics" concerning something I know nothing about. They have never been fair or accurate about me.

Well, for one thing, if it's that important why are you not using your real name here?

Have you sent anything to Larry, John Litweiler, etc.?

[7/4]

Discography, web site info please.

...

[thedwork]

Critics have no standards. I only consider the advice of "critics" concerning something I know nothing about.

quite plainly when you write that critics have "no standards" what you really mean is they don't have "your standards." what a drag reading that kind of blanket statement, self-absorbed horseshit.

at the same time, it's interesting that you say you'd only consider the advice of people with 'no standards' when it's about something you know nothing about. now that's a genuine example of actually having no standards. good job flat5...

[Rasputin]

since the thing is called "The Media Mook: Satirical News for the On-the-Go Cynic" i'm not surprised you can't find anything on this person...

Oops. Missed that one.

this is an old argument in all forms - and really inspires a certain perverse kind of judgment - if you like a work, and later find out that the artist cannot do anything else (like play tonally) does your opinion then change? Conversely, if you dislike a work, and later find out that the artist is actually very good in traditional forms, is the work you didn't like then a good piece of work?

Joe Henderson once said, interestingly, that as long as bebop was the dominant form he felt inadequate, and did not believe he could really master jazz - but that Coltrane changed his entire sense of self-esteem, because HERE was a music he could grasp. Do we think less of him now?

Mingus claimed Ornette could not play a bebop head straight - (though who knows, after all, Mingus was Mingus)

I believe that music is music. It's (in western system) "only" 12 notes, and the hierarchy built aroung it should be destroyed. Yeah, I myself doubt the artistic merits of a Britney Spears, but I think that aesthetically speaking- Bach and Zappa are on the same level.

Interesting, what Henderson said. Because I feel the same way, really. I believe that I can't, not want to even develope such technique as Parker had, or even Giant Steps Coltrane. I think the sax, like the guitar should sing and not scream frantically at 250 BPM... Jan Garbarek:)

Can you tell what was it in Coltrane that inspired Henderson?

I believe that Ornette really can play a bebop head... A famous story about him tells that on a tour with Gordon, Stitt and other giants, they sat in the room and heared a Parker-esque playing... They were amazed and realized it was Ornette. He got much more respect after that.

Interesting thing that I noticed: Max ROach loathed Coleman, but he recorded with Anthony Braxotn!

[AllenLowe]

I like critics because I actually don't think I've ever gotten a bad review - of course in most of the jazz press NOBODY gets a bad review. Still, I feel special.

[Rasputin]

The situation with critics is probably alot better then used to be. Can you imagine that the Russian composer Mussorgsky got such bad reviews, that included a claim that the man has no basic grasp of harmony?

A critics sins first because of his attempt to put in words the "tao", but when he comes to the subject matter with preconcieved notions, he commits murder altogether. Luckily popular music has expanded so much that people are just open to new sounds.