Avant-garde question...

[Usual Channels]

Hoping people with some perspective can help me out...

I'm researching free jazz from 68 or so to the present, and there's an aspect of the music that I know little about. This aspect is probably exemplified in the figure of David Murray (an artist I've barely heard, and know less about). AMG tells me that he started out playing like Ayler, was involved w/ the loft jazz scene, was heavily promoted by Stanley Crouch, and as he "discovered the tradition," toned down his sound and began developing his composition work. I also see that he's been investigating other musics of the African diaspora.

My questions are these: Is, or was, Murray a part of a sort of mainstream avant-garde? How is he generally looked at by the mainstream jazz press? Do more underground jazz guys look at him as someone who abandoned that community? Are there other musicians whose careers have followed similar paths?

Of course, these are simplistic questions, and I'm sure opinions about Murray are wide and varied. I'm trying to get a general idea, though, of different career trajectories of free jazz artists, other than the usual "keeps playing in the scene for decades with minimal support or recognition," or "has a brief, shining career, then disappears into obscurity."

Thanks for whatever responses might come out of this jumbled post...

[Chuck Nessa]

This is a very serious question, and one I'm not now willing to expend much energy on tonight. Sorry 'bout that, but if I don't come back tomorrow with a response, e-mail me at cnessa@earthlink.net. By the way, I think Murray is a fake.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Chuck Nessa

[Usual Channels]

Thanks Chuck--I totally understand the energy issue, and I seriously look forward to your input.

Anyone else?

[jlhoots]

Ouch!!!

Fake - like in charlatan??

Tell us more.

I'm no critic - but I've liked some of his octet & quartet recordings.

Has the wool been pulled over my eyes or in this case ears??

[Rooster_Ties]

By the way, I think Murray is a fake.

Yes, Chuck, (sincerely) please do share your thoughts on Murray with the group.

I'm no big fan of Murray, but I have heard him play live a couple times - and although he's not real high on my list of favorite tenor players (not by a long shot), I also didn't get the feeling that he was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, musically speaking. (I heard him with a piano trio once, and once with a just bass and drums as a trio. The trio date was heavier, and I will admit to somewhat liking Murray's work on bass clarinet (in any context) - in fact, quite a bit better than on tenor. His "Ballads for Bass Clarinet" disc is probably my favorite Murray disc, with John Hicks. I like it quite a bit, but don't love it.)

Then again, perhaps your "I think Murray is a fake" comment is somehow related to him in some non-Musical way???? I did speak with Murray on two occasions, and found him to be very aloof, and very off-putting. And not "aloof" in the way that I found Wayne Shorter to be (Shorter might be a little spacy to talk with, but you can tell he just thinks about the world in different ways, and that somehow comes across as 'strange' in conversation with him.) But, rather, Murray just struck me as being a bit of a jerk, or at least he seemed like someone that had a chip on his shoulder.

I think I've owned about 6 or 8 Murray CD's over the years, but have since traded away all but 2 or 3 of them.

PS: One Murray CD that I've thought about trading away, several times in fact, is his disc with all Grateful Dead tunes, arranged for octet. But every time I listen to it, to confirm my not really wanting it any more - I somehow find something to redeem it. (And I'm absolutely *NO* fan of the Dead, so that's NOT the reason.)

Yes, Chuck - I'd be really interested if your thoughts somehow jive with some vague but real 'uneasiness' that I've had with Murray's music for several years now.

Thanks in advance!!

Edited June 19, 2005 by Jim Alfredson

[Guest Mnytime]

Chuck

You can't leave us hanging like that? Saying you think he is a fake than saying you will explain by email only to Used Channel.

Used Channel

Crouch actually was Murray's drummer when Murray came to NY. As I understand it Crouch and Murray don't get along anymore do to Crouch currents feelings about avant/garde and free jazz. Personally I like Murray's recordings. Though I really don't think Murray is that avant/garde.

Crouch reminds me of one of those hippies who protested the war and Govt. and later cut their hair and now dresses in Armani's and either works for the Govt. or runs his own business.

Has anyone read the liner notes to Murray's latest "Now Is Another Time"? I don't have it in front of me now to quote from it at the moment. But there is a sentence in it that basically implies that Murray's quality of recordings wasn't equal to the quantity. That since Murray has cut back on the amount of recordings he is putting out in comparison to the past the quality has vastly improved. I found that a little unusual to the usual liner notes which do nothing but rave about the music and musicians involved.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Mnytime

[brownie]

We all know that Chuck Nessa is very opiniated. Disagreed with him on

Booker Ervin, but would tend to agree on David Murray. When Murray came on the

scene in the late '70s, he was a very promising musician. Followed his early

records (and several live appearances in New York and Paris ) and left it at that.

He was going around in circles and IMO failed to deliver.

Now when I want to hear Murray music that really moves, I stick to Sonny.

I think David Murray is to the avant-garde what Charles Lloyd was to Coltrane.

Lots of notes, no substance.

[Usual Channels]

Crouch reminds me of one of those hippies who protested the war and Govt. and later cut their hair and now dresses in Armani's and either works for the Govt. or runs his own business.

No argument here, Mnytime. He's a douche bag supreme.

Those liner notes you mention remind me of a recent comment in a Shane McGowan interview about his then-upcoming CD--something to the tune of, "It's not one of my better efforts. My best work is behind me." Isn't that hilarious???

[JohnS]

Oh dear. Did I buy those 200 Murray cds for nothing?

I like Murray. It goes back to when I auditioned the "Flowers For Albert" lp in Rays Jazz Shop around 1976. I loved it straight away. It was something genuinely new and different at a difficult time jazz. Since then I've followed his career with great interest. I've bought his records and heard him live solo, trio, quartet, quintet, octet, big band, WSQ. He's never disappointed me live and only very rarely on record. Along the way he's employed some of the best players around, if I just mention Craig Harris, Roy Campbell, Wilbur Morris, Fred Hopkins, Hamiett Bluiett you'll see where he's comimg from.

Just give the guy a chance, you'll probably enjoy him. B)

[Joe G]

Everytime I read one of Crouch's columns in Jazztimes I come away wondering if it's him, or me. I can't even articulate what his point is much of the time. Is anyone else getting something from him? Anything?

[Green Dolphin]

If Murray was a fake the why didn't he stay in California and mine the fusion seam?I can understand why the hair shirt free only mob chide him for selling out,and that he can come across as arrogant,but hell,the guy can play,refuses to be pigeonholed and has been releasing stuff of consistent quality for 20 odd years.

Check out the early stuff for the freer side and look out for the storming meeting with Milford Graves,Real Deal,from 91.But talk of Murray as a free player and Ayler disciple belongs in the distant past.Personally I 'd rather listen to him on tenor than any of his contemporaries,even if he has threatened my bank balance with meltdown on more than one occassion.

[Larry Kart]

I agree with Chuck about Murray being a fake, and I'm sure his response has a wholly musical basis (as I think mine does). One particular encounter with his music, live, really convinced me. He came into Chicago in the early '80s with John Hicks, Ray Drummond (I think), and Ed Blackwell. This was in Murray's "return to the tradition" phase, and he was playing tunes with changes and trying to swing. First problem: once the tunes were stated their harmonic structures pretty much went out the window, and not in any "free," creative way; the blowing passages were essentially featureless huffing and puffing and didn't vary much from tune to tune, except in tempo. Second problem: Murray didn't seem to know where "one" was on any consistent basis, which left Blackwell in particular in a state of grave rhythmic distress. In fact, what Murray was failing to do amounted to an insult to that wonderful drummer. I recall writing about that aspect of Murray's performance that "he sounded like Charlie Ventura on roller skates," but that isn't really fair to Ventura.

A couple of years later I heard Murray's octet in NY at, I think, Sweet Basil. Some good players in the band, but the writing and the ensemble work were crude at best (for one, everything was brutally, carelessly loud), and the whole thing radiated an air of "Who gives a f***" -- which I could understand sharing if I were on the stand and Murray was the leader. In fact, I talked after the set with one of the band's talented veterans (a saxophonist who must be nameless here), and he pretty much confirmed my feeling that working with Murray was a drag.

[Joe G]

The only thing I could figure is that it's because he's white and edgy and championed by white jazz writers. Crouch stated flat out though, that he thought Douglas couldn't hold a candle to any of the other black trumpeters. Here's the quote:

There is nothing wrong with Douglas, who can play what he can play and who should continue to do whatever he wants to do, but there is something pernicious about Davis and all those other white guys who want so badly to put white men in charge--American and European--and put Negroes in the background. Douglas, whom I have heard since he worked as a sideman years ago with Vincent Herring, is far from being a bad musican, but he also know that he should keep as much distance as possible between himself and trumpet players like Wallace Roney, Terence Blanchard and Nicholas Payton, to name but three, any one of whom on any kind of material--chordal, nonchordal, modal, free, whatever--would turn him into a puddle on the bandstand.

So he's far from bad, but not very good. Or something. Or actually, he's not the issue at all, it's the white writers who want to push him forward in place of more traditional sounding black trumpeters.

I don't want to say that there's nothing at all to what Crouch is writing about. I'm just not sure what he wants from us, the readers. What do you want from me? I'm just trying to play the guitar! (That's probably what Dave Douglas is saying.)

P.S. Usual Channels, sorry for taking your thread in another direction.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Joe G

[Chuck Nessa]

I regret the use of the word 'fake', but I said I was tired.

Like many others at the time I felt Murray had a promising future when he first appeared on the scene. It seems to me that after a year or two in the 'big leagues' he saw the writing on the wall and when he had to make a choice between public acclaim and music, he made the easy choice too many times.

David is a serious musician and from my personal experience a 'nice guy'.

BUT I hold 'artists' to a higher standard. This probably makes me an elitist, but that's ok.

As a personal point of reference, when I dumped my lps I had about a dozen Murray sides. Now with around 3000 jazz cds, I don't have any. I probably would have a few if I had money, but I don't. He always hires good guys to play with.

I have no problem with other people loving his music. It is not bad, just not what I wanted.

Communication is a very personal thing.

[Simon Weil]

Everytime I read one of Crouch's columns in Jazztimes I come away wondering if it's him, or me.  I can't even articulate what his point is much of the time. Is anyone else getting something from him? Anything? 

I can't believe they pay him to come up with that crap. Did you see the last one, where he goes off on Dave Douglas? He goes on and on, and I can't figure out why Crouch dislikes him.

Apparently they don't pay him any longer.

From: Michael Moorman (mvmo@nyc.rr.com)

Subject: Re: stanley crouch

Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote

Date: 2003-04-02 19:07:04 PST

I just came from event at the Studio Museum in Harlem where Stanley Crouch

was promoting his new book written with Playtell Benjamin - Reconstructing

The Soul of Black Folk. During the question and answer portion Benjamin

informed the crowd that Crouch had been fired by Jazz Times basically for

the Douglas matter. According to Crouch he was fired by email.

Those of you who wanted Crouch's head it has been served to you by Jazz

Times.

I Hope You're Happy Now!

Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

BUT I hold 'artists' to a higher standard. This probably makes me an elitist, but that's ok.

I just want to say that Chuck has the quality of ear that he can hold artists to a higher standard. That's not elitism, that's just reality.

The whole thing about elitism is that people pretend to some level of something that they don't have.

I know this is presumptious.

Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

I always thought there was something hollow about Murray's relentlessness.

? Julius Hemphill or Roscoe Mitchell for examples of the post-68 avant-garde.

Simon Weil

[Joe Christmas]

interesting discussion. Always cool to have Chuck around.

I'm inclined to agree with Green Dolphin in that holding Murray to the adventurous standards he set out for in his earlier days is wishful thinking. He certainly has some wonderful, exciting records including THE HILL and parts of SWEET LOVELY and A SANCTUARY WITHIN. The first couple of octet recordings with Olu Dara, Henry Threadgill, et al are sublime. Shifts in the lineup did the music harm, IMO, not that it ever got any more imaginitive. The recordings I've heard from the last few years do absolutely zilch for me, but that doesn't necessarily make him a sellout or a softy in my eyes. Seems like the guy's just doing what he wants to do for whoever and however. If that's where his heart is, so be it. I just won't be listening.

[Rooster_Ties]

Thanks Chuck, for explaining yourself a bit more on the Murray topic, much appreciated.

Murray is one of those guys I maybe ought to like more than I do - but, for some reason, he just doesn't speak to me all that much. I concur with Chuck, that he often does hire very good sidemen, and his releases are usually 'good', but rarely (for me anyway) not a lot better than just 'good'. Then again, (and again, speaking just for myself), they're not ever much worse than 'good' either.

I guess that's what's so strange about him. I usually really like somebody's output, or it just doesn't do very much for me at all. And Murray's weird, for me, in that he falls somewhere in the middle.

[Green Dolphin]

[i just want to say that Chuck has the quality of ear that he can hold artists to a higher standard. That's not elitism, that's just reality.

"Quality of ear"!!!

Chuck's reply was much appreciated and fair comment,but Simon this ear quality thing sure does sound like an elitist concept.We like what we like for a variety of reasons and as Chuck pointed out communication(taste) is a very personal thing as in how we like to be communicated to(and vice versa),but better "ears",sorry but I don't think that was what he was getting at.My basic aural hardware handles Ayler to Metheny and plenty of points in between depending what mood I'm in-once you get into someone's taste(and judgement) is better the more rarefied it is then you're in elitist territory in my book.

[Joe G]

Apparently they don't pay him any longer.

From: Michael Moorman (mvmo@nyc.rr.com)

Subject: Re: stanley crouch

Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote

Date: 2003-04-02 19:07:04 PST

I just came from event at the Studio Museum in Harlem where Stanley Crouch

was promoting his new book written with Playtell Benjamin - Reconstructing

The Soul of Black Folk. During the question and answer portion Benjamin

informed the crowd that Crouch had been fired by Jazz Times basically for

the Douglas matter. According to Crouch he was fired by email.

Those of you who wanted Crouch's head it has been served to you by Jazz

Times.

I Hope You're Happy Now!

Simon Weil

Interesting. I suppose it was only a matter of time. I'm not sure that the "Douglas matter" is grounds for dismissal; after all, I've seen some wicked reviews and other negative articles in jazz magazines that went almost as far. This will no doubt be more fuel for Stanley's fire.

[Simon Weil]

[i just want to say that Chuck has the quality of ear that he can hold artists to a higher standard. That's not elitism, that's just reality.

"Quality of ear"!!!

Chuck's reply was much appreciated and fair comment,but Simon this ear quality thing sure does sound like an elitist concept.We like what we like for a variety of reasons and as Chuck pointed out communication(taste) is a very personal thing as in how we like to be communicated to(and vice versa),but better "ears",sorry but I don't think that was what he was getting at.My basic aural hardware handles Ayler to Metheny and plenty of points in between depending what mood I'm in-once you get into someone's taste(and judgement) is better the more rarefied it is then you're in elitist territory in my book.

In my opinion, Chuck's ear is better than mine.

Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

Apparently they don't pay him any longer.

Wrom: TTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJ

Subject: Re: stanley crouch

Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote

Date: 2003-04-02 19:07:04 PST

I just came from event at the Studio Museum in Harlem where Stanley Crouch

was promoting his new book written with Playtell Benjamin - Reconstructing

The Soul of Black Folk. During the question and answer portion Benjamin

informed the crowd that Crouch had been fired by Jazz Times basically for

the Douglas matter. According to Crouch he was fired by email.

Those of you who wanted Crouch's head it has been served to you by Jazz

Times.

I Hope You're Happy Now!

Simon Weil

Interesting. I suppose it was only a matter of time. I'm not sure that the "Douglas matter" is grounds for dismissal; after all, I've seen some wicked reviews and other negative articles in jazz magazines that went almost as far. This will no doubt be more fuel for Stanley's fire.

My impression, from reading the discussions about Crouch's Jazztimes articles (I don't get the mag) is that he didn't have a lot new to say - and to make up for that, was saying it at the top of his voice. In terms of content, yup, it was just a matter of time.

Maybe the reaction to the Douglas article concentrated JT's mind.

Simon Weil

P.S. In terms of adding to Crouch's fire, my view is that Wynton's (and thus Crouch's) moment has passed. Sure he'll get pissed off, but nothing will come of it. Hurray!

Edited June 19, 2005 by Jim Alfredson

[Usual Channels]

Joe G -- I don't think you took my post in a different direction. Thanks for your opinions.

The only thing I could figure is that it's because he's white and edgy and championed by white jazz writers. Crouch stated flat out though, that he thought Douglas couldn't hold a candle to any of the other black trumpeters.

Issues of race, particularly related to the mostly white jazz press, are incredibly important, I think we'd all agree. Crouch treats these issues in such an indelicate manner, that it's a real shame that he's one of the only people really talking about them in jazz's popular press. However, I'm almost willing to give Crouch some credit for bringing them up at all.

This is pretty far off from my initial post, but stay with me, and it'll come back around:

Lots of musicians who act as though race isn't an issue in their music, or who downplay that element in favor of more universalist tendencies, are truly concerned with both the lack of young black avant garde players, and the attention lavished upon white players in the genre at the perceived expense of the black players that are out there. Do all black jazz musicians feel this way? Of course not. Do most? Don't know. I do know, that as a young white scholar, that when musicians who don't bring this stuff up in liner notes and interviews are asked about it, they have plenty to say.

Not so, I've noticed, with jazz bulletin boards, where issues of race, IMHO, are pretty carefully avoided.

How does this relate to my initial post? I guess it relates in that, after the mid-70's, it seems to me that there was a major shift in how black jazz musicians have had to operate in the industry, and that characters like Crouch and Murray are a couple of figures who's actions reflect certain political, social, and cultural conditions. Are their actions the only actions that could have been taken by young black jazz musicians in the mid-70's? Of course not. I'm trying to look at their actions, and their changing positions, as indicating larger sea-changes that they are responding to. And that Matt Shipp is responding to in different ways. And Jemeel Moondoc in different ways. And on and on.

I'm trying to get a general idea, though, of different career trajectories of free jazz artists, other than the usual "keeps playing in the scene for decades with minimal support or recognition," or "has a brief, shining career, then disappears into obscurity."

Soooo, for avant garde musicians who want to play in a manner differing from what people call

"mainstream," and who don't have some sort of "legend" status to fall back on, what's out there?

I'm tempted to say that Douglas will have a successful career now, but that jazz enthusiasts in thirty years will look back on the early 00's and regard Roy Campbell reissues as "the real thing" (long after he will be able to substantially gain from the recognition). Maybe that's being unreasonable, but it makes at least some sense when put up against past developments...

[this is a mess--please, be kind and work through it with me...]

[Green Dolphin]

I've one more thing to add on this topic reLAting to the shock of the new.Older listeners who came across the likes of Ornette,Coltrane,Cecil Taylor,the AEC must have been blown away,as it happened-same in the rock sphere with Jimi Hendrix-popular music was still "young" then.After the fusion craze of the early 70's when everyone seemed to want at least a Fender Rhodes on a session someone like Murray coming along in the middle of the decade must have seemed like he was relighting the torch.But where was there to go after the initial burst.Us younger listeners have a good overview of it all but we weren't there-keep the flame burning by all means but I'm of the opinion that innovation has been pretty limited regarding the avant garde these last 30 years,and in fact in most forms of improvised music-the yardage gained is much more acute than then.This is probably a topic worthy of a separate thread-"What's new"?,and maybe we keep listening now more for reassurance.But one thing,in reference to the above post let's hope that race won't be an issue in 30 years time and Dave Douglas and Roy Campbell can be equally appreciated by all

Edited April 11, 2003 by Green Dolphin