Evan Parker and Roscoe Mitchell

[A Lark Ascending]

No, best not to scold those who know their preferences & state them as such. That shows both respect and understanding.

No problem with not scolding those who express their preferences (tell me what you like and I'm interested).

It's those who get off on constantly expressing what they despise. A lot of that is toady-ing (?) to a hipster agenda.

Edited January 28, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

Yeah, well, fuck the hipsters, and fuck anybody who is dumb enough to care what they think.

For that matter, fuck anybody who cares too much about what anybody thinks, especially about their musical tastes. It's like god - if you have to find it in a group, you really don't have it in the first place, and if it bothers you that these groups exist, well, get over it, stand on your own feet in your own world, and interact with the other worlds as much or as little as is needed.

But for crissakes, no matter which side you're on, stop all the whining!

Geez, I'm whining about whining. How ECM-ish of me! :g

[Clunky]

And a few "WTFs", like the Sam Rivers & George Adams mentioned earlier. I'll never believe that Eicher never exerts producer's influence. I'm not that big a chump....

I'm not clear what recording you're referring to here. The only ECM of Rivers that i've heard is Contrast and it's pretty good as far as I recall

[JSngry]

Good, yeah, I don't know that Sam ever made a bad record, but definitely not of a sort with what was immediately preceding and postceding it.

It's more like "Sam Rivers making an ECM record" than it is "a Sam Rivers" record, which is all well and good, but I doubt that Sam went to Eicher and said "Hey, Manfred, here I am baby, USE me in the service of your unique vision".

[JETman]

Good, yeah, I don't know that Sam ever made a bad record, but definitely not of a sort with what was immediately preceding and postceding it.

It's more like "Sam Rivers making an ECM record" than it is "a Sam Rivers" record, which is all well and good, but I doubt that Sam went to Eicher and said "Hey, Manfred, here I am baby, USE me in the service of your unique vision".

Those couple he made for RCA at Mr. Coleman's urging were kind of 'eh'.

[A Lark Ascending]

But for crissakes, no matter which side you're on, stop all the whining!

Well that's the Lester Bangs school of criticism out of work!

[JSngry]

Good, yeah, I don't know that Sam ever made a bad record, but definitely not of a sort with what was immediately preceding and postceding it.

It's more like "Sam Rivers making an ECM record" than it is "a Sam Rivers" record, which is all well and good, but I doubt that Sam went to Eicher and said "Hey, Manfred, here I am baby, USE me in the service of your unique vision".

Those couple he made for RCA at Mr. Coleman's urging were kind of 'eh'.

But those had neither an RCA nor a Steve Coleman "sound" to them. I think the problem with them (to the extent that there was one) was that nobody involved had a particularly good grip on how best to record that size of ensemble playing that type of material. So, failure of execution, yeah, up to a point. But submitting to a producer's overall "sound" and/or "vision"? Uh-uh.

[David Ayers]

Well, I wish we could discuss particular records without discussing the label. These are pretty grand releases and can't be judged by a fairly flat date from 1979 which was never on CD and has been allowed to drift to the margin of music history.

[JETman]

Well, I wish we could discuss particular records without discussing the label. These are pretty grand releases and can't be judged by a fairly flat date from 1979 which was never on CD and has been allowed to drift to the margin of music history.

Dude, I think you should start another thread

[Face of the Bass]

I just find it interesting that people get very hostile (and their attacks often very personal) when someone raises an opinion that is not adulatory towards the label. As for the history of ECM-bashing...I don't know of it and you don't see it on these forums that often. But I DO know that there are many out there who share my opinion, and it's not because they are trying to establish how cool they are. It's because they think the label's output is mostly boring and repetitive. I'm several years younger than the ECM label is and post 1970 jazz for me is best summarized by the EFI movement that has been well documented on the European labels I mentioned earlier. Again, ECM puts out the occasional fine record but the overall impression of the music recorded on ECM is that it is bourgeois and indulgent.

I'm not hostile and I can see where you are coming from. I am trying to look inside this label a bit more and I am reminding myself (1) how many good and interesting recordings there are even if I do not especially like either the music or the engineering (2) how many good records they did and do which I do actually like - I mean when you study the list there are a lot, actually (3) I am also thinking how much they contributed to engineering of jazz or jazz-derived records back in the day when mixing standards often came from jazz rock and were garish and also when most vinyl (especially US vinyl) was pretty poor (4) I am taking stock too of how much variety they generated and how many new aesthetics they have promoted (5) and how they presented many artists I do really like to a large public under a commercially secure umbrella. Middle of the road? But less so than almost any of the hard bop LPs and labels we love here. Much less so, really: Evan Parker's performance at the Huddersfield festival (an avant-garde hardcore gathering) on Moment's Energy would never have made it to any jazz label, major or minor. What hasn't ECM done - yes, their Coltrane was Jarrett, so not quite there on that front, and some big names are absent - Brotzmann entirely, I think, same for Cecil Taylor, Braxton never under his own name, and very few of the FMP set. Etc.

Yeah, my main criticism is that the market ECM seems to be aiming towards is very middle brow, one might say somewhat conservative as far as tastes go. Again, it is a music that seems to do an excellent job of capturing the Nordic scene. But I'll never believe that Eicher exerts NO influence on the people he records. There's far too much similarity from a range of artists for that to ever be the case. And yes, Blue Note material from the 1950s and 1960s also put together a distinct sound that was aimed at a fairly large audience. The difference for me, and I know I inevitably get into caricatures in saying this, is that Blue Note hard bop has a lot more energy, soul, and joy to it. ECM music is the kind of thing you imagine listening to in an outdoor patio while wearing sandals and drinking an old bottle of wine. Blue Note hard bop music, by contrast, sounded much more urban-metropolitan, like it came from the streets, R&B music roped into a jazz context. For me as a body of music it "works" much better than ECM does. I'd also note that Blue Note hard bop had probably played itself out after about 15 years...ECM is now going at this for more than 40 years, and while there have been changes, the music seems to be in pretty much the same place today that it was in 1995. And the cover art long ago slipped into repetitiveness and self-parody, which of course isn't the music itself but does speak to the aesthetic that is being cultivated by the label.

I'd actually say that most of my favorite musicians from the last 40 years have not recorded on ECM, or if they have it was for only one or two projects: Peter Brotzmann, Cecil Taylor, Bill Dixon, Joelle Leandre, Anthony Braxton, Henry Threadgill, Jimmy Lyons, Steve Lacy, Derek Bailey, Peter Kowald, Irene Schweizer, Joe McPhee, Wadada Leo Smith and so forth. Evan Parker and Roscoe Mitchell are also two of my favorite improvisers of the last 40 years, and while they've recorded for ECM, nobody would say that their most essential or interesting work has come with ECM. These artists have been very well documented on a wide variety of labels, but particularly the ones I mentioned earlier: FMP, Black Saint/Soul Note, Leo, etc.

Now, there are some musicians whose output on ECM I really like, and in most cases I think it's because their style of playing fits well within the ECM universe and maybe provides another dimension to it: Ralph Towner, Tord Gustavsen, maybe Tomasz Stanko on a good day and one or two Enrico Rava albums. But as a man who has become addicted to collecting jazz recordings, I've also wasted too much money buying ECM records that disappointed me...it took me a couple years to realize that I really don't like Keith Jarrett's Standards music, that Jan Garbarek's output bores me, that Crispell sounds way more compelling in her work outside of ECM. I think I once had to review one of Steve Kuhn's albums on ECM and I had to admit in the review that the music bored the crap out of me. I find this is often my reaction when I hear a highly touted ECM record. With the distribution they get, ECM tends to dominate the year-end top 10 lists that you see in the jazz media and on the Internet, but I think that's more because of the visibility of the label than it is a reflection of the quality of the music.

[jlhoots]

"Bourgeois" is the funniest part of this thread.

It's fine (IMO) to like what you like. However when you start to state that what you like is better than what someone else likes I get annoyed.

What makes any one of us the almighty arbiter of what's better / good?

Edited January 29, 2012 by jlhoots

[JSngry]

On the other hand, why would you want to like something you thought wasn't at least as good, in some form or fashion, as what you already like?

I mean, how smart is it to like something you really don't like just to be all egalitarian and shit?

And that goes both ways, up and down. I like good bad music better than I do bad good music.

As to what is good and what is bad, hell, figure it out for yourself and then own it.

Just know that other people will be doing the same thing, and if they are wrong (and most of them are), they're wrong for/in your world, not necessarily the world.

And if you don't have the good sense to know that your world itself may not work for the world, then jeez, get the fuck over yourself, ya' know? The world is a jumbo mega-mashup composite of a big bunch of your worlds, and as such, shit get funky sometime.

God bless that resultant funk, for that is How Things Should Be (and don't argue, because that is The Truth ).

To thine own self be true, and all that. It ain't exactly new, that thought...

Edited January 29, 2012 by JSngry

[A Lark Ascending]

On the other hand, why would you want to like something you thought wasn't at least as good, in some form or fashion, as what you already like?

I mean, how smart is it to like something you really don't like just to be all egalitarian and shit?

Your misrepresenting the point being made. No-one is suggesting that anyone should like anything they don't think is very good. I'm not suggesting that music should not be questioned or criticised - just that blanket put downs or the deliberately provocative 'ECM is poison' or 'Sonny Stitt was rubbish' type posts do nothing but inflame; and disregard the fact that each listener is processing music from a very different direction and context.

It comes across like this to me:

X, Y or Z are rubbish because...

Implicit in that is that those who enjoy X, X or Z are unable to distinguish rubbish from quality.

Also implicit is that I am terribly clever because I can distinguish rubbish from quality.

Ultimately it reads as an exercise in vanity.

Why the need for the egotistical 'I know the true path', the hyperbole, the venom of dislike? Only because that's what we've been used to - it's the journalistic and critical confrontational approach that sells papers.

In the end 'ECM is poison' and 'Clean Feed are marvellous' is not that far from 'Zepp rool, Sabbath are crap'.

****************

Edited January 29, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[A Lark Ascending]

Yeah, my main criticism is that the market ECM seems to be aiming towards is very middle brow, one might say somewhat conservative as far as tastes go.

Are you saying that ECM are too middle brow for a high brow like yourself?

Middle brow, like bourgeois, is another picked off the shelf pejorative.

You also seem to have bought into the Whig interpretation of musical history - a straight line where musicians are required to put their shoulder to the wheel of forging the future or be ticked off for their conservatism. I like to think that there are many more options. I want the option of listening to 'Boustrophedon' AND listening to a Criss Cross or Venus or Woodville album.

ECM is 'different'; the music on that label is extremely varied; there is an overall feel to the label, sound, approach though there are disks there which don't really fit the house style. That house approach will not appeal to everyone, especially those wedded to an 'American jazz tradition' that might be traced from Armstrong to Braxton (yes, an oversimplification I know).

But it can co-exist with that tradition with absolutely no damage done.

Edited January 29, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

X, Y or Z are rubbish because...

Implicit in that is that those who enjoy X, X or Z are unable to distinguish rubbish from quality.

Also implicit is that I am terribly clever because I can distinguish rubbish from quality.

Well, if you can't distinguish rubbish from quality, that's quite one thing, pretty much a character flaw, maybe even a sign of some kind of mental shortcoming. So, yeah, distinguishing rubbish from quality is a sign of at least some clerness (or as we yokels like to call it "good sense").

But the ability to embrace quality rubbish and disdain rubbishy quality, now that, that is professionalism in action.

In a world full of amateurs, professionalism is like a glass of fresh-brewed iced tea on a hot summer day - a reason to both stop and relax, and to invigorate for further doings.

None of which involve whining. Caffeine don't mix with whine. ENERGY mixes with caffiene!

So have a glass, reinvigorate, and get to know yourself, who you are, who you aren't, and just fuck everybody who thinks you're wrong (unless, of course, they're right, in which case, learn from them and THEN fuck 'em).

Just don't be drinking cold caffeine and listening to ECM. That's a recipe for disorientation if ever there was one, not unlike dropping acid and wearing a straightjacket.

[A Lark Ascending]

Well, if you can't distinguish rubbish from quality, that's quite one thing, pretty much a character flaw, maybe even a sign of some kind of mental shortcoming.

Is there a clear dividing line between rubbish and quality? In some cases yes - the cheaply made household item that falls apart a few hours after buying it deserves castigating as rubbish; the inexperienced or badly rehearsed or commercial cash-in act that attempt a performance they are not up to deserve dismissal.

But what often happens here is that something that is not rubbish is projected as rubbish. ECM is not to the taste of many; but deciding that it is bourgeois, middle brow, poisonous or whatever is not a clever critical stance - its the labelling of something as inferior in order to bolster an alternative outlook. And it just smacks of one-upmanship.

In a world full of amateurs, professionalism is like a glass of fresh-brewed iced tea on a hot summer day

Now why would you put ice in tea? What a rubbish idea! Tea is meant to be drunk hot. That's how it is. You must not dispute me.

One of those smiley faces.

Edited January 29, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

Is there a clear dividing line between rubbish and quality?

In every individual's world, there had better be! Stand for nothing and fall for anything, etc.

So it behooves you to understand that one man's war on the bourgeois, is in their world, a war to keep that particular wrongness away, just as those who fight the war to keep the Claimer Of Bourgeois in check or on the outs do so for the exact motivation - to keep something out of their world they find wrong and unacceptable.

It's a pretty funny, really. Everybody being right and everybody being wrong. My suggestion? A tall glass of ice tea, made on the spot.

This is the best there is, I would think. Look at the size of those pellets and the non-English of the language!

World peace in a bottle, right here!

[A Lark Ascending]

So it behooves you to understand that one man's war on the bourgeois, is in their world, a war to keep that particular wrongness away, just as those who fight the war to keep the Claimer Of Bourgeois in check or on the outs do so for the exact motivation - to keep something out of their world they find wrong and unacceptable.

I'm still a bit unclear as to who these bourgeois are and what they've done wrong.

I don't know what it's like in the States, but in Europe listening to alternative, challenging or however you want to describe it music has always been an activity pursued by the self-improving middle class or the aristocracy who own it by birthright.

The bulk of the population are hardly queuing up to change the world by listening to free jazz. They're dancing to the latest sounds, enjoying old Abba records, just getting pleasure from music and not giving its 'importance' or 'quality' a second thought.

Which is how it should be; different music and different ways of absorbing it can co-exist without any damage being done. You'll convince people that they need to listen to what inspires you by enthusing about what inspires you; not by bashing what others choose to listen to.

Edited January 29, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

I'm still a bit unclear as to who these bourgeois are and what they've done wrong.

Does it really matter? If it's a fool's battle, then leave it to the fools.

[A Lark Ascending]

I'm still a bit unclear as to who these bourgeois are and what they've done wrong.

Does it really matter? If it's a fool's battle, then leave it to the fools.

Does it matter?

Only in the sense that there's a great pleasure to be had in discussing music as well as listening to it.

For me, at least, that pleasure is greatly diminished when it degenerates into 'You shouldn't be listening to that, you should be listening to this' (thank you, Harry Enfield again).

[JSngry]

But that's not discussing music. That's discussing the merits of a syllabus or some such.

[JSngry]

Let me out it this way - I actually agree with a fair part of the stuff about the narcissism and bourgeois tendencies of a lot of this stuff, how it's as much about certainty of product as it is anything, but...that's not music, that's, for want of a better word, "sociology".

[A Lark Ascending]

But that's not discussing music. That's discussing the merits of a syllabus or some such.

Well there are many ways of discussing music. Some can bring to bear technical knowledge, performing experience; others (like myself) just a lifetime (however long or short) of listening and enjoying. The fact that we come to a place like this again and again suggests a need to communicate how the music is affecting us, regardless of our differing experiences of it.

I suspect I've been plaguing a few boards like this for about ten years now. I don't think anyone has ever made me stop listening to something I've previously enjoyed (I still love my 70s Prog-Rock records!); but I've found the positive discussion incredibly enriching, helping me cross boundaries I might otherwise not have done - Scandinavian folk music, the funkier/blusier end of American jazz (the 'grease' side!), Brazilian music, African music, pre-Bebop jazz, inching further into freer jazz than my more limited previous experience. That all came from posters who said 'I like this and you might like it too'.

Let me out it this way - I actually agree with a fair part of the stuff about the narcissism and bourgeois tendencies of a lot of this stuff, how it's as much about certainty of product as it is anything, but...that's not music, that's, for want of a better word, "sociology".

There's nothing more narcissistic and bourgeois/aristocratic than 'Art for Art's Sake'. 'I'm following my muse and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.'

ECM, Criss Cross, Emanem, Nessa - they're all being predominately consumed by the upper/middle classes. Using class to dismiss one type of niche music against another doesn't work.

In the end 'fitness for purpose' is a better measure. If a musician is setting out to challenge, kick over the traces, assemble something in a completely unique way then judge it on how successfully it does that. If a musician wants to make a great party record then judge it on its success in getting people on the dance floor.

'Boustrophedon' should be judged (if you feel the need to judge) on the former criteria. No point in judging it on the latter (unless you go to some rather unusual parties).

The same holds true of a Tord Gustavsen (who I don't much care for) or an Eric Alexander (who I do) record. Evaluate them based on what they are setting out to do, not based on what you think they ought to be doing.

Edited January 29, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JETman]

Let me out it this way - I actually agree with a fair part of the stuff about the narcissism and bourgeois tendencies of a lot of this stuff, how it's as much about certainty of product as it is anything, but...that's not music, that's, for want of a better word, "sociology".

On that note, I'm certain that most of the ESP catalogue sucks, and that many of all y'all pretend to like it (could it ever possibly be likable, after all?) because it's cool to be different. Ya know?

[Leeway]

Let me out it this way - I actually agree with a fair part of the stuff about the narcissism and bourgeois tendencies of a lot of this stuff, how it's as much about certainty of product as it is anything, but...that's not music, that's, for want of a better word, "sociology".

On that note, I'm certain that most of the ESP catalogue sucks, and that many of all y'all pretend to like it (could it ever possibly be likable, after all?) because it's cool to be different. Ya know?

That's rubbish dude. You mean we only pretend to like: Albert Ayler, Marion Brown, Noah Howard, Ran Blake, Sun Ra, Milford Graves, Frank Wright, Charles Tyler, Sonny Simmons, and on. When you say, "I'm certain that most of the ESP catalogue sucks...", it sounds to me like you haven't actually listened to any of this music. Go listen, then discuss.