Cecil Taylor RIP

[paul secor]

Thanks for posting that, uli. Good article - and in the NY Review of Books, of all places.

Edited May 17, 2018 by paul secor

[mjazzg]

10 hours ago, uli said:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/05/16/the-world-of-cecil-taylor/

That was a great read,thanks for posting

[brownie]

A very insightful exploration of the monumental world of CT.

Thanks for passing this along.

 

[mjazzg]

Also, the linked duet with Pauline Oliveros is something very special

[Steve Reynolds]

Thanks for posting that Uli:)

I’ll be seeing a few of our heroes next week. I’ll be sure to say hello to Hamid & Kidd for you:)

[uli]

yeah do that. of course i see Hamid once in a while in town but Kidd at best whe he is here for an afterfest jam. hope he will be here this year too.

Go Celts!

[sidewinder]

Amazingly good article.

[king ubu]

Spread reading over two days .... excellent article indeed.

One tiny gaffe that is weird as it seems the research and/or fact checking was done thoroughly: Taylor's contribution to "Into the Hot" can't be considered "big band".

[JSngry]

I was struck by how it's the first really "modern" article that I've read about CT (the personal details, etc. most/all of which were known to most, but not put in print to the best of my knowledge), yet the recordings referenced were mostly older/earlier.

But yes, excellent read.

Now tell me, what's this about the broken wrists? Sunny Murray references this on the interview on his ESP reissue, claims it was gangsters, and now mentioned here, but other than that...is this common knowledge that I've just managed to not get all these years?

[paul secor]

I was surprised by the mention of Cecil possibly playing in Miles' band. Can't imagine those two butting heads. It would probably have taken less than half an hour of rehearsal before Miles fired Cecil or Cecil quit.

[JSngry]

yeah, that was a surprise too, wonder how real that was...Miles in his 62(?) BFT talked some serious smack about CT, called him "old fashioned" and said that the critics were "drinking too much coffee".

[Clunky]

On 17/05/2018 at 3:43 PM, mjazzg said:

Also, the linked duet with Pauline Oliveros is something very special

They also have a very interesting Mary Halvorson set which is well worth hearing. Beautifully recorded and HQ video.

[paul secor]

9 hours ago, JSngry said:

yeah, that was a surprise too, wonder how real that was...Miles in his 62(?) BFT talked some serious smack about CT, called him "old fashioned" and said that the critics were "drinking too much coffee".

The Blindfold Test in Down Beat was published in 1964, but you got the rest right.
Miles put down almost everyone he heard during that blindfold test - Cecil, Eric Dolphy, Sonny with Cherry, Money Jungle. The one exception was Getz/Gilberto. He probably admired that one because Getz got a hit record out of it.

[danasgoodstuff]

2 minutes ago, paul secor said:

The Blindfold Test in Down Beat was published in 1964, but you got the rest right.
Miles put down almost everyone he heard during that blindfold test - Cecil, Eric Dolphy, Sonny with Cherry, Money Jungle. The one exception was Getz/Gilberto. He probably admired that one because Getz got a hit record out of it.

...or because genuinely admired Getz - this isn't the only time he praised his playing.  Miles certainly had no obligation to get CT or anyone else who was a different wavelength than he.  That he got Trane and Tony early is more than enuff.

[Mark Stryker]

I enjoyed the piece, especially for the personal details and insights into Cecil's personality, but the bit about Miles nearly hiring Cecil but going with Herbie instead is unmitigated bullshit. When I read that, I sent Shatz a message on Twitter asking what his source was for that information and he wrote back: "William Parker." Now, the only way Parker would have known that is if Cecil had told him, and we know Cecil was not always a reliable narrator. It all has the ring of mythology on the part of Cecil and his defenders.

I'm a fan too, but truth and history matters, especially around figures like Cecil who have spent their lives, and indeed cultivated, a scrim of mystery and ambiguity. Keep in mind that no one else has ever reported or said this, it contradicts spirit and substance of everything Miles and CT have ever said and the music they've made, and it makes absolutely no sense in terms of Miles aesthetic and repertoire in 1963 and what he wanted/expected from his rhythm section and piano in particular. I mean the whole idea is totally ludicrous. (The story, by the way, says the hiring nearly happened in '64, but of course Herbie joined in '63.)

I have generally liked Shatz's work, but it is unconscionable for a journalist or critic to take the word of a single biased source on a matter that is clearly contentious and counter-intuitive and easily checked and then drop casually into an in-depth piece as if it obviously was true with no hint of the larger contex -- especially in an august forum like the the NYRB. Shatz's editor is at fault too, but in a case like this, it's unlikely the editor would know more about the subject than the writer, so it's primarily the Shatz's responsiblity. When I pointed some of this out, Shatz replied, " I hear you. I raised my eyebrow too. We will never know."

Again: bullshit. That's akin to a politician making a clearly counterfactual statement based on a "source" and then when objections are raised saying "We'll never know the truth in these muddy waters."

I don't mean to obsess over one detail in a 3,500 word essay, but this is representative of a real problem in jazz writing that is still with us, even as standards of scholarship have risen in the last 25 years

 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Mark Stryker

[JSngry]

I'd still like to hear more about the broken wrists.

[paul secor]

5 minutes ago, Mark Stryker said:

I enjoyed the piece, especially for the personal details and insights into Cecil's personality, but the bit about Miles nearly hiring Cecil but going with Herbie instead is unmitigated bullshit. When I read that, I sent Shantz a message on Twitter asking what his source was for that information and he wrote back: "William Parker." Now, the only way Parker would have known that is if Cecil had told him, and we know Cecil was not always a reliable narrator. It all has the ring of mythology on the part of Cecil and his defenders.

I'm a fan too, but truth and history matters, especially around figures like Cecil who have spent their lives, and indeed cultivated, a scrim of mystery and ambiguity. Keep in mind that no one else has ever reported or said this, it contradicts spirit and substance of everything Miles and CT have ever said and the music they've made, and it makes absolutely no sense in terms of Miles aesthetic and repertoire in 1963 and what he wanted/expected from his rhythm section and piano in particular. I mean the whole idea is totally ludicrous. (The story, by the way, says the hiring nearly happened in '64, but of course Herbie joined in '63.)

I have generally liked Shantz's work, but it is unconscionable for a journalist or critic to take the word of a single biased source on a matter that is clearly contentious and counter-intuitive and easily checked and then drop casually into an in-depth piece as if it obviously was true with no hint of the larger context. Shantz's editor is at fault too, but in a case like this, it's unlikely the editor would know more about the subject than the writer,, so it's primarily the Shantz's responsiblity When I pointed some of this out, Shantz replied, " I hear you. I raised my eyebrow too. We will never know."

Again: bullshit. That's akin to a politician making a clearly counterfactual statement based on a "source" and then when objections are raised saying "We'll never know the truth in these muddy waters."

I don't mean to obsess over one detail in a 3,500 word essay, but this is representative of a real problem in jazz writing that is still with us, even as standards of scholarship have risen in the last 25 years

 

When I read the Miles anecdote, I took it as interesting, perhaps somewhat amusing to consider. I can't see the point in getting worked up about it. The article was more interesting than probably 95% of the "jazz scholarship" I've read over the years. (I should mention that, for me at least, the true jazz scholars are the musicians, not journalists writing about the music. Hope that doesn't ruffle any feathers.)

[Mark Stryker]

6 minutes ago, paul secor said:

When I read the Miles anecdote, I took it as interesting, perhaps somewhat amusing to consider. I can't see the point in getting worked up about it. The article was more interesting than probably 95% of the "jazz scholarship" I've read over the years. (I should mention that, for me at least, the true jazz scholars are the musicians, not journalists writing about the music. Hope that doesn't ruffle any feathers.)

I get worked up because facts matter, and too much of what is received wisdom about jazz history is nothing more than mythology. It skews the history. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Mark Stryker

[Mark Stryker]

24 minutes ago, Mark Stryker said:

I get worked up because facts matter, and too much of what is received wisdom about jazz history is nothing more than mythology. It skews the history. 

Coda: Anyone who has done any historical research knows that musicians -- while being among the most valuable sources for lots of information (or the most valuable for some information) -- are unreliable on all kinds of topics like names and dates, chronology and motivations and others. They are also often blinded by their own aesthetic prejudices. In this they are no different from any other artists in any other field, and none of this should be taken as an excuse not give the musicians primacy in the telling of their own stories. (In fact, the blind spots can be self-revealing.)  It is to say, however, that the responsibility of historians, journalists and critics is due diligence, fact checking, weighing of sources and transparency. I agree that the Shatz's piece was more interesting and insightful than lots of jazz scholarship, and I  don't mean to suggest that the presence of this one particular issue invalidates the rest of the piece. But it does make me more skeptical about a lot of other things in the story -- from the "broken wrist" anecdote to the "burgler-turned-into-lover" story, since neither is really sourced and details as presented are sketchy,.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Mark Stryker

[paul secor]

Facts and mythology. As time goes on, who knows the difference?

Reminds me of a Goodreads review I wrote on Michael Ondaatje's Coming Through Slaughter:

"Thinking about this book, I remembered a line that's spoken near the end of the film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". Donald M. Marquis, in his book In Search of Buddy Bolden ,https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3..., put together probably as many facts about the legendary New Orleans musician as we'll ever come to know. Michael Ondaatje, in this novel about Buddy Bolden (which was written before Marquis' book was published) has written a haunt "Thinking about this book, I remembered a line that's spoken near the end of the film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". Donald M. Marquis, in his book In Search of Buddy Bolden ,https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3..., put together probably as many facts about the legendary New Orleans musician as we'll ever come to know. Michael Ondaatje, in this novel about Buddy Bolden (which was written before Marquis' book was published) has written a haunting dreamlike version of the Buddy Bolden myth. Donald Marquis has given us the facts. Michael Ondaatje has given us the legend. In their own way, each has given us the truth."

Edited May 19, 2018 by paul secor

[Simon Weil]

1 hour ago, Mark Stryker said:

bit about Miles nearly hiring Cecil but going with Herbie instead is unmitigated bullshit. When I read that, I sent Shatz a message on Twitter asking what his source was for that information and he wrote back: "William Parker." Now, the only way Parker would have known that is if Cecil had told him, and we know Cecil was not always a reliable narrator. It all has the ring of mythology on the part of Cecil and his defenders.

To me, it has the ring of a journalist being confronted with a piece of information - which may be true or not -  that he knows will "grab" readers and who is unable to resist the temptation to put it out there. Which doesn't contradict your take....

[jlhoots]

History - the lies the victors tell.

[clifford_thornton]

I think Cecil was pulling William's leg. A lot of these guys love a good yarn. I have heard the broken wrists story before, not just from Sunny.

[paul secor]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:04 AM, king ubu said:

Spread reading over two days .... excellent article indeed.

One tiny gaffe that is weird as it seems the research and/or fact checking was done thoroughly: Taylor's contribution to "Into the Hot" can't be considered "big band".

You're correct, of course - only 5 or 7 musicians in the two Cecil groups. However, when I listen, it somehow sounds like the groups are larger than they are. Perhaps that's because there's so much going on.

[David Ayers]

14 hours ago, paul secor said:

You're correct, of course - only 5 or 7 musicians in the two Cecil groups. However, when I listen, it somehow sounds like the groups are larger than they are. Perhaps that's because there's so much going on.

The one time I heard CT was at a 1987 concert in Rome which was part of the tour documented on Leo records Bologna and Vienna volumes. Now I know that group had just five musicians, but memory seems to tell me 8 or 11...

 

edited to add: I just looked at the William Parker sessionography and this gig is not listed alongside Bologna and others. So I’m suddenly not sure what I heard...

Edited May 20, 2018 by David Ayers