After a long bout of silence on this blog, I'm finally going to commit myself to writing about some of the music that I've been into for the past two to three years. Briefly, I haven't written about films for a bit because I haven't watched any in the past few weeks. Apart from being really occupied with taking me mommy around the city (and some further regions I might add), I've also been studying for these big exams (ok BIG in my world view ... they're not like national exams or anything) affectionately called "the Comps". They're another hurdle that I need to get over (or hoop to jump through) and because it's been a while since I've had to sit down and write essays for an entire day (the exam is from 9 to 5 with an hour's lunch break ...) I've been trying to be conscientious in preparing for it. But, I guess I've jumped through enough of these exam hoops to be kinda cynical about the point of taking exams such as these so I've been telling myself not to kill myself over exam prep ...
Anyway, the music that I want to write about is Jazz. I know those Jazz aficionados out there who know a whole lot about the stuff would probably scoff at what I've just called it -- "Jazz". After all, no one really writes about Jazz. Unless you're writing a history of the subject, a serious writer of Jazz is going to pick from the very specific manifestations of a very varied musical movement and deal with those. Jazz after all, since it's "origins" in the blues and New Orleans Big Band has a most interesting and plural arc of development. So, short of giving a run-down about what I've discovered about Jazz and its history, I think I'll write about an album that I'vce been listening to a bit.
Hang on, before I go on. Everyone has a Jazz controversy. I think some people think that I'm snooty (or damn poseur) because I've been exploring this Jazz stuff. I guess people think that it's either obscure or unfamiliar and its strange sounds defy understanding or appreciation. Now, the tricky thing here is that I don't have specialized knowledge about the music. I can follow a few of explanations of how chords are substituted in Jazz or the varying harmonic landscapes in the different styles but I can't play the stuff. So while I claim to enjoy the music, I most certainly am an "outsider" in terms of appreciating its fine points. Another thing. Jazz has a colorful history with very interesting personalities whose careers stretch over styles and periods. It's another aspect of jazz that I enjoy and learning about this "background" to the music does go some way in helping the appreciation of it.
More on difficulties with Jazz. I think a lot of Jazz seems difficult to understand or follow because of its improvisational nature. A typical "jazz" piece starts out by stating the theme (or the melody line), what is often called the "head" then wanders off into exploring possible variations on this theme. Now I use "variations" cautiously, because unlike the strict mathematical variations of someone like Bach, the variations I'm talking about here have to do with "playing the changes", making up and creating a solo that works with the harmonic (chordal) movements of the piece. Actually this happens all the time in pop and rock music, most guitar solos actually play over the chords of the verse and lead into the big restatement of the chorus ... But the "problem" with Jazz is that this improvisation takes up the bulk of the performance. In a sense, the melody is an "excuse" to get to the improvisation. So a challenge when listening to jazz is to try to track the way the soloist is developing the improv that he's working on, even as he works it out. Now, without the firm grasp on the technicalities of the music, this DOES indeed pose a problem, even for the most intent of listeners. Therein, I think, lies the problem with jazz.
More "jazz" related thingys. Ok, this one bugs me a bit and stating it makes me sound snobbish and elitist. But since I'm already steep'd in blood. I hate it when people do the jazz thing because it appears chic. There I've said it. These would be the yuppy types who are INTO jazz because they think ALL of jazz is like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, Harry Connick Jr (who are excellent musicians) and "It's a Wonderful World" , who like the "atmosphere" of Jazz bars BUT who don't commit themselves to LISTENING to the music (they sit and bloody talk through the performance I tell you ...) or finding out more. It's not like I'm saying Jazz should be the property of a select few -- come on, there are millions of jazz lovers -- but if you want to talk through a performance do it quietly or sit in the FAR BACK. And it isn't that I'm an exclusive JazzHead. I listen to a variety of things (I'll even admit that I have the Black Eyed Peas and Gwen Stefani on my MP3 player ...) but I do believe that, like a poem by TS Eliot or a novel by James Joyce or a Pinter play, some attention and effort should be put into listening and researching about Jazz, more IS got out of the experience that way.
Ok, moving back to the music. The album I want to write briefly about is John Coltrane's "Live at the Village Vanguard". John Coltrane is one of those high priests of Jazz, and he not only participated in some of the greatest bands, he revolutionized Jazz with his amazing commitment to pushing the limits of what WAS music and his dedication to his art. I'll start at the middle of the album, with a great track, "Chasin' the Trane". It's a blues, so it's entirely improvised around the 12 bar form. What one hears is a probing music. He plays clusters of notes, then high and low notes alternating, as if in conversation with himself. There is no other harmonic support except of the bass so Coltrane is free to move in all sorts of directions. Then after about 3 minutes, he starts to probe the higher registers, with a tentative squeek, grounded by a flurry of earthy notes. Repetitions come in. He tries out a sequence, then repeats it with changes. The thing keeps moving forward, though it doesn't seem to have a place to go, almost pure intensity of movement and shifting perspectives on the saxaphone. He plays high again, sometimes the notes are barely audible, cracking into sound and they remind me of Billie Holliday's voice cracked up by years of substance abuse. He returns to the security of note clusters. And gets more rythmic, a groove develops for a while then fades into scale flurries. And in all this, he quotes from I don't know what but there's a little ditty thrown in, ironically. Another squeal then a low sqwark. Now he's screaming on the horn. The music groans and grows. How many times can the same note be played differently, how many times the patterns with subtle variation? He speaks in multiple voice. The carefree melodic high register gets admonished by the baser low tones as they try towards melody. And over all, the strange high screeching. I can't keep up with the raw strength of the sound. There's too much that is strange and wonderful.
Yeah -- so my grand ambitions to talk about a whole album have been cut short by a lack of stamina (oh the album's still playing) and my pressing exams. If you've never explored jazz, check the music out: WBGO
Anyway, the music that I want to write about is Jazz. I know those Jazz aficionados out there who know a whole lot about the stuff would probably scoff at what I've just called it -- "Jazz". After all, no one really writes about Jazz. Unless you're writing a history of the subject, a serious writer of Jazz is going to pick from the very specific manifestations of a very varied musical movement and deal with those. Jazz after all, since it's "origins" in the blues and New Orleans Big Band has a most interesting and plural arc of development. So, short of giving a run-down about what I've discovered about Jazz and its history, I think I'll write about an album that I'vce been listening to a bit.
Hang on, before I go on. Everyone has a Jazz controversy. I think some people think that I'm snooty (or damn poseur) because I've been exploring this Jazz stuff. I guess people think that it's either obscure or unfamiliar and its strange sounds defy understanding or appreciation. Now, the tricky thing here is that I don't have specialized knowledge about the music. I can follow a few of explanations of how chords are substituted in Jazz or the varying harmonic landscapes in the different styles but I can't play the stuff. So while I claim to enjoy the music, I most certainly am an "outsider" in terms of appreciating its fine points. Another thing. Jazz has a colorful history with very interesting personalities whose careers stretch over styles and periods. It's another aspect of jazz that I enjoy and learning about this "background" to the music does go some way in helping the appreciation of it.
More on difficulties with Jazz. I think a lot of Jazz seems difficult to understand or follow because of its improvisational nature. A typical "jazz" piece starts out by stating the theme (or the melody line), what is often called the "head" then wanders off into exploring possible variations on this theme. Now I use "variations" cautiously, because unlike the strict mathematical variations of someone like Bach, the variations I'm talking about here have to do with "playing the changes", making up and creating a solo that works with the harmonic (chordal) movements of the piece. Actually this happens all the time in pop and rock music, most guitar solos actually play over the chords of the verse and lead into the big restatement of the chorus ... But the "problem" with Jazz is that this improvisation takes up the bulk of the performance. In a sense, the melody is an "excuse" to get to the improvisation. So a challenge when listening to jazz is to try to track the way the soloist is developing the improv that he's working on, even as he works it out. Now, without the firm grasp on the technicalities of the music, this DOES indeed pose a problem, even for the most intent of listeners. Therein, I think, lies the problem with jazz.
More "jazz" related thingys. Ok, this one bugs me a bit and stating it makes me sound snobbish and elitist. But since I'm already steep'd in blood. I hate it when people do the jazz thing because it appears chic. There I've said it. These would be the yuppy types who are INTO jazz because they think ALL of jazz is like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, Harry Connick Jr (who are excellent musicians) and "It's a Wonderful World" , who like the "atmosphere" of Jazz bars BUT who don't commit themselves to LISTENING to the music (they sit and bloody talk through the performance I tell you ...) or finding out more. It's not like I'm saying Jazz should be the property of a select few -- come on, there are millions of jazz lovers -- but if you want to talk through a performance do it quietly or sit in the FAR BACK. And it isn't that I'm an exclusive JazzHead. I listen to a variety of things (I'll even admit that I have the Black Eyed Peas and Gwen Stefani on my MP3 player ...) but I do believe that, like a poem by TS Eliot or a novel by James Joyce or a Pinter play, some attention and effort should be put into listening and researching about Jazz, more IS got out of the experience that way.
Ok, moving back to the music. The album I want to write briefly about is John Coltrane's "Live at the Village Vanguard". John Coltrane is one of those high priests of Jazz, and he not only participated in some of the greatest bands, he revolutionized Jazz with his amazing commitment to pushing the limits of what WAS music and his dedication to his art. I'll start at the middle of the album, with a great track, "Chasin' the Trane". It's a blues, so it's entirely improvised around the 12 bar form. What one hears is a probing music. He plays clusters of notes, then high and low notes alternating, as if in conversation with himself. There is no other harmonic support except of the bass so Coltrane is free to move in all sorts of directions. Then after about 3 minutes, he starts to probe the higher registers, with a tentative squeek, grounded by a flurry of earthy notes. Repetitions come in. He tries out a sequence, then repeats it with changes. The thing keeps moving forward, though it doesn't seem to have a place to go, almost pure intensity of movement and shifting perspectives on the saxaphone. He plays high again, sometimes the notes are barely audible, cracking into sound and they remind me of Billie Holliday's voice cracked up by years of substance abuse. He returns to the security of note clusters. And gets more rythmic, a groove develops for a while then fades into scale flurries. And in all this, he quotes from I don't know what but there's a little ditty thrown in, ironically. Another squeal then a low sqwark. Now he's screaming on the horn. The music groans and grows. How many times can the same note be played differently, how many times the patterns with subtle variation? He speaks in multiple voice. The carefree melodic high register gets admonished by the baser low tones as they try towards melody. And over all, the strange high screeching. I can't keep up with the raw strength of the sound. There's too much that is strange and wonderful.
Yeah -- so my grand ambitions to talk about a whole album have been cut short by a lack of stamina (oh the album's still playing) and my pressing exams. If you've never explored jazz, check the music out: WBGO
