 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-24 21:41
Ha! That's fantastic! Critics are like cops, you spend so much time resenting them once you're next to 'em you're all smiles until it's over! And they never seem to know what's good until it's safe to say so. Critics like that exist today: I had the pleasure/disapointment of meeting Stanley Crouch when he spoke at the University of Michigan. Stanley Crouch is a very popular writer who is co-director of the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchastra, he works closely with Wynton Marsalis and they seem to share an arrogance that's infuriating. They celebrate the beauty and brilliance of classic jazz that has withstood time and is now appreciated and loved almost universaly by musicains. Composers like Monk and Ellington should be heard and studied- but Marsalis and Crouch have been cruel and foolish in the way they insult artists and movements that don't wear a stamp of approval by history yet. I ask Crouch if he was planning on having some contemporary sounds in his program, he told me "no they have their place elsewhere." His program-because it is well assembled and beatifully executed, receives a great deal of the grant money that used to go to musicians pushing the limits of their art forms. But haven't we learned that we need to support living inavators? Ellington, even near his death, wasn't making enough to live a decent lifestyle (according to The Real Frank Zappa Book). Crouch, ironically, used be an avant guard drummer. But now he's on a band wagon singing the praises of a dead composer that everyone adores already.
In addition, both of these men, Marsalis and Crouch, have been heard speaking derogatorily about hip-hop culture. Crouch told me rap was just some play ground songs kids do in school-nothing real. He said those guys don't know anything about music. Marsalis says similar bull. These guys are going to have to eat thier words someday because this music is taking off with or without the approval of conservatives live them. I think it's unfortunate that they pose as such role models, when they encourage the type of arrogance and IGNORANCE that will allow our ears and hearts to miss musical revolutions as powerful as be-bop, or Mozart, or serialism.
Lastly, Marsalis has been qouted (in the book Ascension) to say that Coltrane's later, freer music was "nuthing." If Marsalis doesn't hear it, that's his defficiency, but he has no right to insult Coltrane, who brought our world messages of love and peace- what has he really done?
So I believe that we need to keep our ears perked for the next thing, the new movements in art. If we're occupied with digging up the past, how will we ever embrace a truly present experience in music?
Thanks for the responses!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-05-25 00:17
There's a good number of us who don't consider rap as music, just as we may not consider poetry music. Doesn't mean that some of it isn't good - just depends on your point of view.
I've talked to Wynton up at Interlochen, did not find him "arrogant", but opinionated. Big difference. He's not saying his is the best music, only what he feels. I personally think Coltrane's (and Miles davis's) later works were total experimental music, much of it trashable - but, it's only my opinion. I could be wrong - but so what? I won't buy music I don't like, and if the composer can't make a living (because not enough of us like it) - that's life. I won't listen long even on the radio to music I don't like, and if the composer can't make a living (because not enough of us like it) - that's life, too. I don't buy music to support composers (or record producers) - I buy it because I like it. A couple of NEA grants for experimental music to a composer is fine - but after that, if they can't get public support - please, no more of my tax dollars! Yes, I think Prarie Home Companion should be paying its own way at this point ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robin
Date: 1999-05-25 13:54
Several people have already mentioned the role that economics plays in the development of new music (I especially liked Dee's observation about most of the new music today being in movie soundtracks--I think you're right on the money with that).
Truth is, it's tough to get the financial support or find enough profit in your work to be a really productive composer today--outside of the aforementioned score work. Something I find encouraging (and I assume most of you are probably already aware of this), is the almost evangelical zeal with which Leonard Slatkin supports new music, specifically new American music. Slatkin, for those of you who don't know, is the director of the National Symphony here in DC, and he bends over backwards--frequently in contention with the symphony's financial supporters--to present as much new American music as possible. It makes up a significant portion of the symphony's program each year, and the symphony has premiered a number of new works in the few years that Slatkin's been in charge.
Slatkin is one of the few conductors who seems to realize the importance of nurturing new composers, and I hope he's able to convert many more.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-25 17:27
Hasn't history taught us to pay more attention to innovators, despite some initial reservations?
Benny Goodman cut on Charlie Parker, why? He didn't get it.
Almost everything good takes some getting used to, some letting go. Bebop used to be daring, now it's widely accepted. The music of later Coltrane (e.g. Ascension) was also incredibly daring. Musicians such as Albert Ayler, Roscoe Mitchell, David S. Ware, and countless others reflect this work as primary in their influences. Over thirty years of music making has deeply reflected Coltranes late work. The music wasn't any more experimental than Bach's Art of Fugue.
I think that if our music education programs were better we would see a much wider acceptance of "fringe" music. I can't pretend to have liked free jazz as soon as I heard it. But I dedicated myself to feeling and eventualy did. I felt my heart and mind expanding-it was somewhat frightening. I would like to encourage you to challenge yourself with music that is foreign and akward- you will hear things you've never heard before!
PS- If anyone would like to discuss rap music or hip hop culture please e-mail me. There so much to learn from this emerging art form!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-05-25 23:20
stuart wrote:
-------------------------------
>I would like to encourage you to challenge yourself with music that is foreign and akward- you will hear things you've never heard before!
---
I (and other) do - but it doesn't mean I like it. I dislike Schoenberg - but not all of his students sounded like him, thank goodness. The first isn't necessarily the best ....
How much shakuhachi, koto, and shamisen music have you listened to? Some of my favorites ....
Make sure you're not parochial ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim lande@erols.com
Date: 1999-05-26 04:18
I used to take my kids over to the local Jr high on Saturday nights so they could rollerskate in the Gym. The gym is huge and the zoo-keepers roll out a massive cassette player that can be heard 2 acres away and that is deafening up close. While the keepers had a broad selection of music, much of what got played was rap. Since i don't skate (imagine a nice jello mold skittering on marbles)I took to bringing my clarinet and playing along with the music. Nobody could hear me unless the stood with their nose to the bell so nobody ever complained.
I figured rap would be easy. Lots of 2 chord or 1 chord music. Well, some is like that. But some of what got played had very interesting chord structures that were not voiced as chords but rather which were implied by the voice melody and the voicing of the rhythm. One of the tunes had essentially the same structure as a popular big band piece. You would only notice if you tried to play along and were used to playing off chord progressions. Mind you, some pieces were complicated enough that I could not keep up. I never have this trouble playing along with pop unless it is in a bad key. Color me surprised. No question, some of it is first class music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-26 19:18
I LOve You Guys! It feels sooo good to know someone else hangs out and blows along with rap. I did on the phrases, the subtle rhythms, and the abstract tonalities. On a good day I try to catch the microtones. Miles Davis said his to biggest influences for phrasing were Sinatra and Orsen Welles. This brings music right next to speaking voice- a powerful and very African relationship. I've even been playing along with Bill Cosby records (just a little). The music of Prince Paul was recently discussed in the New York Times- I think his best record is De La Soul: Buhloone Mind State. It features Maceo Parker, Fred Wesley, Larry Goldings I think, and unmatched production. Have you heard this yet? Not to mention the poetry is deep-it came out in 93 and I still am catching up.
When I improvise many times I imagine the flow of notes like words and boy does that take me places. I brain storm on the hip hop culture everyday, I hope to participate more in the future. It inspires me to know you dig it, too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paul wusow
Date: 1999-05-27 03:52
I think it rather arrogant to "trash" the music of Coltrane and Miles Davis. This may be to your dismay, but these men, and many others, were far more innovative than Wynton Marsalis. Marsalis, like James Galway, is a "commercial" musician. (More talented than his brother, though...) There is nothing wrong with his style of playing, as I too do a great deal of non-classical and commercial work. It is obvious from his comments that he does not understand the music of Davis and Coltrane...Perhaps he is not the same "genius" that these men were...
I do find it upsetting that you even compare him to Davis and Coltrane. Really Mark, that's like comparing Lloyd Webber to Beethoven or Mozart. OUCH!
And yes, Marsalis is arrogant! I have worked with him twice, and I can tell you stories... I know someone who toured with him too... he is a very "high" maintenance child!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-05-27 20:22
paul wusow wrote:
-------------------------------
I think it rather arrogant to "trash" the music of Coltrane and Miles Davis.
--------
No, not arrogant. It's my opinion, stated as such. I'm no music scholar. Bitch's Brew was the last album I enjoyed from Miles Davis.
--------
This may be to your dismay, but these men, and many others, were far more innovative than Wynton Marsalis.
--------
No argument from me. I'm not in any way standing up for Marsalis.
----------
It is obvious from his comments that he does not understand the music of Davis and Coltrane...Perhaps he is not the same "genius" that these men were...
----------
It's possible. And it could also be possible that he just doesn't like their music at all.
----------
I do find it upsetting that you even compare him to Davis and Coltrane. Really Mark, that's like comparing Lloyd Webber to Beethoven or Mozart. OUCH!
----------
You must have read some other posting, not mine. I didn't do any such thing.
----------
And yes, Marsalis is arrogant! I have worked with him twice, and I can tell you stories... I know someone who toured with him too... he is a very "high" maintenance child!
----------
Well, he wasn't to me. That's all I can say. Maybe he was having a good day ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-27 23:14
What gets me about both Marsalis and Stanley Crouch is that they love to make great points. Things that make you chuckle and smile inside. Things that teach you like the wonderful NPR programs Marsalis did on Ellington and Monk.
I never forget how he discussed the relationship between blue notes on a horn, and clustered notes on the piano. He really opened my mind to a lot of key ideas in BeBop and Swing.
Then he turns around and insults stuff he simply doesn't get. I wish he would just refuse to comment but that's not the case. If anyone's read Miles Davis' biography they'll see that Marsalis lacks the respect of man who should be his hero (in certain ways).
There is a whole generation of jazz elders from the 60's that has been overshadowed by the hype and glitz of the Marsalis family in double breasted suits. While they enjoy reasonable popularity (more so in Europe and Japan), I have heard directly from the artists themselves that this neo-classical jazz is hurting the careers of true inovators. Could it be a coincidence that everyone I know who appreciates free jazz loves the classics of Bird and Monk and Ellington and all the others but doesn't really mention Marsalis at all? I think that once you really hear, I mean HEAR, a live performance by Roscoe Mitchell, you'll see what I mean.
Why can't we as the audience experience a music as fresh and exciting as Monk's audiences? Maybe if it was Dave Douglas we would. Or Ellery Eskelin. These are incredible instrumentalists who maintain the tradition BY extending it.
Lastly, as clarinetists, we have a harder time in jazz than a sax player. I would like to know why guys think this is so. In a jazz educators canon lies the works of few clarinetist, none who could compare to their comtemporaries on the saxophone. If we are going to begin restating our woody, square-tone voices in the world we must do so into the future- not a past where the clarinet was arguably peripheral. pardon the soap box. johnny dodds rules. eddie daniels scares me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-05-28 01:36
paul wusow wrote:
-------------------------------
... I do find it upsetting that you even compare him to Davis and Coltrane. Really Mark, that's like comparing Lloyd Webber to Beethoven or Mozart. OUCH!
-------------------------------
Personally I think there is chance that someday Andrew Lloyd Webber may be compared to Beethovan or Mozart. He has taken modern musical idioms and created some truly amazing works.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 1999-05-28 18:57
Art is like nature. At any given point of time, many new shoots come up and try to grow. Some live; some die; the best endure and become "classics" like, for instance, classic rocks.
We are exposed everyday to a flurry of new artistic things. Most of it is ** extremely ** bad and will not survive. A small number will last forever and will still be enjoyed in 100 years. This is true for all art forms, and for all individual schools within these arts forms. It is true for technology, for ideas, for concepts, for fads and fashion.
Progress (like evolution) is actually build on the corpse of counteless dead things that just did not make it.
Mozart was a giant and survived. Many other composers of his days left nothing worth talking about and they have long been forgotten. When we look at the past, we enjoy the results of decades of aethetic/cultural filtering and only the best is still present in front of us. When we look at the present, everything is there and we need to sort-out ourselves the gems amongst the coals.
Guys like Marsallis are basically intellectual coward. They let "time" make the choice. They do not take risks and offer personal choices on the potential of new growths. They are curators of Museums, not harbinger of things to come. "Where you stand depend on where you sit." As museum guys, do not expect creativity - that's not what they were recruted and paid for. But they are needed to consolidate and stabilize an extremely valuable perspective on past accomplishenents. They are useless to shape the future.
It is is a big world out there and many perspective are needed to enjoy it fully. Nobody has a monopoly on the future. Marsalis and his friends will eventually give way to a new generation of similar-minded people who will merely repeat the approach but 20 years younger in the evolution of things. As Marshal MacLuhan once said: changes in society pulse with a 20 years period. It is because the creators eventually become the establishement, freeze things in time, get challenged by a new young generation, and finally die freeing things up for a new batch of creator/estalishment folks who move things forward 20 years and then stop again.
Typically, somebody joins the establishment in his late 30 early 40's and freezes things intellectually for about 20 years after that.
Now that we live longer though, the conservative portion of one' memberships in the establishment is becoming longer. Maybe the pulse period is also getting longer (McLuhan wrtoe his stuff 30 years ago). People in power for a long time get challenged vigorously by the next batch. For guys like Marsallis, the real combat is yet to come. They will be 60 one day but still in power. The forty something will act like barbarian at the gates and will try to push them over. This is a new dynamic in society not seen before since traditional fights for dominance between generations traditionally took place between 20 and 40 something (say, 100 years ago) and between 30 and 50 something (say, 50 years ago). With no offence intended to the younger readers here, a 40 something is incredebly more powereful than a 30 or 20 something. But a 60 something is not really that far ahead of a 40 something. So it will be a well-matched combat between two generations with financial, political, intellectual, emotional and cultural power that are similar.
This is going to be great. This is the fight of the first decade of the next millenium. This incredible creative tension between these two generations will generate a vitality and an energy not seen before in society.
All things (and certainly art) will grow immensely as a results of this. Hopefully, we will learn to manage this tension without killing each other (the historical model for the resolution of inter-generational competition for dominance).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
