duke ellington :: the hot bach

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Listen, nobody is insinuating that Duke was anybody's "boy.". But it was a different time. He certainly wanted a wider audience and certainly wanted to appeal to a whiter audience and certainly did what he had to to "get over." I'm not being critical. I admire all he and Satchmo did to bring the music and culture where they did. But these are not those times. Bebop is as much a reaction against the subservient status as anything. They weren't taking requests.

henry;

i actually woke up in the middle of the night thinking about this, and it really bothered me. it wouldn't have bothered me so much if it didn't come from a college jazz instructor, but i think it needs to be addressed.

first, in another post, you said "jazz is more than duke."

a very common sentiment these days.

but isn't that a little bit like saying "baroque is more than bach?"

if you go into the jazz section at any average record store, say, for instance, borders, barnes and noble, etc... you will find tons of harry connick jr., tons of diana krall, tons of norah jones, chris botti, etc. etc... you will also find large stocks of wynton, miles, ella, billie holiday, etc. etc...

but, i am always amazed when i check out the duke ellington bin... there are invariably 4 or 5 copies of two releases... the ken burns jazz release and "ellington masterpieces."

this is out of all proportion. i mean, if you went to a baroque section, and there were two bach releases among 4 or 5 thousand selections, would you really be getting a true picture of baroque music?

i was recently looking at the book "duke ellington's music" which has in depth studies of 7 or 8 compositions. as an appendix, it lists all of duke's copyrighted works... there are close to 1100... which i thought was pretty amazing... until i realized that this encompassed the period from 1924 to 1945!!!

in other words, this was less than HALF of his total output!

it is safe to say that no one can write a decent fugue without studying bach, but i would go on to say there has never been a man who played ANYTHING in jazz worth listening to who wasn't steeped in duke ellingon's music.

and this is proven to me time and time again. once, i knew i was going to hang w. joe zawinul for a day. since i knew he had a reputation for being hard to get along w., and since i knew he was an ellington lover, i loaded up my cd player w. duke's music.. this was about 10-15 yrs ago, and i had just started getting into duke in a scholarly way.

you don't really think of weather report as being indebted to duke ellington, but when i talked w. zawinul, i realized it was... zawinul spoke of playing for duke ellington like liszt spoke of playing for beethoven... like a muslim speaking of making the hajj.. in other words, to zawinul, the ellington imprimatur was all.

when we were listening to various ellington recordings, it was clear that zawinul was a VERY DEEP student of ellington... he knew all the members of the band, by sound... he could tell whether it was sam woodyard or sonny greer... whether ben webster was playing in the section or not... who was playing bass, etc. etc...

of course, we know that weather report recorded "rockin' in rhythm" but the relationship goes much deeper than that.

you say duke wanted to appeal to a "whiter audience." man, with due respect to your accomplishments, i actually feel sorry, in a way, for the kids you are teaching jazz to. if you have that attitude, you are not passing on the straight dope.

consider what miles davis, the prototypical non-grinner, said about his own music... he said of his birth of the cool sessions w. gil evans that he was just trying to "whiten up" what ellington and strayhorn had already done.

imagine this! miles davis saw himself as "whitening" duke ellington, yet you say that it was ellington that was "whitening" himself!

duke ellington was a student of black history and black music, and from the earliest days incorporated all of this into his work. as zawinul told me, no composer, not mozart, not beethoven, not anyone, was able to get the spirit and sound of his people into his music like ellington.

this is reflected not just in the titles of his music "black beauty," "black brown and beige", "my people" "harlem" "new world a comin'" or the fact that he wrote probably the first civil rights oriented musical, "jump for joy" (which premiered in the 40's, starred dorothy dandridge and drew tons of hate mail from the south) but in the fact that his music is an encycolpedia of the techniques of black american music.

in this way, he is TRULY like bach. bach's music is an encyclopedia of all the polyphonic and rhythmic techniques that existed up to his time. you don't really have to listen to all of the various german organ composers of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, because everything they were doing was taken up by, refined, and amplified, in the music of bach. if you listen to bach, you will understand almost everything about german music of his time.

the word "bach" is translated "stream" and yet, bach is in fact the reservoir from which all later composers, no matter how great, flow from...

in the same way, ellington, who's career parallels the jazz era itself, incorporates all of negro music from the late 19th and early 20th centuries... blues, stride, swing, syncopation, as well as all the instrumental techniques we associate w. jazz, growls, mutes, plungers, smears, etc. etc. were, if not invented by ellington, absorbed, perfected, and exploited by him.

when you listen to monk, what are you listening to? a student of ellington. in fact, monk's first great recording for prestige was his album of duke ellingon's music.

when you listen to gil evans, what are you listening to? a student of duke ellington.

when you listen to miles davis, what are you listening to? a student of duke ellington.

when you listen to musicians as diverse as josef zawinul, john medeski, wynton marsalis, what are you listening to? students of duke ellington.

and when you listen to duke ellington, what are you listening to? simply, the greatest composer america has ever produced, probably one of the handful of the pantheon of immortals of the last 500 years, someone who's accomplishments were so great they no longer belong to any one race or any one genre or any one time... they are beyond category.

now, consider this final point. js bach died in 1750 and was regarded, except by his sons and some disciples, as a very good, solid, old fashioned, prolific composer who's work had been superseded by later developments.

it wasn't until felix mendelssohn played bach's b minor mass in 1829 that the bach resurgence began and bach ascended to his rightful place at the head of the table. 80 years had passed.

now, duke ellington died in 1974... yes, as you say, his recordings are still there, so people can listen to it whenever they want... BUT, even though he has his own mendelssohn, so to speak, in wynton marsalis, it may take another 20 years before we really get the proper historical perspective on the music of the 20th century and can accord him his proper place... not just as another "jazz musician" or "big band leader" or, even more disparagingly, "entertainer grinning for white audiences..." but a true evaluation of his career...

i.e., one of the greatest composers in world history, who happened to be, not from 17th, 18th, or 19th century europe, but from 20th century america.

(ps, i commend to you the 3 part new yorker series "the hot bach" by r. boyer, which you can find in the excellent "duke ellington reader.")

[henryrobinett]

Well, well, well. All I can say is you completely misinterpreted my post. I guess you thought you read what you wanted to read.

I never said Duke whitened HIS MUSIC to appeal to a wider white audience. Duke wouldn't have been Duke had he done that.

But jazz is so much more than any single musician, no matter how great they are or were. No disrespect to Duke.

I do agree that Duke is one of the greatest of composers. I never DIDN'T say that, or did I? You failed to mention my mentor in the great cannon of Duke disciples, Charles Mingus. He wouldn't have been Charles without Duke. In many ways he was, until Wynton, the modern purveyor of Dukes music.

What my statement did do was contribute to not being clear. It kind of sounded as if I was calling Duke a "tom" in much the same way it was popular at one time, to call Satch a "tom." Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe we were talking about jazz, it's survivability, commerciality, what one needs to do to "get over", etc.. Duke never "tom-ed." But he had a band to pay and he had to work the Cotton Club and various other establishments, many of them white in days where "negros" came and went through the back door. He had to act a certain way. He had to play by the rules the white society dictated at that time.

Duke is not, for me, the ne plus ultra of all things jazz. I love him and Ben Webster and Rabbit and Gonsalves, Buber. I have half a dozen Duke sides on my iPod now. But there's a whole variety out there. Bird, Powell, Monk, Trane, Mingus, Brownie, Evans, Yusef, Brecker, Liebman, Tyner, Hubbard, Chick, Herbie, Chu Berry, Zoot, Fletcher, Getz, Miles, Dexter, Griffin, Hank, Ornette, Rollins, Diz, Joe Henderson, Count, Sassy, Ella, Oscar, . . . damn man. It's ALL THERE. Ain't no ONE man do it all. I'd be bored to tears. There's so much beauty in all those cats.

There's not one way of doing nothing. The world is enriched by all of their contributions, not just one.

But I think we'd both be glad you're not in one of my classes. We had a final today.

[Acoustic Cloud]

You guys disagree too much.
Listen to Tuck Andress, Doyle Dykes, Tommy Immanuel, and of course, Chet Atkins.

Listen and have fun.

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Duke is not, for me, the ne plus ultra of all things jazz.

I have half a dozen Duke sides on my iPod now.


But there's a whole variety out there. Bird, Powell, Monk, Trane, Mingus, Brownie, Evans, Yusef, Brecker, Liebman, Tyner, Hubbard, Chick, Herbie, Chu Berry, Zoot, Fletcher, Getz, Miles, Dexter, Griffin, Hank, Ornette, Rollins, Diz, Joe Henderson, Count, Sassy, Ella, Oscar, . . . damn man. It's ALL THERE. Ain't no ONE man do it all. I'd be bored to tears. There's so much beauty in all those cats.

ok, what can be said in the face of a quote like this?

its like saying, bach was a good composer, i have air on a g string and tocatta and fugue in d minor on my ipod...

you can't properly compare charlie parker, bud powell, clifford brown, michael brecker (rip) etc. with duke ellington... just like you can't compare tausig w. chopin.

performers, great as they might be, are not composers.

and i think here is one of the biggest misconceptions, and one of the biggest reasons contributing to the so-called "death of jazz."

when the big band broke down (because of economic/market considerations, remember, not sonic... no one said, wow, a band with just a rhythm section and one horn sounds better than a rhythm section and 12 horns...) the performer took center stage, and it has been that way ever since.

from my view, we can take race out of the issue, because race/class is irrelevant in this context, from what i can see.

the issue is not "whitening" or "blackening" the music, but the tension between the composer and the performer.

what duke was the master at, why he is the non plus ultra, not just of jazz, but of all american music, was the way he was able to MIX improvisation w. composition.

a tune like "east st louis toodle oh" or "mood indigo" or "the mooche" has wide appeal... it appeals to dancers, it appeals to those peddling alcohol, it appeals to people w. the blues, it appeals to singers, to musicians, and, as it turned out, much to duke's surprise, it appeals to heavy european classical music critics.

now, a charlie parker saxophone solo, amazing as it is, precise as it is, mathematically genius as it is, appeals only to saxophone players (or other jazz musicians) and, as it turned out, a smattering of music critics. (critics were mixed on parker, as we know.)

but parker died 4 years earlier in his life than when ellington came into his own, so how can you compare the legacy of a 35 year old improviser with a composer just starting to write his best works at age 40?

you can't, other than to say they both worked in "jazz..." a word ellington never liked.

you know, black brown and beige, one of the greatest pieces of music ever written by any man who ever walked on this planet, is a totally composed piece of music... there is no improvisation in it hardly at all.

is it jazz?

is rhapsody in blue jazz? but people will say rhapsody in blue is jazz based, but not truly jazz, while no one will say "black brown and beige" is just jazz based...

why?

because people have a misconception of what "jazz" is... they equate "jazz" w. improvisation... and since "black brown and beige" is by duke's group, and duke was jazz, they assume the players must be improvising.

tatum didn't always improvise. was he not jazz?

jazz is NOT on the spot creation. duke himself recognized that "incessant jamming" would be the death of jazz... and it was.

you say duke is not the "ne plus ultra of jazz."

i say improvisation is not the "ne plus ultra of jazz..." it is a part of jazz, it is not jazz...

when bach improvised his fugues, he was not playing jazz...

jazz is more than improvisation.... and duke, quite frankly, is more than jazz. his personality trancends jazz just as beethoven's trancends the viennesse classical school.

[christmasjones]

your posts are loooooooong

[henryrobinett]

I don't know man, all you want to do is argue. Why can't we just revel is the wonderful fact that we both love Duke? And celebrate the fact that we both love jazz? There are so few of us.

No two people, who are independent thinking people, will ever agree on anything fully, probably. I'm fine with that, why can't you be?

Duke is great. He is not one the top of the topper most top, for me. And you're right, comparisons are silly, in more than one regard. He was a composer. Although when I started falling in love with jazz it was the composers I was attracted to. I still love the composers. But jazz is more than anything, for me, a players music.

Relax man. This is just not worth it.

[christmasjones]

I love jazz too but when i saw all the "yea, but...'s" i left. (and came back..)

this is the All about the music forum... not the political forum!

Jazz!

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by christmasjones

I love jazz too but when i saw all the "yea, but...'s" i left. (and came back..)

this is the All about the music forum... not the political forum!

Jazz!

Yup. Thanks. I don't do the political forum for this very reason. Thanks for the reminder!

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

But jazz is more than anything, for me, a players music.

which is the answer to the question, jazz, wtf happened...

by players for players... a circle jerk with the listener left out of the loop.

[christmasjones]

thanks

[henryrobinett]

Jazz is a lot of thing to a lot of people. It's a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I'm not arguing with you soult because arguing about what people like or dislike or what they find of value in art is worthless to me.

You enjoy what you enjoy and I enjoy what I enjoy. Great news. I enjoy listening to great composers like Duke, Mingus, Maria Schneider, Shorter, Corea, Marsalis and a host of others. I find value in what many, many people do. I also enjoy great playing like Trane, Adderly, Brecker, Rollins, Miles . . . I see no reason to snub my appreciation of one over the other or downgrade one because of the existence of another. But that's me. It makes no difference to me if you disagree with me over my sense of aesthetic, -- not a bit of difference. Hasn't adjusted my day in the least. Why someone would get pushed out of shape or insist that they see the world of jazz as they see it is beyond me.

I could actually give a flying F what anybody thinks about Duke or Mingus or Coltrane or the price of pizza. Zawinul or Mingus or soutrane -- IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. They are not me. They don't have my values. I'm not putting anyone down for not having my values. Not one person. I'm only expressing my own.

[soultrane]

simply saying, when the question is asked jazz, wtf happened, the answer is encapsulated in your responses...

i don't care what anyone else thinks

i don't care if people like what i play or not

it makes no difference whether people enjoy what i do, as long as i do...

ellington had to whiten things up to appeal to many people... i am no one's butler...

no one is challenging your right to your stance...

but your attitude, the attitude of many jazz musicians, i.e., i am free to play what no one wants to hear, simply explains why jazz is no longer popular....

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by christmasjones

your posts are loooooooong

oh...

well, send $300 USD to my ebay account... i'll hire an editor

[henryrobinett]

OMG. Why can't you let it go?

This is not the thread "Jazz WTF?" I wasn't even talking about that. I gave my opinion about what happened to jazz and your opinion is not mine, however you give your opinions as fact, which I find somewhat offensive.

I think there is a modicum of truth in what you say, but on the whole I disagree very much.

Jazz became a very serious, less commercial art form, in my opinion, with the advent of Bebop, -- the war years, when of economic necessity small combos supplanted the big bands. The music ceased, in large part, to be a dance music and became, instead, a listening music. It became very intellectual. It also, at that point, lost many listeners. But it also gained many serious listeners. Jazz became a "small house" music; tiny clubs and intimate nightspots. It never again had a massive audience. But few, if any, serious art forms do have massive audiences. The tastes of the masses tend towards the treacle and sinks to lower common denominators - IN MY OPINION. Britney, Ashlee, Harry Potter, Transformers, Heroes -- its not all bad but it's also not great, or what I look for when I look for greatness.

What I think about when the question of what happened to jazz comes up is well after this period. What happened to jazz was in the post 70s period, not in the 40s or 50s period.

But your opinion is fine, I just don't happen agree.

I would also like you to get off whatever "opinion"you have of me. I'm getting real tired of you riding my ass. I have no problem with your opinions or with the fact that we disagree. You don't seem to be able to let someone think for themselves without you getting offended that their opinion differs from yours. Leave it be. Leave me alone.

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

OMG. Why can't you let it go?

This is not the thread "Jazz WTF?" I wasn't even talking about that. I gave my opinion about what happened to jazz and your opinion is not mine, however you give your opinions as fact, which I find somewhat offensive.

I think there is a modicum of truth in what you say, but on the whole I disagree very much.

Jazz became a very serious, less commercial art form, in my opinion, with the advent of Bebop, -- the war years, when of economic necessity small combos supplanted the big bands. The music ceased, in large part, to be a dance music and became, instead, a listening music. It became very intellectual. It also, at that point, lost many listeners. But it also gained many serious listeners. Jazz became a "small house" music; tiny clubs and intimate nightspots. It never again had a massive audience. But few, if any, serious art forms do have massive audiences. The tastes of the masses tend towards the treacle and sinks to lower common denominators - IN MY OPINION. Britney, Ashlee, Harry Potter, Transformers, Heroes -- its not all bad but it's also not great, or what I look for when I look for greatness.

What I think about when the question of what happened to jazz comes up is well after this period. What happened to jazz was in the post 70s period, not in the 40s or 50s period.

But your opinion is fine, I just don't happen agree.

I would also like you to get off whatever "opinion"you have of me. I'm getting real tired of you riding my ass. I have no problem with your opinions or with the fact that we disagree. You don't seem to be able to let someone think for themselves without you getting offended that their opinion differs from yours. Leave it be. Leave me alone.

how in the hell is posting a message the same as "riding your ass"?

especially when all i did was quote your own words back to you?

leave me alone? seriously... just don't respond, especially if you think you're being put upon...

i thought we were having a continuation of the discussion "jazz, wtf happened?"

you think i'm riding your ass?

ok...

[henryrobinett]

Because you won't simply let it alone. You seem to have a big hard on about my opinions. Frankly I don't know what we're talking about. I don't know why -- if this conversation was about THAT thread why did you start another thread?

Listen, maybe I'm from the moon, but I don't understand this disagreement. You say to-MA-toes and I say To-Mah-toes. WHO IN THE F*** CARES???? Why are you going on about this? Why does it matter? You like Duke. Great. I don't f***ing care. I don't know why two people who love jazz can't get along. WTF!!?

You like arguing. I don't. Argue with someone else man. I don't want to put you on my ignore list. You have some good things to say once in awhile. But I don't like this nagging arguing bullshit. It's normal for you so you don't see it. I said something that just stuck in your craw and you can't let go of it. We can talk. I like that. But the contentiousness, -- I have to get rid of that.

It's more than throwing stuff back that I said, because you throw back with MISINTERPRETATION to try to make a point in hostility.

There's a difference between talking/sharing ideas and arguing. I won't debate. I'll be happy to talk. But when hostile barbs start flying that's when I take exception, especially hostile barbs of the covert kind.

I love talking about this stuff, but if I have to feel as though I'm in a fight, if I feel I have to fight, that's no f***ing fun. There's no reason on earth we have to agree. And there's no reason on earth that a disagreement about Duke or Coltrane should be contentious. And there's no reason a disagreement should be disrespectful. I think we can both be right and yet disagree. But I don't want to fight. There's not enough room for that. Not over stupid shit.

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Because you won't simply let it alone.
You like arguing. I don't. Argue with someone else man.

says the guy who keeps posting in the thread? strange.

jazz is dead because the musician, who looks at the people as unwashed seekers of treacle, decided to turn it into a self-referential jerkfest instead of a means of communication...