The Shape of Jazz That Came…

 

 1959 was a watershed year for jazz music (arguably the greatest single year for jazz in all history–which is saying a lot). Here’s a taste: Miles Davis Kind of Blue, John Coltrane Giant Steps, Charles Mingus Ah Um. That is like the holy trinity of jazz music; all from the same year. But in the not-so-silent shadows a young, relatively unknown alto saxophonist was poised to cause a stir that still reverberates today: Ornette Coleman’s provocatively titled The Shape of Jazz to Come

Kind of Blue is correctly celebrated for establishing modal music, and a genuine evolution from bop and post-bop; Giant Steps is the apotheosis of the “sheets of sound” that John Coltrane had been practicing and perfecting for a decade; Ah Um is an encyclopedic history of jazz music, covering everyone and everything from Jelly Roll Morton to Duke Ellington. And each of those albums were immediately embraced, and remain recognized as genuine milestones today. But The Shape of Jazz to Come was incendiary and complicated: it inspired as much resistance as it did inspiration. Some folks (Mingus included) bristled that it was all so much sound and fury, signifying…little. But what Coleman (along with trumpet player Don Cherry, bassist Charlie Haden and drummer Billy Higgins — representing as solid a quartet as any that have made music, ever) achieved was, arguably, the most significant advancement since Charlie Parker hit the scene.

Of course, Parker was also misunderstood and dismissed when his frenetic, almost incomprehensibly advanced alto saxophone assault began to cause scales to drop from audiences’ eyes — if not their ears. Like any genuine iconoclasts of the avant garde, Parker and Coleman were not being new for newness sake; they had to fully grasp and master the idiom before they could transcend it. Tellingly, what was revolutionary and almost confrontational, then, seems rather tame and entirely sensible, now. Of course, it didn’t take 50 years for Coleman to resonate: he not only found his audience, John Coltrane –the all-time heavyweight champion– embraced his compatriot. He endorsed, and, crucially, he imitated. The Book of Revelation that Coltrane’s mid-’60s Impulse recordings comprise did, in many respects, grow directly out of the opening salvo fired by Coleman in ’59.

 

Flash forward ten years. Miles Davis was once again at the vanguard, nonchalantly picking up the baton dropped when free-jazz avatars Eric Dolphy and John Coltrane had their comet-like lives come crashing, way prematurely, to earth. By ’69, Miles had “plugged in”, augmented his quintet and went about the inconsequential task of changing music (again). To say that his endeavors were met with similar resistance as those of Coleman a decade before is putting it mildly. Indeed, while Ornette was eventually recognized, even lionized (witness his most-deserved 2007 Pulitzer for the masterful Sound Grammar ), the work Miles did in the late ’60s and early ’70s was met with a combination of incredulity, indifference and outright hostility (it also was warmly embraced by people with the ears to hear it). Much more on this era and the culmination of his experimentations which resulted in Bitches Brew, very shortly (stay tuned).

Suffice it to say, Miles led the charge that led to, depending upon one’s point of view, a radical expansion of jazz music’s possibilities or its lamentable bastardization. Certainly the (inevitable, unfortunate) proliferation of watered down fusion which resulted in the artistic stillbirth known as Smooth Jazz has little (if anything) to do with the shock heard ’round the world that Miles sounded off circa 1970.

What happened next is, again depending on one’s perspective, the languid death march of America’s music or a continuation of an art that seamlessly integrates virtually every noise and culture from around the globe. A certain, and predictable, cadre of critics submerged their heads in the sand and bitched about better days. The awake and aware folks who make and receive these offerings celebrate an ever-evolving music that resists boundaries and is capable of communication transcending language and explanation. At its best it is an ideal synergy of expression and integrity.

Anyone who knows anything understands that some of the best jazz music ever was created in the ’70s (no, really) and a great deal of amazing music was made in the ’80s (seriously). But in the ’90s and into the ’00s we’ve seen jazz music consistently –and successfully– embrace other forms of music (rock, rap, electronica, etc.) and end up somewhere that remains jazz, yet something else altogether. There are myriad examples, of course, but this small sampler of five selections might be illustrative, and enlightening. The uninitiated may be surprised, even astonished, at how alive and accessible this “other” music really is.

One could (and should) say more about artists such as Lester Bowie, Jamie Saft, Marco Benevento, The Bad Plus, Critters Buggin, Garage a Trois and Mostly Other People Do The Killing, all of whom have incorporated our (increasingly) info-overload existence into their sound. Slack-jawed and stale-souled haters may demur at even calling this Jazz, or course. And of course the last laugh is on them because most of these musicians would care less than a little what you call it. They understand that the shape of jazz that came is always turning into what we’ll be listening to tomorrow.

1. DJ Spooky (with William Parker, Joe McPhee and Guillermo E. Brown), “ibid, desmarches, ibid” (from Optometry):

2. Material, “Black Light” (from Hallucination Engine):

3. Matthew Shipp, “Cohesion” (from Equilibrium):

4. John Zorn, “Giù La Testa (Duck You Sucker!)” (from The Big Gundown):

5. Medeski, Martin and Wood (with DJ Logic), “Start-Stop” (from Combustication):

Share

8K? What Can I Say…

People who are a lot smarter and more business-savvy than I am (which admittedly is not saying much) have asked me if I have Google Analytics for this site. I tell them that I’m sure I should, but it sounds so…analytical. After all, this is a not-for-profit endeavor and I’m not terribly interested in demographics. Perhaps this stance would soften if I actually understood the implications. I have, for instance, learned in recent days that people in Chiang Mai read (and endorse) this blog. I know, from the messages I am always happy to receive, that people I know (and people I’ve never met) read and are occasionally moved by my writing. What else is there that needs to be said?

According to the “Site Stats” (which I have to trust since my friend and guru JB initially made me aware of them), this blog has been visited over 8,000 times in the month of August. That’s about 8oo times more hits than it received in its first month of existence, back in October 2008. In May of 2009 there were 3,683 hits, and that record stood for a while (and seemed both impressive and humbling, then). Back in January I thought, maybe I can reach the 5,000 mark in 2010, a goal I achieved in April. I’m not sure what has accounted for the growing numbers, but I have to suspect some friends have told some friends. This is the definition of grassroots, because I’ve done little (much to my more business and web-savvy friends’ chagrin) to promote this site. I have also resisted any temptation to put ads or a “tip jar” on the site: I like the idea of having a blog that costs nothing to visit and I don’t intend to change that policy. I do have some ideas about how to make some of this work more easily collectable (for the handful of people not related to me who may be interested in collecting any of my work in a semi-formal manner), and I welcome the long overdue and most welcome advancements the publishing scene is embracing (however reluctantly). More thoughts on that subject (the big picture and my envisioned place in it) another time.

It seemed appropriate (and right) to acknowledge this minor milestone — and extend sincere appreciation for anyone who has taken the time to check out Murphy’s Law. For people who have come back more than once, I’m grateful. For people who come back all the time, I feel I should offer my condolences. But seriously, people don’t do what I do unless they hope they can articulate some thoughts and convey some feelings that just might resonate with and inspire others. It is with the aim of doing that as honestly and consistently as possible that I look forward to playing the truth of what I am, for as long as I can.

Share

Dead Lists and the Dirty Ground

dead lists

Fortunately, end of decades only happen once a decade. Otherwise, trying to decide on a reasonably accurate (not to mention reasonably brief) list of “best of decade” albums, movies, books and songs (et cetera) would put many good minds in an insane asylum. Come to think of it, what better place to get the necessary peace and quiet necessary to compile such lists? Do they allow i-Pods in those places?

But seriously folks. I feel obliged, or at least compelled, by the lesser angels of my list-making mind, to take a crack at what moved and impressed and inspired me most this very busy decade. And even before you get around to separating the good, very good, and great, you invariably stumble upon more distressing shit like “Good grief, ten years went by that fast?” And then you start thinking that the Big C (Cliche) is lurking ever around the corner, like a straight-jacket.

And yet, in some ways, it’s easier to assess a decade than it is to focus on one year; picking, say, the ten best albums of 2010 might prove more challenging than picking, say, the fifty best albums of the decade. In part because you can really be picky and anything that doesn’t make the cut can get tossed pretty quickly. And, of course, as all the hipsters know, there ain’t any good music being made anymore anyway, right? Hardly. In fact, this past decade was a near bottomless pit of bliss: so much great music and so many great movies, it is intimidating as much as it is astonishing to consider what remarkable artistic times we live in.

kiss

So where does one begin (assuming one is the odd sort who puts stake in such lists and thinks anything is accomplished by making them)? Well, you start with a list. And then revise and expand, expand and revise. Get frustrated, get angry, feel overwhelmed, feel a little bit like God. Feel the eyes of friends and strangers already getting you in the cross-hairs. How could you possibly leave out this one? How can you possibly think (insert CD or movie) is worthy of making the cut? Et cetera.

And that is what it’s all about: sharing ideas and stimulating some discussion. That is all it’s ever been about for people who really love art and live to talk about it. And it wouldn’t be nearly as much fun (or edifying) to consider spending so much time agonizing over these lists if you couldn’t count on the conversation that is certain to ensue. And before you know it, your living room looks like the week before final exams, with notes and cheat sheets scattered around like stale breadcrumbs. But those crumbs serve a purpose, and you drop them on the (dirty) ground in the hopes that they’ll lead you to something approximating Epiphany. The moment you make your choice(s) and throw them out there. And then look forward to hearing how much better it could or should have been (and laughing because you knew going into it that you, above all, would likely end up feeling the same way). The weak get paralyzed, and the uncertain get to work (the only ones who know all the answers are of little assistance because, unfortunately, they are in padded rooms with iPods).

Keep an eye out for the Top 50 (or 60) Albums, the Top 40 Jazz Albums and the Top 20 (or so) movies. And get your scalpels out. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Share