I only skimmed Adam's piece last night, so there's little specific I can say in response.

But his piece's appearance in a publication such as OFN prompts me to say that it is time to think hard about why "free jazz" seems to be taking it from all sides these days: the contemporary avant digerati; the composer's community; the cultural conservatives (well, they never liked it anyway). I think any explanation will be complicated, involving the legacy of the 60's (see Hill's first paragraph), racial attitudes, minimalism vs. Maximalism, the cult of the genius, and more. But the upshot is that there still seem to exist concerted efforts to further marginalize what is, in the grand scheme of things, a marginal music. (I can care about that music and still acknowledge that it is marginal, I believe.) And I'd like to know why, and why now.

Besides, these efforts often only end up over-inflating that music's cultural sway and significance. I'm not sure the Fire Music alert needs to be set on orange right now... maybe blue? But the R&B Over-Emotive Vocals alert -- red all the way.

Yeah, right, like that will ever happen.

Hard to find fault with
Mr. Hill's off the bat statement:

"And let’s face it, a lot of that music hasn’t aged very well."

If he's taking the entire movement to task, why are only saxophonists mentioned?

Taking a whole class of music to task seems to be unreasonable. Sure, there's lots of awful free jazz that's been recorded and performed (just sit through a night at the Vision Fest; I usually hear more I DON'T like than like). So what. There's lots of mediocore classical, bebop, bluegrass, etc.. Seems like this guys has some sort of agenda or doesn't like the total geekiness (face it, guys) of people who listen to "Fire Music" and EAI.

Hey Fink, that geek net casts wide & you’re just as caught as the rest of us. Don’t even try to deny it ;)

Seems to me Adam’s beef isn’t as much with the ‘geeks’ who listen as with the ‘geeks’ who play (a slightly narrower tack than his earlier idiom-wide lambast of eai). Schau brings up a good question re: the saxophonists. Maybe they’re the convenient scapegoats for presumably having the most egregious access to the freak register?

Re: saxophones... well, for a certain segment of the listening population, there is no instrument more annoying than the saxophone.

Some strange prejudices associated with that instrument. What was it Ornette Coleman once said about the tenor?

A few brief and quick responses.

I like and respect Derek, and thanked him in private correspondence for recommending some Brotz recordings that showed more range. I do have respect for Brotz, I just don't find his abrasive excess to be appealing or rewarding. It come soff as a lot of screaming to me. Yeah, I don't much like screaming. Zorn I respect more, though mostly for his labels and organizing, and I tend to like the music of his friends and associates more than his. But the misanthropic glee he takes in playing music that is punishing to listeners (see Francis Davis' article on Zorn) is to my mind, reprehensible. And I have seen him live three times; and one of the times I walked out.
Gayle, I have no use for, I think he's a pretty limited player, and I singled out that one recording because it's the one that's hailed by everyone.

What IS this music trying convey, Derek?
And what do you mean by "suckerpunched?"
And why is raising questions or instigating discussion somehow not up to your intellectual standards (whatever those may be)? You go try getting Zorn to answer questions, and good luck, friend.

As for Joe M's comments, I'm not attacking free jazz per se. I meant to address only the "fire music" denomination. I love quite a lot of free jazz, if Ornette and Cecil still qualify.

Is there 'fire music' that doesn't chiefly feature a sax?

As for geeks, I guess if I touched on the audience as I did in the EAI piece, people would rush to tell me how so many women listen to fire music just as they do EAI (which I still ain't buying, by the way). But I do believe the audience for Brotz and other room-clearers is mostly male, and no, I can't prove it.

I liked Derek's comment about creating a provocateur persona.
I think it comes down to this person not liking alot of free music.
I've come to realize that if I find myself not liking something, it's probably because I don't yet understand why it is good.
There is an audience for every form of musical expression. Those people who like whatever form they like understand and appreciate the form for whatever personal reasons.
Similiarly, artists work in their respective idioms because they understand and enjoy that particular form for whatever personal reasons.
I (as an audience as well as a musician) find it strange that there still might be a writer who questions the worth of free jazz/improv on the basis of historical relevance (why don't they get over that sort of playing?) and old connotations that noise=anger/mental instability etc.
After reading the piece at OFN, I can't say the writer has made any argument against "fire music". He's just shown himself to not understand it.

I've really got little problem with Hill liking or not liking whatever and writing about it, as his opinions are fairly easy to ignore. Personally, I love lots of the loud "punishing" music. I'm not listening to it to find out ALL the answers, but it's an exciting part of the picture. I like lots of quiet "pretty" music too (am listening to the Blue Sky Boys right now). Diversity keeps life interesting - and thankfully Hill doesn't pick the records I listen to every day. I do have a slight problem with his insulting and limited view towards the music created by some artists I really admire, but what can one do?

Welcome back, Adam. It's about time we bored Baganauts had something to bounce off instead of moaning about spam (I speak for myself).
Let me make a few specific comments about Adam's piece:
1)
"Albert Ayler’s Holy Ghost (a gift-like box set that I’m guessing more people are happier to have than listen to—the sound quality is lousy)"
Amen on this one. I'm looking at my bulging shelves and seriously thinking of throwing away the black box (though my 6 year old has asked me if he can keep it to keep his Pokemon cards in) and filing the discs in slimline jewel boxes. The Holy Ghost hype was fast and bulbous but will die out just as quickly as it arrived. My thoughts on the Ayler Box of course are well-known and available for consultation at http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/monthly2004/11nov_text.html#2
2)"And let’s face it, a lot of that music hasn’t aged very well."
Let's face it Adam a lot of ANY music from ANY period doesn't age well. Fats Domino, Penderecki, The Kinks, Love, Roxy Music, The Damned, Bauhaus, The Housemartins and even the V5 all bear the marks of their time, and so what. Behind the remark I detect the old "timeless masterpiece" cliché.. hey ho back to Wynton and Crouch and Burns we go. Old story, turn the page.
3) "To so brazenly forgo subtlety as if it’s little more than sentimentalism, and subsume it with histrionic pyrotechnics, is far too easy a refuge. It’s low art blown big with hot air."
This is rather like criticising Willem de Kooning and Franz Kline for not painting like George Stubbs. And since when was jazz supposed to be about subtlety? Jazz is, like any other musical movement, a reflection of the whole world: there's subtle jazz like there's subtle classical music and even subtle rock, but there's also angry jazz (Bubba Miley, man.. or Mingus and Miles playing "Nature Boy"), dumb adolesecent wank jazz, supermarket on a rainy afternoon jazz, pour me another cocktail jazz (plenty of that) and FUCK ME jazz. Is Adam going to tell me that the last 5 minutes of "Black Saint & Sinner Lady" are SUBTLE? You can practically hear the erection straining to burst out of the pants.
4) "Zorn, who like Brötzmann, is capable of a great range of music and is also a founder of an important label, also likes to sound his barbaric yawp in a take-no-prisoners approach to freeing jazz from its harmonic complexities."
If the "barbaric yawp" wasn't in there I'd agree. What's barbaric about it? The remark smacks of the old "degenerate" tag used by the Nazis. If you're going to proscribe art that displays its emotion publically, you're going to need a fucking big bin to put it in, cap'n.
5) "His Touchin’ On Trane is considered a free jazz classic, and called a tour de force by all the guidebooks. But it’s a rather short, brutish tour, with few highlights other than a haul through heights of overblowing. Gayle still revels in this style of playing on his more recent recordings too."
I agree with you on Gayle, who's been ridiculously overtrumpeted (put that down to the Sonic Youth / Henry Rollins testosterone blasts of a decade ago) and hasn't followed up with music to sustain the hype - WHAT recent recordings, Adam? He should stick to the piano and keep his trap shut about homosexuals too. BUT "Touchin' on Trane" sounds fine to me. For "brutish" read "barbaric" above and see comments.
6) "the product is not only exhausting, it’s simplistic" - the same words apply rather neatly to your article Adam. I find it a missed opportunity to really research a detailed and cogent critique of free jazz - and Lord knows there are many things to say. But I think on balance you're not the person who would appreciate my spare copy of Arthur Doyle's "Alabama Feeling".

Great stuff, Dan.

fuck me jazz

Hi Dan,
Thanks for weighing in. Wow, to be lumped in with both Stanley Crouch and the Nazis has really left me amazed! And I think that's the problem with your response. It's ridiculously hyperbolic, and in its indictment of my generalizations goes far broader astray from anything resembling a cogent line of reasoning. It's witty and lively and filled with smart references (as is all your writing) but it's also smugly dismissive, condescending, and self-righteous (also features of too much of your writing).

Your analogies are so fallacious, it's hard to know how to respond. Give me something I can truly respond to.

Let me say again, my piece was not meant to be a critique of free jazz. Nor even all music that can be loud and/or abrasive. What I was really trying to get at is how mystifying it is that such high profile players continue to play in a style that I think was played out 35 years ago! What the hell is Brotzmann adding to the vocabularly of overblowing these past three and a half decades? Why does Zorn think its a good idea to assault his audience? Why the heck does a crazy no-talent like Gayle get the press he sometimes gets (Gary Giddins, Francis Davis, a Penguin crown, etc)?

I offered a strong opinion about what I think is the failure of this kind of playing to say very much, and you say that's tantamount to the Nazis treatment of art (which is the weakest, most cliche line of argument out there)--wow, is that stupid shit, Dan. Basically, you're playing to crowd here at Bags, and because I like a lot of your writing and have for several years now, such weak stuff is disappointing (I know, I know, not that you care).

Finally, I'm not proscribing anything. If you like this room-clearing music, if you like the overbearing machismo of it, fine. Have fun with it. I doubt a little column in OFN has the power to marginalize anything.

5)
"I agree with you on Gayle, who's been ridiculously overtrumpeted (put that down to the Sonic Youth / Henry Rollins testosterone blasts of a decade ago)"

I am much too old to put any stock in anything that Sonic Youth trumpets and have never heard of Henry Rollins before. Nevertheless I dig Gayle a great deal. Some of my jazz buddies are even older than me and I doubt very much that they have even heard of sonic youth.

Zorn, I thought was overtrumpeted when I first heard him (probably in the early 80ies) I never got into his stuff, my loss no doubt.
Still have heard Mazada twice live and don't have a clue why Mr. Hill thinks it's punishment to listen to them.

Broetzmann, I have heard since the late 60ies and was a bit amazed when America discovered him, it seems in the 90ies. Good for him.

"and hasn't followed up with music to sustain the hype - WHAT recent recordings,"

Try maybe "Ancient of Days" or "Precious Soul". Of course, I can't guarantee that you will find it on the level as "Touching on Trane".

A strange piece by Mr. Hill, no doubt. For me, eaually strange Mr. Warburton's rare area of agreement with it.

Adam, thanks for responding here to my & others’ responses. As for respect, the feeling is mutual- it’s a big reason why I’m still scratching my head about your op/ed piece(s).

Part of my problem is that your piece, as it stands, is pretty one-sided. Maybe that’s the implicit purpose of an op/ed: to present a monolithic, combative argument & let the chips fall where they may? But your perspective obviously carries greater nuance than that. In your response above you mention some attributes of Brötzmann & Zorn that you respect. Gayle still gets the shaft, but c’est la vie. I still don’t hear TOUCHIN’ ON TRANE at all the way you do. I pulled it out several nights ago, gave it long overdue spin & still found much to enjoy. It’s easily the most accessible disc in his catalog IMO (except for that treaclely album of gospel numbers on Rollins’ label). What I’m saying is it would’ve been great to read that flip-side perspective in your text too. Instigating discussion is great. But as your piece stands it runs dangerously close to screed.

By “suckerpunch” I simply meant that your eai piece seemed specifically designed to push buttons rather than raise questions. Instead of adopting a more even-handed critical view of the music, you purposely went for as polemical an approach possible. Along with soliciting the desired discussion it also succeeded in fomenting a fair share of ire. Again, maybe this is the express purpose of couching it under an “op/ed” mantle. I dunno.

As far as what “Fire Music” is trying to convey, I’m the wrong guy to ask as I don’t *play* it. But I like Andy’s answer. From my vantage it’s primarily trying to communicate energy & viscerality that doesn’t necessarily need to come at the expense of the intellectual considerations or be simplistic in design. Trane got hit with the “angry black man” pejorative despite his repeated attempts to explain his improvisatory flights as manifestations of joy and pious ecstasy. Gayle’s control of upper register multiphonics is pretty damn impressive. He may do it to death in some settings, but the man can definitely play his horn inside & out. Brötz and Zorn have been similarly slagged with the “limited technique” tag. While I’d agree that each has his Achilles Heels, both can certainly play their horns in a manner that suits their needs.

I think Zorn’s “misanthropic glee” in punishing his listeners comes explicitly out of a punk/hard core aesthetic. Phil (and Jason, Jeff & others) have remarked repeatedly about the 'masochistic' merits of grindcore and death metal. Some folks (me included to a novice degree) enjoy that sort of thing. So it seems, does Zorn.

Fwiw, Gayle has a ‘new’ disc set to drop early in the new year (if it hasn’t dropped already in Europe)- SHOUT! (w/ Sirone & Gerald Cleaver) on Clean Feed.

OK, OK, Adam, so you're not taking all of free jazz to task. Free jazz is as big and diverse as any other genre, and, yes, you are only talking out one style out of many. Maybe not even style, though, but just some particualr players who you don't care for. I don't really see any stylistic connection between Zorn and Brotz, much less Zorn and Gayle, honestly. I'm not even sure Zorn qualifies as a "jazz musician" in any traditional sense at all.

No matter. I do happen to agree with you on a principle I see behind the piece you wrote, which is that there seems to be little honest criticism of this music. Much of what passes for reviews these days are fan pieces, and one does have to wonder what someone like Ekkerhard Jost might make of Borbetomagus (say). But maybe even that is disingenuous, giving Jost has not updated his study of free jazz in 30 years, and shows no inclination to do so of which I am aware. More to the point, Jost is a bit, well, too clinical. A great analyst of the musical material at hand, but he is also deaf to some of the things that make this music most enjoyable / meaningful to the lay listener. For example, here is all Jost has to say about Jimmy Lyons in FREE JAZZ:

"Lyons is something of an outsider in free jazz, because his playing usually sounds like a successful transformation of Charlie Parker's musical idiom into a new context. While taking advantage of the freedom Taylor's music offers him, Lyons achieves a rhythmic and melodic continuity typical of bebop musicians. (78)"

Eh? That's it? Not much of a corrective if you ask me. Come to think of it, based on the more obfuscatory comments made by the musicians who specialize in this kind of improvisation, I think too that we have to be open to the idea that the music is intended to elude or even transcend analytical criticism. When we talk about smashing canons, we're talking as much about scrapping works themselves as we are scraping off the critical barnacles that have grown over those works. Personally, I'm more often interested in this as a "trend" or "movement", as something pervasive, that I am in the much of the actual musical examples of such themselves.

Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked. The point is that, yes, we need a better appraisal of this kind of music. Hell, a better understanding of it. We've gone round and round that subject here, I think, with no definitive answers forthcoming. I have my own personal beliefs re: what constitutes "good" criticism, and it has little to do with how judiciously you ladle praise and condemnation out when you serve your readers. It has to do with being true to your own experience of the work with which you're interacting as a critic. And that to me means really examining yourself and your tastes (and prejudices) when you encounter something that makes you recoil.

SO I fall in Dan's camp in that I feel what you have given us is a "missed opportunity". You get halfway there in my estimation. Whether your intent is to marginalize or not, I trust you do understand that you are not in full control of how your column is read, and used. By which I mean to say, if this is just a little column in OFN, why bother writing it? If you're just getting something off your chest, there are other ways accomplish that kind of catharthis. I need more insight to feel sympathetic to your cause. For example, one of my good friends, a tenor saxophonist with "free"-ish inclinations himself, once told me that he has not much use for Brotz's music. Why? In his words, he felt that it is so much "purgation without redemption", good for one listen -- maybe -- and that was all. And he continued to amplify his point, considering Brotz's whole career, and from a variety of perspectives... In the end, I could disgree or agree with my friend because, although he had been negative, he'd also been generous. He had given me something to mull over. He had not tried to out-bully the big bully that is Brotz's music. That seems to me the better approach. Remarks such as "the misanthropic temperature of our anger and disgust", "little more than coarse storms punctuated by relentlessly harsh eruptions", and "the product is not only exhausting, it’s simplistic" seem to me to as much like the "hectic fulimantions" you decry as anything ever blown pure and free by Streets the Clown.

Then again, I am a crank. Take that grain of salt and smoke it. (Or something.)

POSTSCRIPT: the many comments so far referencing testosterone, erections causing zippers to uncouple, "machismo", and brutishness remind me of the very complicated sexual politics wrapped up in this issue.

Thinking of Dietrich and Sauter playing into the bells of each other's saxophones,

Joe

Joe,
Thanks for the thoughtful, interesting post. Very engaging. So what can I say? I did not mean to imply that I think writing an op-ed for OFN is frivilous, only that I can't see how it would affect tastes. But as you say, one never knows how one's writing will be perceived. Perhaps the phrase-making in my piece is too pointed and perhaps I haven't given enough rationale. I can see why people would argue with it, and that's a good thing to my mind. (And I do have more to say on the subject and maybe I will try to do so soon. )

Perhaps the reason there hasn't been another Jost or any kind of critical assessment of fire music 35 years later, is because there's nothing fresh, inventive, or rewarding about it? That's my take. Brotz blowing his brains out in '69 doesn't sound all that different than Brotz blowing his brains out in '04.

And yeah, Jimmy Lyons got short-changed by Jost. He's also gotten short-changed in regards to the attention paid to the Ayler box set. The Lyons one, which came out about a year earlier, is far more important and rewarding than the Ayler one. It's just that the Ayler one is so nicely packaged and Ayler has the romantic legend attached.

I’m not familiar with your writing, Adam, so I don't know if there's some larger backstory behind this piece, but here are a few notes anyway.

Specific things that bug me: you lay the following statement down – “It was and still is nearly impossible for some to separate the intensity of the music from the cultural and political intensity of the times.” You doesn’t bother to say whether you agree or disagree with that interpretation. So why mention it? You also claim there are older free jazz recordings that “come off as little more than brutal balls-out blasting,” but don’t cite any examples. Seems like you just want to go after these three guys, and ginned up a framework on which to hang that gripe.

I’ve never listened to a whole Masada song, so I can’t say whether your criticisms of the group are accurate. I will say that Zorn relies on a fairly limited palette of tricks, that he inserts into every musical situation in which he finds himself. I will add that those tricks work quite well on the early Pain Killer recordings, and on Spy Vs. Spy.

Re Gayle – I think of Touchin’ On Trane as kind of an exception in his catalog. Most of the other records of his I’ve heard are a) not as blown-out (early stuff like Spirits Before, and later stuff like Ancient Of Days, are both restrained by comparison) and b) not nearly as thematically unified, and thus beautiful. TOT is great because it’s all of a piece; it’s hard to separate the individual tracks from each other in the mind (at least, it’s hard for me to do it, but maybe that’s because when I start listening to the disc, I always find myself riding that wave all the way to shore).

Since I don’t know much about your writing, this piece leaves me wondering what you like. Are you a hard bop fan? Do you have an inordinate taste for ECM releases? Fill me in, because the column's worst weakness is its lack of balance - you don't say what these guys should be doing other than what they are doing, and you don't say what you think jazz is supposed to be, or anything of the kind.

I think if you find "fire music" unrewarding, you're probably a) listening to bad examples, and b) deliberately setting out to do so. There are just as many good albums in this "subgenre" (and here's where others' complaints about not hearing many similarities between Brotzmann and Zorn come into play) as in any other, including stuff that's been released very recently. I like Brotzmann's new album Medicina quite a bit - have you heard it? Maybe you should. I'd also recommend The All-Star Game, the Marshall Allen/Fred Anderson/William Parker/Alan Silva/Hamid Drake release on Eremite. Probably lots of others, too, but start there and see what you think.

(In closing, I should also mention I think the simple four-word "the sound is lousy" shortchanges Holy Ghost, by the way; some of the stuff sounds great, and some of the lousy-sounding stuff, like the Don Ayler tracks, wouldn't have half the impact they do if they were pristine recordings.)

So, Adam Hill doesn't like the fire-breathing aspects of Brotzmann or Zorn, but he seems reluctant to acknowledge Zorn's music which does not fall into that camp (which is most of his output, really). So Zorn feels like blowing it out sometimes, who doesn't? Probably Norah Jones even lets loose sometimes. Brotzmann's music has been more and more nuanced and subtle and even mellow at times over the past 10 years. Yeah, compared to Kenny G or someone it's like dropping your speed from 100 mph to 85 , but it is there if you care to look for it. As for Gayle, I've never really got him, or David S. Ware either, but hey to each his own and I think nowhere more than free jazz. Also, nowhere more than free jazz do fans and writers pick apart the players and artifacts. It's not as if Ayler the man (if he could still exist today) has anything to do with the cult of personality that now surrounds him. I doubt if he would have released everything in that box if he were still around, but it's all we got and all we're likely to get from him, so I for one am glad it exists. Nor does Henry Grimes have any control over what his legacy is or was other than play the music that currently comes out of him.

I find it odd that Charles Gayle gets any grief at all for making what, maybe 8 or 10 records that have gone relatively unnoticed in the scheme of things, that all have the same basic all-out esthetic. I'm probably wrong, but I don't ever recall reading any articles where AC/DC was excoriated (is that the right word) for putting out basically the same album 28 times in a row. Regardless of what the critics write though, one thing I know is that fans of Gayle or Zorn or AC/DC don't really care what they say since it is that aesthetic that attracted them in the first place.

Have a good weekend everyone, nice to see some commentary again.

Now, off to listen to "High Voltage" and "Spy vs. Spy."

Rrrrrrobbbbbbbb

phil,
yes, i'll admit some of the things i thought were well implied, haven't gotten across. i think a lot of 'fire music' was exciting at the time it came out because of the social unrest in the country/world, and that a lot of it didn't make for lasting art. Some of the ESP stuff, some of the recordings by Shepp, Sanders, Tyler, Wright, and others, i think, hasn't aged very well and points to the inherent limitations of that kind of playing.

I never said or implied that Brotzmann and Zorn are similar, only that they both continue to play a style of music (not always, i know) that i think has run its course and has congealed into a cliche. i think, for example, David S Ware has taken aspects of 'fire music' and done something else with it. David Murray too, in an earlier phase.

and i'm glad the holy ghost box is here for us. it has, though, gotten an inordinate amount of attention considering what else it provides for us about Ayler, which i think is not that much. it's satisfies our wonky, completest desires, which is fine and fun.
and thanks for your recommendations too.

rob, i do recognize the broad range of Zorn's musical interests, and salute all the great work he does with his label and organizing shows and such. i just don't find his own music something i return to, and some it, i can't even get through because i find it obnoxious and fun only for he and his band and a few masochists. he's entitled to it, and i'm entitled to find fault with that too.

>>i think a lot of 'fire music' was exciting at the time it came out because of the social unrest in the country/world, and that a lot of it didn't make for lasting art. Some of the ESP stuff, some of the recordings by Shepp, Sanders, Tyler, Wright, and others, i think, hasn't aged very well and points to the inherent limitations of that kind of playing.

See, this is funny - you and I have almost exactly opposing views. I think it would be great if the music could, once and for all, be divorced from the politics of the 1960s (in other words, Amiri Baraka, please shut up and fuck off). I mean, sure, Archie Shepp, fine - but most of those musicians were not ranting Black Power types, and the audience certainly wasn't, a lot of the time.

Also, the records from the 60s that I think haven't held up are the least screamy - stuff like Marzette Watts' Marzette & Co., which is just boring, or a lot of the Art Ensemble's more bleep-blat-crash-rattle stuff. I find that Frank Wright, Frank Lowe, Ayler, and particularly Shepp hold up quite well - I've been listening to a bootleg CD of Shepp's Black Gypsy for a couple of weeks now, and just loving the interaction/contrast between his saxophone and Leroy Jenkins' violin.

But I like death metal and grindcore (see some of my postings on the site), so we're probably coming from the opposite sides of the musical spectrum.

well, we have different takes and tastes.
though we both agree that Amiri Baraka should be ignored.
what the heck is grindcore?

A brief explanation of grindcore I posted here awhile ago.

"a lot of it didn't make for lasting art" - WOW - the most bullshit statement yet! First of all not "a lot" of anything that has been done at any time has made for "lasting" art. But I do think it's at least fairly obvoius that a lot of free music of the 60s has value, is art, and still moves people - and will continue to for years into the future. Just look at people still passionate about it today. More re-issues than ever, and probably as many listeners as ever too. The limitations aren't in the players but in Hill's listening / taste.

"Just look at people still passionate about it today. More re-issues than ever, and probably as many listeners as ever too."

and look at "people" who "passionate" as they are just happened to vote for bush, re-issued at that.

keep the bush burning. vote for the people

"See, this is funny. I think it would be great if the music could, once and for all, be divorced from the politics of the 1960s (in other words, Amiric Baraka, Amirica, America, please shut up and fuck off)." "So we're probably coming from the opposite sides of the musical spectrum." Once and for all, it's two sides, us vs us, shut up vs fuck off. bush for 49 more months vs bush for ~1500 days. "what the heck is grindcore?"

The Housemartins, "my favorite things" (Tyner and so on),"bell bottom blues" (Clapton), wincing?-you bet. because of "the marks of their time"?

A- for Alcibiades from Aristotle (famous for his treatise on smacking friends and other pets). Eggnog's in the mail. Bush's wishing you a good 'un.

"Great stuff, Dan."

A- for Alcibiades

"smugly dismissive, condescending, and self-righteous (also features of too much of your writing)" Perhaps you could cite a few of the pieces I've written that you would describe as such, Adam. "Your analogies are so fallacious, it's hard to know how to respond. Give me something I can truly respond to." I did - you didn't.

i don't want to get in a pissing match with you,Dan.
You didn't like my piece, and find your response to be worthless (unlike your response to my eai piece).

i have noted when i do get to read some of your pieces on your webzine (which is great but my computer doesn't always like loading it for some reason) that you haven't minded being glib and dismissive on quite a few occasions, and though i don't have time to go back and find these examples, i find it hard to believe you won't cop to that.
you've got a wealth of knowledge, dan, which i respect, but there's a snarky, show-off quality to the kind of things you sailed at me both times. Too, if you think a nazi analogy is worth responding to, than we're coming from different planets.

A brief explanation of grindcore I posted here awhile ago

the six man flag did in '84

we both agree that Amiri Baraka should be ignored

then ignore the musicians too who were his friends not yours

More re-issues than ever, and probably as many listeners as ever too."

overpopulated planet of nostlagic suckerfish stuck to the great white consumerist wail, more of whta we never had in the first place more more more reruns

us vs us, shut up vs fuck off. bush for 49 more months vs bush for ~1500 days.

it's the great ignore the final days of your freedom before the new world war flower blooms

grindcore is your face against the prison floor

"i don't want to get in a pissing match with you,Dan." Good, me neither.
"your webzine (which is great but my computer doesn't always like loading it for some reason)"
Are you on MAC? We had a big problem a while back with some strange rogue font tags that screwed up the homepage and many Mac users couldn't access the site. If you're still having problems (accessing the site, I mean, not with my prose style) do please drop me a line at the above email address, Adam.
"if you think a nazi analogy is worth responding to, than we're coming from different planets." Maybe we are, but I suspect we have more in common on this subject than you think (cf your comments on the Ayler & Lyons boxes). My reference to the "Entartete Musik" was deliberately chosen - in fact I believe the Nazis unwittingly found just the right word to describe a music (Berg and his peers) that had deliberately accelerated decadence. I don't think the same applies to Masada (and you might argue that "barbaric" isn't exactly synonymous with "degenerate" either): the yawps you mention come across to me as pure exuberance, exactly like the raucous noise of Spy vs Spy. Anyway, whichever planet you're coming from and going to, keep up the work. We can always agree to differ but can air our differences without getting into a bloody dogfight.

dan,
i do have a MAC, and just accessed your site without a problem, which is good because it's one terrific mag (plus a great way to pass office hours).
my 'barbaric yawp' reference is a familiar line from Whitman, so I really wasn't calling 'fire music' barbaric, I was touching on its potentially Whitmanesque freedom, (as an opera fan, do you think Whitman could have come to like 'fire music?') So maybe that's where our lines have crossed on that issue.

As I've said there is music by Brotzmann and Zorn that I've liked and while I can understand why people love them both at their most abrasive and taxing, I don't actually believe people listen to it very much (unless they have sound proof bunkers in their homes or on the occasion when they go with the guys to see it performed live, which could be replacing hockey in n.america these days....), and I don't think there there is a hell of lot that's fresh in the the style of overblowing, so why so many damn records, Peter and John? And if you put out 10 records a year, doesn't that give me the the right to complain about, among other things, quality and differentiation?

>

Zorn may put out a lot of records, but it seems to me like differentiation has been the most defining aspect of his career. Where's the common ground between Redbird, The Big Gundown, the game pieces, Masada, and the Music Romance albums? Your argument loses a lot of steam if you acknowledge that the balls-out overblowing you don't like is just one aspect of a very varied musical imagination. Also, from the admittedly small amount of Masada I've heard, I don't think your complaint really applies to them either (more to stuff like Naked City or PainKiller, neither of which are quite, or entirely, free jazz anyway). Masada is a pretty varied group itself, certainly capable of explosive playing but equally capable of quite beautiful (and dare I say traditional) playing.

I can see your point more with regards to Brotzmann and other "fire music" players, but I happen to like that aesthetic. I'm content with a handful of Brotzmann and Paul Flaherty discs (and Cecil Taylor too, does he get included in this category?).

I think the reason people object to your pieces so strongly is that so far you've chosen to write two articles rejecting entire strands of music that you simply don't like. That's not very valuable or insightful -- all it tells us is that you, personally, don't respond to fire music and EAI. So what? It's difficult, inaccessible music, it's not surprising that lots of people don't enjoy it while small minorities do. And your tendency to guess at the feeling of those people who do like this music can be pretty tiresome. Like this:

"while I can understand why people love them both at their most abrasive and taxing, I don't actually believe people listen to it very much (unless they have sound proof bunkers in their homes or on the occasion when they go with the guys to see it performed live"

I don't really see how often people play this music has any bearing. I suspect you're right, of course, that there are very few people for whom full-out free jazz blowouts are their only musical love, but what does that matter? I've got lots of CDs, in lots of different styles, and I'm sure there are more than a few that only get taken out once a year at most. I admit I don't put on Brotzmann or Zorn very often these days (though at one time I was pretty Zorn-obsessed), but that doesn't lessen how much I enjoy the music when I do play it. In fact, this conversation has made me strongly desire Masada's "Live in Seville."

The above post seems to have lost my quote, at the very beginning I meant to quote from Mr. Hill thusly:

"And if you put out 10 records a year, doesn't that give me the the right to complain about, among other things, quality and differentiation?"

"my 'barbaric yawp' reference is a familiar line from Whitman"
Forgive me for not spotting it: the only Walt I get to read these days is Mr Horn :) Time to go back to WW..
"as an opera fan, do you think Whitman could have come to like 'fire music?'"
Did I say somewhere I was an opera fan? Not sure I ever really was, but I know I like it less and less as time goes by (very few exceptions: Parsifal, Wozzeck, Die Soldaten, Der Freischutz, maybe a few more)! In answer to your question, I rather think Whitman would have appreciated some of the stuff - epic trawls like Silva's Treasure Box - don't you? Maybe our other resident poetry expert Nate Dorward has a thought on this one. I'm sure TS Eliot would have hated it though, which for me is one more reason to like it (not all of it).
"And if you put out 10 records a year, doesn't that give me the the right to complain about, among other things, quality and differentiation?"
Yes is the clear answer to that question, but I echo Ed H's sentiments above about Zorn, whose output is far more varied - or at least used to be - than Brotz's. (On the subject of which, you may recall my pretty negative take on the PB Tentet in Signal To Noise a couple of years ago..)

dan, i think i misphrased--whitman was the opera lover.

ed, i appreciate your comments. but i think avant music fans can withstand a little ridicule from within, don't you? i write as an fan of avant music and as a self-confessed geek, and also can see how absurd and uber masculine some of these pursuits are.

and yes, for the last time, I know Zorn's output is varied, I said as much in the article and in comments here and at JC. Two of the three times I saw him, he was blasting the shit out of the room; one of those times I fled. maybe that's not a good enough sampling. but it is an opinion piece.

Adam wrote:
Is there 'fire music' that doesn't chiefly feature a sax?

td: The saxophone is similar to the electric guitar in that it's a relatively easy instrument to make a LOT of noise with. Notice that, among instruments, those two in particular seem to have generated an overgeneous share of epic noodlers, over the years. As a result, I'm pretty tired of both of them.

(forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already in this way-too-long-and-pissy-to-read-all-the-way-through thread)

td

Sorry for the confusion on the opera bit, though I answered the question, sort of. Hello Tom! Yep, can't noodle much on a trumpet, can you? You're right about the way-too-long-and-pissy-to-read-all-the-way-through bit too! Let me bring Phil back in here, as his book a while back was a staunch defence of "fire music" (though not of Zorn).. how do you see the East Coast scene developing, Phil? I'm quite saddened as well as surprised to see the likes of Shipp, Parker and Campbell turning out half-assed hiphop on Thirsty Ear.. The last David Ware with strings was awfully disappointing too, though I think his poor health might have something to do with it.

Maybe our other resident poetry expert Nate Dorward has a thought on this one. I'm sure TS Eliot would have hated it though, which for me is one more reason to like it (not all of it).

I think my only thought on this is that the amount of guff & bad poetry written about jazz & improv by poets is unconscionably large.... The poetry of connoisseurship or enthusiasm is usually pretty dire.

Dan wrote: I'm quite saddened as well as surprised to see the likes of Shipp, Parker and Campbell turning out half-assed hiphop on Thirsty Ear.. The last David Ware with strings was awfully disappointing too, though I think his poor health might have something to do with it.

I'm actually quite a fan of Ware, and didn't know he's in bad health--more info?

To my mind, those NY cats have played a very different kind of 'fire music.' No attempt made to just chuck out all the richness of melody, harmony, or structure. But maybe even they got bored with the bombast. Shrieking overtones don't exactly expand your audience either.

Some nice discussion here- it's good to hear the Bags switchboard humming. Adam, I’m a bit surprised to read your praise of Ware, especially given the crux of your op/ed. By my estimation, albums like CRYPTOLOGY and DAO are chock-full of more ‘overblown’ shrieks and squeals than Gayle’s TOUCHIN’ ON TRANE (though that’s admittedly not so with later Ware endeavors like SURRENDERED). Curious if you count those records among those you admire? I’m curious too about the upcoming live set on Thirsty Ear (three archival concerts w/ three different drummers: Dickey, Ibarra & Brown, iirc), could be pretty interesting.

>I'm quite saddened as well as surprised to see the likes of Shipp, Parker and Campbell turning out half-assed hiphop on Thirsty Ear.. The last David Ware with strings was awfully disappointing too, though I think his poor health might have something to do with it.

I didn't like Campbell's Thirsty Ear disc It's Krunch Time, but it wasn't a hip-hop album, just an uninspired hard-bop date. I love Shipp's last three discs, Harmony & Abyss in particular. I don't think those are hip-hop albums, either. We agree about the Ware-with-strings album; I only listened to it once. But I don't like anybody with strings, except Alice Coltrane.

Aside from what Shipp is doing/sponsoring, I don't see the East Coast players "developing" at all right now. There's a lot of stagnation, a lot of people playing with the same people they've been playing with since the 1980s, and very few young talents coming up. There was a trumpet player I heard a few years ago with Louie Belogenis and Rashied Ali who was great, but I can't remember his name right now - he also guested with the Art Ensemble when they last came through town. He's keeping a low profile, whoever he is. Other than him, the only players who interest me these days are pianists - Shipp, Craig Taborn, Jason Moran and Vijay Iyer.

I've been busily traveling backwards the last couple of years, buying all the BYG and ESP reissues, as well as bootlegs of non-reissued stuff (CD-Rs mastered from vinyl and sold at ridiculously high prices in lil' boutique stores). I hear new stuff when it comes out, but none of it really grabs my ear except for stuff by the four keyboardists I just listed. (Look out for Moran's next album, Same Mother, when it drops in February. I wrote it up for an upcoming issue of Jazziz; it's very solid.) So I keep digging in the crates...just bought my first two Andrew Hill albums this weekend, Black Fire and Point Of Departure.

Oh, and like Derek, I'm very interested to hear that triple-live set of Ware stuff.

derek, i admit that i like the Columbia (?) releases more than the others except for Gospellized, but I've also liked just about everything from Ware, and maybe it's because I find more in his sound, actually that's it exactly. I think he's been able to make the rips and roars work within the context of both traditional jazz structures without sacrificing improvisational ideas. More range to his playing, more sweetness too. And he doesn't overwhelm his sidemen/woman, he finds a real vibe with them that I don't hear at all in Brotz or Gayle--t seems like they just let their sideman try to keep up or sound up.

I agree with some of what Phil says about the stagnation in the current scene. Personally, I've found Tim Berne to be the exception to this. The output of his groups continues to excite me. I also think the Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey (epecially their latest release Walking with Giants) is a really interesting group that's on its way to their own distinct and fresh sound.

Huh, to each his own. For me, it seems that Ware has less going on in the way of interplay w/ rhythm section, etc than Brotzmann often does with his regulars (drake and parker or kessler, for instance), let alone Zorn who seems totally locked in with Cohen & Baron, for instance. That's one of the things I find so beautiful and interesting about "free jazz" or whatever. Everyone has a slightly different take on everyone, it's like we are all speaking the same mother language about the same concepts, but we all have slightly different dialects or something.

As for stagnation, yeah that happens to everyone. How many people have been able to change often and keep on changing? Miles? Ornette? Zorn? You could argue either way that any of those folks stagnated or made changes in any period of their output. It all depends on your point of view. Some will see the extensions of the Masada song book as stagnation, others as growth and change within that area.

As for what Phil said, yeah those 4 pianists are kicking my butt lately too, especially that recent Craig Taborn album.

Rob

>I really can't see the attraction, but if you want to try and sell the concept to me, I'm all ears, Phil.

I don't know if I can - either you like the way he and his producer (FLAM) slice up the piano-trio stuff, turn it into robot jazz collages, or you don't. I like it a lot - it loops in on itself but never quite disappears entirely up its own ass, and he makes zero concessions to the dancefloor. Actually, a lot of tracks on Harmony & Abyss remind me of Steve Reich or Philip Glass.

Great points, Rob (truncated ‘cause I know I’d get the correct # of r’s and b’s wrong).

Adam, I’d actually be inclined to agree with you re: Brötz and Gayle regarding the occasional tendency to gun the engines & leave their rhythm sections tumbling in the wake- I think that’s why they both tend to tap the same guys in trio contexts. Folks like Parker & Drake can stay afloat & even thrive amongst all the turbulence. But the key word in the lead sentence above is “occasional”.

That new guy in the AEoC trumpet chair is Corey Wilkes. I haven’t heard him in that particular context, but reports I have heard argued he was an ill-fit at best.

Seconds to Dan’s w/ strings recs & I’d also suggest dipping into the projects by Ben Webster, Harry Carney, Jimmy Giuffre, Cannonball Adderley and Evan Parker.

And fwiw, I dug IT’S KRUNCH TIME, though it’s been quite awhile since I've spun it- not a *classic*, but enjoyable nonetheless.

So how does Joe Maneri figure into this debate?

I saw Wilkes with the AEoC when they played Iridium earlier this year. I thought he fit in okay - I mean, nobody's gonna replace Bowie, but he didn't really try. He went for a post-bop approach instead of splatter and sound effects, a choice I felt was the right one. The Art Ensemble guys tend to make their audience wait for a payoff, and Wilkes' impatience to get to the good stuff helped them out.

Derek, I never get the number of r's & b's the same either, so one of each is really fine.

I didn't really like Corey Wilkes in the AEOC either, but then again, I can't imagine calling something the AEOC at any point after about 1972 without Bowie or Favors Maghoustat being involved. So I'm approaching that with a definite bias already. I have enjoyed his playing in a lot of other contexts though, especially Nicole Mitchell's new album, which is quite swell.

Joe Maneri probably fits in the same place as Leo Smith (new album is wonderful, btw), Frank Lowe or any other number of not-primarily-fire-breathing "free jazzists." They're coming from a different perspective and just not really part of this debate.

One more aside, the aforementioned Jason Moran plays nicely with Jack DeJohnette as the rhythm section on Don Byron's new album, which is quite enjoyable.

Rob

What about Getz's "Focus"?

There’s some wonky site shite going on here what with Dan’s last couple of posts now MIA. I’m trying to hunt them down & get them restored.

All my Wilkes info is second hand, so I suppose it isn’t really admissable in the court of opinion. I’d say Papa Joe is in his own league (in many ways he’s the anti-Gayle in my book, though they’re both coming from extremely personal & expressive places). Gayle was once quoted as saying something to the effect of: “if the building is still standing when we’ve finished playing then we didn’t do our job.” Feeds right into the ‘search-and-destroy’ stereotype being argued here.

But Joe’s approach often works from apposite inside-out angle: subtle, sometimes glacial, gradations that wriggle their way in & leave the audience leveled in a much less openly aggressive way. There have been times when I’ve heard him live, where he’s working from a whisper and suddenly by some amazing sleight-of-horn it’s a full blown wail.

And Frank Lowe is another one who hung up most of his “fire music” traits in favor of a more nuanced delivery & flirtation with melody. I like both sides of his sound (the ‘fire’ side evident on discs like TRICKS OF THE TRADE which would probably raise Adam’s ire, and the quixotically staggered lyricism of dates like VISION BLUE).

I’m with Rob on Wadada’s new Tzadik, LAKE BIWA is a bonafide beaut with a killer band. Still delving into Nicole Mitchells’ date, but I’ve enjoyed what I’ve heard so far- another large crew that works well together. Not familiar with Byron’s IVEY-DIVEY yet though.

It's admittedly difficult to judge interplay with the 'fire breathers' if that's what we're calling them. To my ears, Ware works great with Shipp and Parker, they really keep each other inventive, and his drummers (Ibarra probably the best, Dickey, Brown) have been good, but not to my ears, as deeply integrated. I like the drummers Brotz plays with, especially Drake, but I don't hear much true communication with them. And in the larger groups (from Machine Gun to the present), there's a lot of interesting ideas thown out, but it never amounts to a satisfying sum, too often a din.

Then there are other totally unique musicians whose physicality can be daunting for the sideman. Cecil is maybe the best example. To me, no other horn player but Jimmy Lyons really worked well with Cecil, and I've never liked any drummers other than Murray and Oxley working with him, though he's worked with amazing drummers throughout his career. There are a lot of Cecil records where even very talented players sound tentative and then sometimes forced.

For me, there are two absolutely essential box sets that have taught me the most about great interplay in a jazz group. The recent Cecil box, his feel trio with Parker and Oxely. And Miles' Plugged Nickel box. You get nearly a week's worth of successive sets in each, and you can really hear them hearing each other, which is maybe the most beautiful thing to experience in jazz.

To characterize Brotzmann's music as being only about "overblown," "screaming," "raucous", "wailing", "bombastic", "histrionic," "simplistic," "angry", "hectic" or "abrasive" sounds (maybe Santa will replace that worn-out thesaurus) seems to miss almost everything about his music. Brotz's musical language incorporates certain techniques and sound elements -- hyper-visceral sounds which, yes, to some degree had to do with a certain time and place, i.e., the 1960s European art scene and counterculture. But he uses those elements as part of what he does as an improvisor, in exactly the same way that Johnny Hodges incorporated his "searing tone and slithery motion" (per Kevin Whitehead) in his improvisations. I wonder if Adam Hill would dismiss Hodges for anachronistically repeating his "cliches" and ignore the consistent creativity of Hodges' improvisations in the manner he has dismissed and ignored Brotzmann. How 'bout Sonny Rollins or Max Roach? Is an artist expected to create a revolutionary new style every few years? If someone like that exists, I'd like to know his/her name. Off the top of my head, among 20th-Century artists, only Picasso exhibited that kind of capacity from decade to decade (or from day to day). (Duke, Miles and Trane covered a lot of ground, but not to that degree.)

Writers like Hill tend to take music(ian)s which provide some initial discomfort, reduce them with the labels of "shocking" and "avant-garde," and then later, once their own discomfort has faded, criticize those music(ian)s for failing to provide what they had perceived as its only worthwhile quality, ignorant of the fact that the music(ian)s were never as one-dimensional as they thought, but were very much, dare I say, part of a tradition. The more I hear Brotzmann -- who I've heard on average once a year since the mid-1990s -- the more I hear the spirit of Coleman Hawkins.

Again we're faced with the huge deficiencies in perception and understanding of the visceral and structural elements of improvised musics. For the moralist with regard to sound (as Hill appears to be), the criticism seems to be about what sounds are proper material for "music". That's fine, but just state that up front ("I don't like Brotzmann's tone/volume/vibrato/whatever") rather than complain about cliches or irrelevance while ignoring the experience of listening to the music. Or just admit "I don't get it". (It's not hard. Here, I'll start: "I don't get Keith Jarrett." Now you try.)

Part of the problem may be that Hill is using reproductions of performances rather than live listening experiences to draw his conclusions. I treasure my records as much as the next guy, but we're dealing with a living music, people.

But even regarding Brotzmann's recordings, there is an astonishing diversity among just his solo, Die Like a Dog, and Chicago Tentet projects, and duets with Walter Perkins. Still, it's impossible to overstate the error in mistaking his records for the entirety of his activity as an artist -- not just in music but in visual arts as well, as evidenced by the work included in the current exhibition at Corbett vs. Dempsey: http://corbettvsdempsey.com/

Adam Hill's writing is a sobering reminder about the oppressive, pre-Cagean attitude towards music -- and for that matter, towards art-in-life. Unfortunately, this reactionary conservatism is a sign of our times.
Four more years!
(Speaking of which, I can't describe how life-affirming it was to hear Brotzmann "bark 'n bite" in duo with Robert Barry this last November 3. Gustafsson was exceptionally "ferocious" with a different group that night as well.)

-Jason

ah, once again the argument that if someone doesn't like something, they just don't get it, though Jason G's argument is more passionately made than the typical old saw of this kind. To lump me in with the "oppressive" "conservatives" hilariously undermines his own point about reactionary reductions. (Perhaps Santa will bring you a text on critical thinking)

re Corey Wilkes

Jeez guys, give a cat a break. I don't think he is yet 25 years old. Not everybody is a Mozart or a Booker Little.

I hear him all the time in Chicago with a group of others in his age and they certainly seem to be on the right track.

Uli, I pretty much defer to you on all things Chicagoan, so I hearby formally retract my by-proxy Wilkes diss. The Windy City trumpet prodigy I have heard and do dig is Maurice Brown, though I guess technically he’s a Nawlins’ resident now.

Just learned earlier today that there's a cd associated with that Corbett vs. Dempsey installation, which includes a clutch of unreleased tracks by Sun Ra, Pee Wee Russell and others [Brotz & Bennink doing "Take Five"(!)]

Adam,

Have you heard Brotzmann in person? How often?

Jason,
As with just about any improvisational musician, I have no doubt that seeing Brotzmann live is preferrable to his recordings. That said, he releases a large number of recordings under his name every year, and you can buy recordings of his dating from the late 60's to the present day. Is his sound not represented on these? Any of these? Even the live recordings? Even though most of his recordings are done outside of a studio? If not, how could we possibly evaluate them? And then, why release them? See what I'm getting at?

Look, I respect your passion for his music. And you just have to take my word for it when I tell you I'm not a reactionary conservative interested in oppressing any art form. I am interested in serious discussion, sans the personal smacks, which are understandable, but tend to get my lesser angel worked up.

"Uli, I pretty much defer to you on all things Chicagoan, so I hearby formally retract my by-proxy Wilkes diss. The Windy City trumpet prodigy I have heard and do dig is Maurice Brown, though I guess technically he’s a Nawlins’ resident now."

Yeah Maurice Brown is certainly a cat to watch. He lives in Nawlins' but he still comes to town regularly. He and Wilkes came thru the jam sessions at the New Apartment Lounge or the Velvet since they were in high school. Most of the times together like twins.

ps Derek, I think I've read a review of yours of the last Ernest Dawkins record where you pointed out Maurice Brown. He has his own first record out "Hip to Bop". As the name sez stylistically bebop based stuff and I know you guys here are bit snobbish about this kinda thing but I think its quite good.

Adam,

Though your piece definitely pushed some of my buttons, I had no intention of responding with personal flames, so I'll take back the “reactionary conservative” label (for now). I do have issues with what I see as the political implications of your piece, e.g., ignoring or diminishing the socio-political contexts from which the music arises and upon which it comments, conflating a genuinely radical counterculture with the capitalist-friendly hedonist-hippies of the Sixties, etc. (Have the authoritarian systems of Western free-market capitalism and various Euro-Asian totalitarian/fascist regimes been dismantled? Funny, I hadn't noticed.) But I decided to ask about seeing/hearing Brotz live instead for a particular reason. You didn't answer the question, but here's what I'm getting at:

I really don't think the “live/Memorex” issue is the same regarding Brotzmann is it is regarding “just about any” improv musician. Brotzmann's music suffers more than most if you only focus on the recordings for this reason: The intensity and complex texture of his sound is at the core of his music (as it is with, say, Borbetomagus), something which is simply impossible to be faithfully reproduced by the best recording played on the finest stereo. It's not a sound you merely hear with your ears, but a penetrating, enveloping sound that vibrates throughout one's body, from feet to crotch to stomach to the hairs on your chiny-chin-chin. You can crank up the stereo, but it doesn't really help. That's one, important, aspect, but it has other implications: it becomes misleading to evaluate the nature of his interaction (or “communication”) with fellow performers on a recording, where you can't hear what they're really interacting with -- not clusters of notes which are more or less dissonant, more or less dynamic, but thick sonic brushstrokes which no currently-known recording technology can accurately reproduce. And then there is the visual element, but I'll stop here.

When I was first getting into jazz, I dismissed Brotzmann as an excessive, one-dimensional blowhard. As I got more into avant-garde musics and arts, I started appreciating the raw emotional intensity of Brotzmann's playing but still heard his art as one-dimensional (but what a dimension!) and thus a lot of the records as redundant. It wasn't until I heard him live that I really *got* it. (I had similar experiences with Cecil Taylor and Derek Bailey.) And every time I'm fortunate enough to see/hear him play live, I discover something new about his music – and when I go back to the records I hear them differently.

So that's where I'm coming from, regarding Brotzmann in particular. (I agree with you about Gayle; Zorn is hit-and-miss, but he's so all-over-the-place, I think it's a mistake to lump him together with the others.) I think anyone who discusses jazz & improv music(ian)s without hearing the music in person is missing a lot; with a musician like Brotzmann, s/he is missing almost everything.

To make visual art analogies: you get more of the essence of a Mondrian painting in a reproduction than you do of the essence of Pollock painting in a reproduction; you get more of the essence of a Lubitsch film on home video than you do from a Brakhage film on home video. Brotzmann is more Pollock/Brakhage than Mondrian/Lubitsch. So...

You ask: “Is his sound not represented on these? Any of these? Even the live recordings? Even though most of his recordings are done outside of a studio?”

Answer: No, his sound is not represented on these. Or, more accurately, his sound can be mentally reconstructed when listening to the recordings only after having had the opportunity to experience the music in person. I think of it as a sort of retroactive, subconscious “filling in the blanks” process. Don't ask me to elaborate. (Though by asking the question, you answer my previous question about hearing him live.)

“If not, how could we possibly evaluate them? And then, why release them?”

You can evaluate the records after having heard him live, preferably multiples times in different contexts. I know all the problematic implications of this, regarding access to live performances, etc, etc. I just can't avoid the conclusion that it's an absolute imperative if you're going to seriously, competently discuss improvised music in general, and Brotzmann's music in particular.
Why release them? Well, in a culture in which information is allowed to circulate only if it's in commodified form, it becomes unavoidable to have to put out records. For another thing, as a source of income, records are necessary, though far from sufficient, “in order to survive”. But my argument is not that the records are completely useless (see my “fill-in-the-blanks” explanation above). And of course once Brotzmann's body gives out, the documents are useful to inform, however imperfectly, future generations, however imperfectly. Gary Peacock and others have commented on how inadequately Ayler's sound is captured in even the best recordings, but hearing Brotzmann live helps me “hear more” of Ayler.

I'll throw out there a couple of texts which elaborate on useful conceptual frameworks in which Brotzmann's music (however anti-conceptual it may be) can placed:
(1) the Blues, discussed here:
http://www.kenvandermark.com/perspectives/brotzmann.html
(2) the socio-political context/content of his music, discussed here:
http://www.jazzhouse.org/library/library2.php3?read=kulak3

These elements are summarized in the title of Mike Heffley's imaginary dissertation: "Mississippi Blues, Rhenish Folk, and the Unbearable Whiteness of Brötzmann."

-Jason

Whoa, Uli. Don’t lump me with the eai blackguard so hastily :) Seriously though, I’d be willing to lay ducats on the line that the majority of the Bags bullpen digs bebop (& freebop for that matter). I didn’t know Brown and Wilkes had come up together- cool. And thanks for the tip on HIP TO BOP, I’ve been reading some buzz about it & it looks like one to nab. I really dig Brown’s work on that New Horizons disc (& Fred’s BACK AT THE VELVET LOUNGE too, though he’s a tad more embryonic there).

Jason,
a thoughtful post. i'll have to take your word for it in regards to seeing him live, because no, i have not seen Brotzmann live, though I don't doubt it could be stirring, especially surrounded by other brave men. however, i just can't agree with you that he (or any other jazz artist) cannot be evaluated unless or until seen live. i do like your analogies, though i think all the plastic arts suffer in reproduction, and I'm not convinced that an audio art form suffers in the same way.

as i tried to make clear in my piece, it's really aesthetics. i do not like Brotzmann's excessive intensity, his howling squalls, his choice of visceral over intellectual. as i said in my piece, it comes off to me as far more impressive physically than imaginatively. there's too little variation in his phrasing, too little inventiveness to his configurations, and not enough true ensemble interaction (it comes off to my ears as commotion, which may be an effect of recording, if i'm to nod toward your basic premise).
i guess i like my intensity a little more earned, a little more cooked, a little more varied, and a little more imaginative.

to each his own, of course. thanks for the references to the articles, which i shall check out. i hope i've made myself a wee bit clearer, so that you might see my objections to his playing are based on aesthetics that do not necessarily lend to a socio-political agenda.

Jason, I too really enjoyed your descriptions/comparisons. Have you heard Gayle live? I find it interesting that you ascribe the traits you do to Brötzmann’s music, but don’t accord similar consideration to Gayle. They’re markedly different to be sure, but there’s conviction & depth, an “intensity and complex texture” as you put it, in Gayle’s work too. Perhaps you just haven’t *got* him yet?

I disagree too with the contention that either man’s sound isn’t represented on record. The live experience is different (and I would definitely agree more inclusive/preferable), but I do think a person can get a fair representation of Brötz, provided they sample enough discs. And I write all this having heard both men live (Brötz on numerous occasions, Gayle twice).

One thing that I find laughable is the contention that Brötz can’t play the blues. That he isn’t a bluesman- that he’s a victim of the “unbearable whiteness” of that dissertation title. To my ears there’s a real sense of blues in his music. Sometimes awkwardly conveyed, but Brötz has definitely lived the bluesman’s life- itinerant rambling, a prisoner to the bottle for most of his adult years, broken relationships, a son to whom he was estranged for awhile, an introverted loner’s personality, financial insecurity, artistic ostracization, a disconnect with his ethnic past, etc.

Part of the problem as I see it is the rep he’s cultivated over the years. The stories of him puncturing a lung or bursting a blood vessel in his forehead from blowing so hard. It’s all part of the mythmaking & colorful anecdotes like these make for good copy, but it undermines the sincerity and seriousness in what he’s doing. It’s that emotional honesty that I like most in his playing. Hearing him on disc or in person I never get the feeling that he’s putting me on. There are times that I’ve felt him going through the motions a bit, but in each case it seemed more a function of fatigue or frustration than anything disingenuous. Another thing I admire is his insistence on equality in his bands. Everybody gets paid the same & he’s open to compositional/improvisatory input from his sidemen. Despite his gruff outer demeanor he doesn’t take himself too seriously and his abiding respect/knowledge of early jazz forms/players (Dixieland, Bechet, Hawkins) is pretty admirable too.

Coming into this discussion a bit late, but Jason's points are put well. If you completely ignore the socio-political background to Brotzmann's aesthetic choices (or Shepp's, or whoever), then you miss something even if you love the music he makes. If your likes and dislikes are based only on aesthetics - or at least an circa 18th century beauty/perfection idea of aesthetics, then you're ignoring that their might be very good reasons for something to be ugly, or imperfect, or visceral.

The only recording that can accurately represent a musician is a made-for-record recording - a performance designed to be played on stereo/surround equipment/headphones, not live. If it's a live performance, or a studio recording mimicking a live performance, then it's not going to accurately represent either the sound or experience of live music. The plastic arts suffer from reproduction because the reproduction is a slightly worse version of the thing it represents. Recording and playing back recorded music not only alters the sound (although if you're stuck at the back of a room with someone chatting next to you it might alter it positively), but it removes all of the contextual physical, spatial, visual content of the performance.

Derek,

Oh, I absolutely agree that there's a lot of blues in Brotz's music. Maybe I misunderstood Heffley's point in his imaginary dissertation title, but I take the "unbearable whiteness" as a reference to post-WWII Germany. Brotz has said "I have the European blues or the after-war blues." In keeping with Cornel West's definition of the blues tradition, there is much dialogue, resistance, and hope in Brotzmann's music.

My point about live/records is more about a critic's responsibility: It's irresponsible for a critic (emphasis on critic) to conflate the aesthetics of a recording with the aesthetics of the music. Beyond the purely acoustic sound qualities, I include a lot of visual information in my definition of improvised music "aesthetics." For example, the ability to see a drummer decide when and where to hit a particular cymbal in a particular way, to watch a sax player decide when and where to start/stop blowing, provides a great deal of information about the shape, flow, and interactivity of a lot of improv music. After you've had the live experience, you hear the aesthetics of recorded music differently -- and I'd say more accurately. A critic who dismisses or ignores the live experience not only misses a great deal of this aesthetic information but also shows a lack of interest/understanding about the socio-political affinities of the music. Once again: We're talking about more than a mere commodity -- it's a living music. Maybe I'm adhering to an antiquated, pre-Internet/blog notion of "criticism" proper, but I think it's appropriate to hold critics to a higher standard for the writing they generate for public consumption.

Re: Gayle. I've seen him live a couple of times, and have enjoyed some of his records. I'm open to hearing more.

-Jason

Jason, I wasn’t referring directly to Heffley’s point w/ that “whiteness” quote, just riffing on his title a la Gary Giddins’ spin on Art Pepper. Sorry for the confusion.

I hear what you’re saying about the broader aesthetics of live/living performance- the five senses brought to bear on what’s going on versus the one, or two if you consider tactile in line with auditory when listening to a recording (volume, acoustics, etc.). Is spinning a disc and gleaning an opinion from it on par with hatching one out of the more complete picture afforded by the live experience in critical terms? I’d agree with you, no. My listening to Brötz and others on record is definitely informed by my memories of witnessing him/them in person. But I still think a substantial amount of info can still be communicated via recording(s) - and often enough to form an opinion on the music(ians) under scrutiny. For example, by your argument those of us born after Trane’s passing or not yet in a geographical proximity to hear Evan Parker in person don’t truly know either man’s music. Amiri Baraka’s long standing contention that the surviving records don’t even come close to capturing Ayler’s sound. I’m not necessarily suggesting that this isn’t so, just that there are shades of gray to “getting it”.

a few comments about aesthetics.
it seems that one of the cherished assumptions of the so-called avant garde is to dismiss traditional notions of beauty as somehow passe or worse, the oppressive handiwork of authoritarian thinking. Of course,conversely, this means that anything 'new' or different must be worthy of our regard simply because it's new or different. if one finds that one has no regard for an artwork's 'new' aesthetics, than that person is an old-fashioned snob, and incapable of understanding or getting it. Such thinking, to my mind, is the refuge of bad art.

too; positing that reproduction of say a Rothko painting is only a 'slightly worse version of the thing' and that a recording of say Giant Steps is a distortion of its essence, a cheap knock-off of sorts, is extremely unconvincing no matter how many technical and personal factors one cites. Besides the truly faulty analogy, it's trying to have it both ways. You know those recordings you've loved all these years? You shouldn't love them, at least not unless you've seen those artists live on dozens of occasions and have taken in every possible element of performance. C'mon! That kind of criteria is absurd, and to dress it up as a critic's responsibilty is tantamount to say nothing should be evaluated and criticized. And then to add the layer of socio-political connotations, well, what the hell, why even bother to trust the immediacy of music at all? Afterall, we're just kidding ourselves when we respond to it as it plays on our stereos.

From Adam Hill:
a few comments about aesthetics.
it seems that one of the cherished assumptions of the so-called avant garde is to dismiss traditional notions of beauty as somehow passe or worse, the oppressive handiwork of authoritarian thinking. Of course,conversely, this means that anything 'new' or different must be worthy of our regard simply because it's new or different. if one finds that one has no regard for an artwork's 'new' aesthetics, than that person is an old-fashioned snob, and incapable of understanding or getting it. Such thinking, to my mind, is the refuge of bad art.

I don't really believe that either your assumption or it's converse are true and I doubt that many avant-garde artists, musicians, etc. over the years have really felt the same way. Artists worth their salt can recognize the craft and skill in another artists work, regardless of the style. Picasso did not trash his forebears nor heap praise on his followers. Same with Coltrane. By the way, I don't really think "avant-garde" is the correct term to use for a style of music that has become pretty solidified and stylized after 40 years or so. I think the real refuge of bad art is in the world of criticism. How many artists get hyped by writers and then fall off the face of the earth?

too; positing that reproduction of say a Rothko painting is only a 'slightly worse version of the thing' and that a recording of say Giant Steps is a distortion of its essence, a cheap knock-off of sorts, is extremely unconvincing no matter how many technical and personal factors one cites. Besides the truly faulty analogy, it's trying to have it both ways. You know those recordings you've loved all these years? You shouldn't love them, at least not unless you've seen those artists live on dozens of occasions and have taken in every possible element of performance. C'mon! That kind of criteria is absurd, and to dress it up as a critic's responsibilty is tantamount to say nothing should be evaluated and criticized. And then to add the layer of socio-political connotations, well, what the hell, why even bother to trust the immediacy of music at all? Afterall, we're just kidding ourselves when we respond to it as it plays on our stereos.

Of course we want to have it both ways, or maybe more realistically we have to have it both ways. There's no way I can afford to have Henry Threadgill playing in my living room everynight or buy any Rothko paintings to hang on my wall, but I can listen to the records and look at the reproductions in books and still enjoy them to some extent - not as much as in person, but it's a way to get art into our lives when we need it. And I don't think that saying reproductions or recordings are lesser representations is necessarily bad or untrue. I've never been moved to tears by a painting in a book, but have in person and there are precious few records that make me cry or shudder like the way a really, really transcendent live performance can. (Off the top of my head - drum break in Shaggs "Philosophy of the World", Charlie Haden's bass riff in "Law Years", when Trane enters in part 2 of "A Love Supreme.") Yeah, I need those to live, but I'd love to have had the chance to hear and see them in person. When it comes down to it, art and music are about emotion AND intellect and trying to reach people. So, what is the purpose and responsibility of a critic, then? I can't say I really know (or frankly care all that much). All I know is what moves me.

I think the only bad art is art that is made without sincerity. If people are really putting themselves into it, I might not like it or understand it or think its very interesting intellectually, but I don't know if it is bad.

Rob

There are recordings I like much more than live performances I've seen (even of the same people). However, that doesn't mean that they're the same thing, or one's better than the other. But it does mean that the experience of listening to them is different, and that some people aren't represented well in either situation. You can love recordings for what they are, but they aren't live performances, and although they give some understanding of a musician who you might otherwise not see, and allow for repeated playback etc. etc. all of this is not the same as seeing someone live (same as you wouldn't very easily be able to transcribe solos at a live gig either).

There's plenty of new, avant-garde, whatever-you-want-to-call-it art and music that I really have no time for at all. However, that's rarely down to a perceived lack of beauty, it could be for a whole range of reasons, including the socio-political background/intent of the piece, if I know what it is, or if it's explicit, or whatever. There are various ways to assess things, and aesthetics isn't only to do with our subjective response to artifacts - it has to do with how they're produced as well.

rob,
in your conflation of analogies you avoid one rather large and important distinction. Artists do not make those little plates that appear in books, that sometimes have to suffice for us. But musicians do record their music, whether live on stage or in a studio. You would never have a Picasso point to a catalogue as a representation of what he does, but many muscians are quite proud of their records, and well they should be. I just don't see any useful truth to the analogies whatsoever.

in saying avant garde, i guess i should have said, defenders of, rather than imply practioners of. and whether avant garde is the right term or not is beside the point. many smart folks here and other places are dismissive of many works of art that have obvious connections to historical notions of beauty in order to privilege the 'new', even when the new has nothing to say.

and i don't think sincerity is a very useful criteria for judging merit (as anyone who has taught any sort of creative class from writing to music to painting can attest). bad art is made all the time by sincere people, even sincere, smart, and decent people.

>>rob,
in your conflation of analogies you avoid one rather large and important distinction. Artists do not make those little plates that appear in books, that sometimes have to suffice for us. But musicians do record their music, whether live on stage or in a studio. You would never have a Picasso point to a catalogue as a representation of what he does, but many muscians are quite proud of their records, and well they should be. I just don't see any useful truth to the analogies whatsoever.>>

Some artists make lithographs, or have prints done and sell them.

Many CDs are recorded by recording engineers, or private tapers in secret. If live records are released it's usually a decision taken after the performance takes place, or not taken by the musician at all (even if they're alive in some cases).

The musician doesn't hand build the stereo system or the little bit of metal and plastic that you put in it, so I think the analogy holds pretty well. I'm sure plenty of current artists have websites and other promotional material that isn't only their original work that they use in order to secure exhibitions and commissions.

one last shot, Adam:

Ayler is dead. Brotzmann is not. That matters.
A serious critic will understand how this fact relates to the aesthetics and politics of creative/jazz/improvised/Great Black musics and enables a basic understanding of why musicians working in this tradition have something unique to offer in our culture of alienating commodification.
Serious criticism (contra hobbyist opinionating) about jazz/improv musics does not require the impossible (hearing dead people) but should have reasonable prerequisites (hearing live people in a live context -- at least once -- before discussing their music and its "relevance").
Brotzmann is very much alive. If you can make your way to Chicago on January 12, I'll gladly pay your admission to the Empty Bottle to hear him perform with the members of the DKV Trio.

Happy listening...

Ho ho hoooo! Haven't checked Bags in a few days. You know there's only two subjects I've seen on this site that generate 70+ comments: 1) any Erstwhile release/festival and 2) Free Jazz. Both usually resemble someone swinging a sword round and round in an angry mob. Now, as you do . . .

Serious criticism (contra hobbyist opinionating) about jazz/improv musics does not require the impossible (hearing dead people) but should have reasonable prerequisites (hearing live people in a live context -- at least once -- before discussing their music and its "relevance").

Can I just say F*** That? I'm all for serious criticism and would like to see standards maintained, but if I supported attending a live show as a 'reasonable' prerequisite for serious criticism, I can forget about getting a 'proper' review rom anyone but Brian Olewnick, as he's the only critic I recall attending a show of mine (thanks Brian).

Making live attendance a requisite for 'serious' critics is the same as requiring 'serious' musicians to have the funds necessary for a world tour. Don't you dare call me a hobbyist, but I can't afford to travel round to the hometowns of the world's reviewers for gigs. Forget the $12, just pay my airfare to Chicago and tell all the serious critics I'm playing. I'll hold a Press Night.

And besides I'd require a serious critic to be able to listen to a live recording and assess how it works as a live recording. A studio recording as etc. etc. . .

I wanted 75 comments for the cicadas thread in the summer.

M

(P.S. I'm in New York around New Year; the flights are cheaper from there than from London)

You know there's only two subjects I've seen on this site that generate 70+ comments: 1) any Erstwhile release/festival and 2) Free Jazz. Both usually resemble someone swinging a sword round and round in an angry mob. Now, as you do . . .

Sadly, we’re a pretty predictable bunch. Fwiw, I think it’s high time for another licorice thread. I’ve recently become bored with Lakritz products and am on the hunt for new anis-flavored treats.

Hi Adam,

I guess I just don't see that distinction as all that important. My point was simply that a reproduction or recording is something that we can enjoy as art, not necessarily the best possible method for enjoying that art, but something that we often have to make do with.

As for defenders of avant-garde or whatever we want to call it (my naming comment was really just an aside) who ignore or denigrate previous art to further their own tastes or agendas, I don't really have much use or respect for that mindset either. Their loss, I figure.

Yeah, that last bit was really not expressed well (which is why I do not attempt to ply my trade as a writer!) I'm not really sure what I was trying to get at there, obviously sincerity is not necessarily a criteria for quality. I guess I'm just not so quick to dismiss something as "bad" anymore - there are so many artistic, musical or literary things that I didn't get at one time in my life that I appreciate at some later point that I am more reluctant to pass that sort of judgement on them. I know it's very difficult to create something truly brilliant and I guess I don't want to be part of a culture that stifles attempts to reach that state. I know critics can play a role in stimulating artistic betterment, etc., but surely they can also play a detrimental role. Anyway, to each his own, mostly I would rather talk about the aspects of art or music that I like or that show promise or intrigue for me. OK, enough rambling, I probably haven't stated anything any more clearly than before.

Rob

everyone urges, write about what you love, don't dis any musician because it's such a small audience, etc etc; but funny thing is: it's the disagreements that bring out some of the most interesting thinking (and some bad slop too by all of us) about music and art and such. derek may fault me for deliberately provoking such discussions, but i'm not sorry for it, nor am i insincere about what i've written.
see, we've looped around. now onto.....?

Adam, I definitely don’t fault you for facilitating discussion. The original beef I had was with what I perceived as your proclivity toward instigating debate by only presenting one side of a given issue and trafficking in gross generalizations while doing so. You’ve said yourself that there’s a lot that you respect about Brötz and Zorn (Gayle’s left once again busking for spare change on the street corner, but he’s used to it :). From my vantage it seemed that you purposely down-played a more even-handed approach in your op/ed in an attempt to beat the bushes for dissenters/challengers. It just struck me a bit like hollow provocateuring. But I take you on your word about the sincerity behind what you wrote.

Stop using the word "trumpet" (as in "Gayle, who's been ridiculously overtrumpeted") in responding to an article about oversaxing. It is painful to see it used that way.

Sorry Dennis! I was banging on my favourite drum (oops can't say that either, I'm a violinist) there.. no need for you to get highly strung (oops, forgot, you're NOT a violinist) about it. Oversaxed, eh? Well I guess that's the one word description of Fire Music right there. Maybe we should all stop here, and wait for someone to review the new Erstwhiles (since nobody ever reviewed the last batch I WONDER WHY???) and / or exotic candy bar / insect. Over & out

Michael,

I don't think anyone was arguing against people reviewing CDs as CDs (studio or live) when they haven't seen musicians in person. Jason already pointed out that plenty of musicians only release CDs in order to get gigs (which assumes some reviews somewhere in between). Adam's article wasn't a CD review though, it was a short piece slamming almost the entire output of three musicians, and quite a large section of an entire genre.

I think it's fair to say that Brotzmann is primarily a live performer who releases CDs occasionally (certainly, Han Bennink, who's on lots of those discs, is much, much better live than on CD, no matter how good his CDs are). He's not someone who concentrates mainly on CD production, or does lots of recordings that are proper studio products. I dunno, maybe John Wall's a good counter-example - just about impossible to perform his stuff live.

So to dismiss him in print based entirely on his CD output misses out a large part of his playing. I pretty much write-off a lot of musicians based entirely on their CD output - I don't even have time to check out lots of musicians I'd like to on CD either, so they are, de-facto, written off without getting heard, but I don't write op-ed pieces about them, just shoot my mouth off occaisonally.

Adam, I think there should be much more critical writing about jazz and improvised music than there currently is, the first (and only) article I wrote for this site was a not very favourable thing about Conduction/the LIO, although I made it clear how limited my exposure to them had been

What irks me much more than negative critical writing (good or bad), is sloppy puff pieces/good reviews where it's clear the writer hasn't listened to anything at all - in a review of Conditions, a reviewer changed the pianists name to John Law (who I've never met, or seen) for half the review, suggesting the sentences were cut and pasted from a different review. Something to argue about is a good thing at least (although I also would've loved to have seen some more chicada action).

Sez the fellow who called us(?) masochists: "I am interested in serious discussion, sans the personal smacks."

Continuing discussion with such an insincere person actually does smack a little of the masochistic!

Much better to enjoy the many subtleties of whateverthehell 'fire music' really is.

I can't believe it, but I really did see the 'defenders' of this music actually cede (by not countering) the point that it supposedly lacks 'subtlety' or 'beauty'. Did you really think it was about 'energy???'

Did things really degenerate into a debate about the merits of witnessing live recording as opposed to enjoying its reproduction? Yes, they did. Pointlessly.

Some of you may need to find an old LP copy of 'Schwartzwaldfahrt' to convince yourselves that the beauty, and the LISTENING were there all right.

Wasn't that what got some of us into this in the first place -- that palpable sense of 'hearing the listening' going on between the musicians?

There was no opportunity for any of us to hear that one live, but even the flattening impact of the recording processs couldn't destroy the evident pleasure of two musicians utterly immersed in hearing and responding to each other and to their environment.

Only one example.

If something falls flat for you, OK. I don't even mind you telling me so. But when you fault me for finding it beautiful, when you tell me essentially that I must be in love with ugliness or pain, I've got no use for you.

BTW, to refer to music that's 'in print' that may, just may, be an example of what some'd call 'room-clearing,' The Classic Guide(s) To Strategy' are an intriguing, lovely puzzle well worth returning to frequently.

Some very good points, New Guy, whoever you are.. I suspect someone we might all know (the "us" tends to side you with the musicians..), though I guess you ain't telling. Thomas Pynchon, perhaps.
Rob above mentioned those "cry and shudder" moments, where the hair stands up without being asked. Would Baganauts care to share their experiences and list their Fave Fire Music Moments? Here's a few to start you off:
Arthur Doyle's solo on "Domiabra" (Noah Howard's Black Ark) and his entry on "Ancestor" (Alabama Feeling); Alan Silva's cello solo on "Friendly Galaxy " (Sun Ra Live at Fondation Maeght Vol2); Sam Rivers' "Effusive Melange" (one of my beefs against that track in the Ayler box is that you can't make Rivers out at all); Frank Wright's "Your Prayer" (towards the end); the last five minutes of David Ware's "Dao"; Dave Burrell's "Echo".. well that's a few for starters..

" Jason already pointed out that plenty of musicians only release CDs in order to get gigs "
I definitely agree with that if he (probably) means musicians from improv field.
But with rock groups, it's different. They make concerts to sell CDs. It's another business.

Way to recharge this thread, Dan. I always approach “fave” conclaves with some trepidation because my picks are usually compromised by a faulty/narrow memory. Here’s a handful though (albums in parentheses)

Coltrane’s “Compassion” in its entirety (FIRST MEDITATIONS); the fire-music-space-funk of Sun Ra’s “Moon Dance” (COSMIC TONES FOR MENTAL THERAPY) especially Bugs Hunter’s mosquito-thwacking drums; relatedly John Gilmore’s protracted solo on “Thoughts Under a Dark Blue Light” from CYMBALS; the alto/tenor duel btwn. Rob Brown and Assif Tsahar on “Posium Pendasem #7” (POSIUM PENDASEM); William Parker’s pizzicato thicket on “Malcom’s Smile” (COMPASSION SEIZES BED-STUY), Sonny Sharrock’s flameout on “Many Mansions” (ASK THE AGES); Charles Brackeen’s opening salvo on “The Masses” (Dennis Gonzalez’s DEBENGE-DEBENGE); Brötzmann’s first strike on the first DIE LIKE A DOG disc, and Noah Howard’s melody-to-anarchy improvisation on “For Al” (BETWEEN TWO ETERNITIES). I’d definitely include some Frank Lowe too, but it’s too hard to pick just one instance without re-referencing rekkids. I haven’t heard SCHWARTZWALDFAHRT yet, but damn well would like to (paging Mr. Corbett at UMS HQ).

Hi New Guy,

Um, I think I was defending the beauty of the music, perhaps ineloquently, but, yeah, the only reason I responded at all is because I find it beautiful. I'm also pretty sure I mentioned both Brotzmann and Zorn's subtlety once or twice.

"Wasn't that what got some of us into this in the first place -- that palpable sense of 'hearing the listening' going on between the musicians?"

Yes, indeed.

"If something falls flat for you, OK. I don't even mind you telling me so. But when you fault me for finding it beautiful, when you tell me essentially that I must be in love with ugliness or pain, I've got no use for you."

That's the point I was trying to get across.

Yeah, a second for Mr. Corbett to reissue "Schwartzwaldfahrt." Then we can all visit the Black Forest...

A few other transcendent moments for me: a song on the Rozie / Rozie / Ali album "Afro-Algonquin" (I can never remember which names go with which tunes on there) on Moers, George Jones singing "The Window Up Above", Conway Twitty's heartbreaking croak at the end of the line "you're just as lovely as you used to be" in "Hello, Darlin", Ayler's "Ghosts", when Pharoah sanders FINALLY comes in on Upper and Lower Egypt on Tauhid.

Yeah, those are all beautiful neck-tinglers.

Rob

"Rob above mentioned those "cry and shudder" moments, where the hair stands up without being asked. Would Baganauts care to share their experiences and list their Fave Fire Music Moments?"

"Two Trains" from Smiley Winter's SMILEY ETC. (Arhoolie), primarily becuase of Winters (drums), Barbara Donald (trumpet) an Bert Wilson (sax)

Archie Shepp's version of "Rufus (Swung His Face at Last to the Wind, Then His Neck Snapped)" from the NEW THING AT NEWPORT [1965] LP, with Hutcherson, Barre Phillips and Joe Chambers

Fred Anderson's solo on Jarman's "Little Fox Run" (SONG FOR)

The Albert Ayler / Charles Tyler "dailogue" on "Spirits Rejoice", Judson Hall, 1965 (from the ESP-Disk of the same name).

All of Alan Shorter's ORGASM (Verve).

Wow, so many to choose from...a quick Top 15 (chosen from my iPod):

Arthur Doyle, Alabama Feeling
Frank Wright, Church Number Nine
David S. Ware, Wisdom Of Uncertainty
Sonny Rollins, East Broadway Run Down
Frank Lowe, Black Beings
Archie Shepp, Black Gypsy and The Magic Of Ju-Ju
Anderson/Jordan/Parker/Drake, 2 Days In April
Pharaoh Sanders, Izipho Zam
John Coltrane, Sun Ship and Interstellar Space
Peter Brötzmann, Nothung
Cecil Taylor, Student Studies and One Too Many Salty Swift And Not Goodbye

I think people are taking this guy too seriously. I mean, has he ever had this much attention before. I have hardly heard of the guy before now-I remember him making physical threats to members at the JC a while back. But mostly tripe seems to ooze from him otherwise.

He is probably loving all this attention.

jared,
the personal attacks were a few days ago!
the thread got happily pushed forward by Dan
into favorite fire moments.

i like two that were mentioned:
Pharoah's entrance on Upper Egypt (listened to it again, and what a wait!)

and Alan Shorter's ORGASM, which is a great under-recognized record. It's fiery, is it 'fire music?'

Trust me the comment about your work is much more impersonal than you want it to be.

I just think anyone rehashing arguments like this is just looking for attention.

Niney the Observer, Brimstone and Fire
Copout, Let it Burn
Company Flow, The Fire In Which You Burn
Bruce Springsteen, I'm On Fire
Storm and Stress, It Takes A Million Years To Become Diamonds So Let's Burn Like Coal Until The Sky's Black

:)

Mr. Adam just sent me personal mail, and I have changed my mind about him.

I re-read his articles in a new light. I was too uptight to realize the value in his writing.

He is thoroughly entertaining when read from this new point of view!

I encourage all those who missed the entertainment value of his article to go back and read. You are really missing out!

His email was hilarious too, though I think he meant to be more hurtful.

Just a quick postscript (?):
The Broetzmann/Bennink album is called 'Schwarzwaldfahrt' (sorry, couldn't stand it any longer ..:)

Han Bennink is credited as playing soprano, alto saxophones, e-flat clarinet, b-flat clarinet, bass clarinet, viola, banjo, birdcalls, cymbals, wood, trees, sand, land, water, air.. which just about covers everything! Has this been reissued on CD? I think not.

I've heard it on CD-R - so we're off to the aforementioned "lil' boutique stores" again ...

doesn't bennink play fire as well?

oops...
sorry I mucked up your thread

"Here's a few to start you off:" (Dan)

1 Soca classic "Hotter Dan Fire" on Ultimate Jump Up.

Hal A Pen Yo

Does Adam Hill play the Saxophone?

finally, the death threats have ended.
see below:

OFN READER MAIL
Subject : re: Adam Hill's "Overblown"
From : Chris Kelsey

28 December 2004

re: Adam Hill's "Overblown"

While I'm not in total agreement with Adam Hill's thesis (in my opinion there's plenty to like in some, maybe most, work by Brotzmann, Zorn, and Gayle), I will commend him for his willingness to rock the critical boat. Too often, the mere fact that a musician plays "free" inoculates him or her against serious criticism. This preponderance of advocacy journalism is understandable, given that lovers of this music are such a tiny minority, but it does little to help the music grow. A little friction is a good thing. Our music is much better served by a critical discourse that addresses its own peculiar aesthetic issues. Articles like Adam's do that. More, please.

Chris Kelsey
Pawling, NY

Is liking Brotzmann a prerequisite for liking Free Jazz? Is my love for Coltrane, Dolphy, Coleman, and Braxton somehow negated by the fact I dislike the work of Zorn and Gayle? Is free jazz inextricably linked to certain socio-political issues? If the answers to these questions are "yes," then my position in regard to the music would be untenable. Fortunately, I'm quite sure that's not the case. Let the debate go on forever and ever...

The Jazz Outsider

Thanks for the drive-by, J.O. My answer to your first two questions (rhetorical or no) would be an emphatic: Nope.

"Is free jazz inextricably linked to certain socio-political issues?"
one can answer anyway it reveals the subject speaking as wanting to avoid the "tender of history"--see the the music without the socio-political backdrop: a little fantasy world, classicism, a neat, safety-netted nest of proven baby aesthetic values--OR wanting to dive into the fire life the music is and coming from out and beneath with hands dirty, bloody, sweaty with things that stick to the sound--not so much unlike the two who in this fiascoschifoso scoffed off baraka, a dumbness move. cut it up any way you wanna but you eat it yourself and don't expect anybody else to follow suit with this whitewashing. actually deprives it the musik of esprit. see rather you not more artists on the breakthrough that each as unique to there own evolution is in the making, more truth in that, less opinion bashing snickery snacking

And in English this means...?

if you can't understand this in relation to what you wrote then you can't understand music none of it never by no one let alone the great challenges to grammar going back to giant steps listen to it and then continue it in your mind as if you had gotten the impulse to do it for your own self and from your own self

Ahem. J.O.: don't worry, I can't understand him either.