RoR: Forum

This is a well done piece of writing - and thank you, as you being more the expert, of confirming my intuitive thoughts on which jazz pieces would work in my small collection... long enjoy dixieland jazz, and rags of Joplin and the like, along with Goodman, and Brubeck, and some of Wynton Marsalis... but the rest always disturbed me when listened to on radio, so never got thrilled at getting them, however much they were exclaimed as necessary...

Post 1

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 10:54am

Great article, Roger. Definitely one for the archives.

One little quibble:
" I think I can do better than resort to the unfortunate tendency of some to pass off bebop jazz as "bleeps and bloops." That is not an adequate argument!"

Maybe there needs to be more than this, but I do think there is something to the argument in relation to your own call for melody as an integral part of music. I'm not an expert in Jazz, but my impression of the "bleeps and bloops" in the more out-there stuff is similar to the electronic "burps and blips" of modern techno-rave music. These tones are less amenable to creating melodies, and it seems that the jazz bleeps may be the great-grandaddy of this trend.

One other quibble, unfortunately, is the introduction of Rand's supposed shaming of others according to the Branden bio's. And I think this may have been written before the Valiant book, no? So it makes wonder how much of Rand's mistake of treating tones as sensations has to do with her shaming. But since she did, in her own words, say what she said about Beethoven in the AYN RAND ANSWERS book, your argument still has teeth. I quibble about the extent, I suppose...

Post 2

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 11:37am

Roger, this is an excellent article. I am an apiring jazz saxophonist, and am studying some bebop right now, so I have some thoughts to offer. I've already extended my lunch break to read your article, though, and I must get back to my day gig. More to come...

Post 3

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 11:53am

Roger,

That was an excellent article on bebop.

I have a personal story about a wonderful Brazilian singer named Claudya. (It used to be Claudia, but her numerologist suggested a letter change to revitalize her flagging career.)

She probably has one of the best voices in Brazilian pop music and jazz, but she has a horrible habit. After any song she sings has run through the main parts, she goes off into scat singing of the bebop type. It is cute for the first 15 minutes into the song, too...

(yawn)

She was (and hopefully is still after several years of no contact) a dear friend of mine. I tried to work with her on this at one time, but it is something ingrained in her personality - sort of like the fear of success that many pop artists have.

Where she is able to stimulate some audience interest is to have an instrument like a flute play bebop-type phrase, then she sings it back exactly. They go back and forth like this and get more and more complicated. I even heard her do that with drums (and it worked). The problem is that it is a gimmick and it gets old quickly.

There is an old rule of thumb I learned a long time ago for composing - the more you use an effect, the less effect it has. I never could get this across to Claudya.

I think your approach to mixing some of the more "musical banana-split" type effects from bebop with traditional melodies is a great idea.

I am trying to get the time to read your other essays on music. I just printed out Music and Perceptual Cognition and really look forward to it, as I believe that it reflects a good deal of my own views.

btw - I see you have made reference to Leonard B. Meyer several times. I would have to reread some things, but I remember not liking his ideas at all, especially his theory of emotions. That was about 20-25 years ago, though, and I only read Emotion and Meaning in Music.

Michael

Post 4

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 11:55am

Bleeps and bloops...

It can definitely sound like that to people. Jazz is obviously a very advanced, articulate language, it uses so many harmonic concepts- remember, modern jazz makes extensive used of altered chords. And, I think you have to have a pretty good steeping in its history to really get a lot of what goes on sometimes. There's usually a lot of quoting going on. I heard this Russian guy on the radio the other night (I can't recall his name now) that did a version of Pat Metheney's "Bright Size Life" that, as good as I am with jazz knowledge, I probably wouldn't have picked out by title. It was kick ass as hell, though- major hard bop lines on the solos, I was very impressed. Some jazz is very, very cereberal, needless to say.

One person I continue to love is Coltrane, because he transcended. That was up in spiritual territory.

And Miles. Miles could bleep and bloop in just the right places... :)

Post 5

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:14pm

Excellent essay. Wow. What a read.
My most common complaint about bebop is that it tends to be exclusionary to a broad audience. Don't get me wrong: I'm no "music for the masses" kind of folk worshiper. I love bebop, but I love it because I understand what's going on and I know the genius and command it takes to improvise intricate lines at blazing speeds. But I'm more impressed with sculpted melodies, improvisations that evolve and build. I'm hypothesizing that's why Miles Davis is more known and respected by the general public than, say, Charlie Parker. Miles and the cool movement brought melody back, and he created some of the most memorable melodic lines in all of jazz.

Post 6

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:20pm

I agree, Jamie.

And, if I want to hear modern bop, I want it to be majorly kick ass difficult bop. That's kind of all there is left available in terms of expansion- whup-ass factor. :)

Post 7

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 1:55pm

Roger, I enjoy your writing style. Thanks for putting that up.

"Jazz" is almost a useless term. What's it mean, really? It can mean something slow, pleasant and melodic like Misty or something harsh, discordant without a tonal center. The word "Rock" is just as useless. I tell people "I'm a rock guy" sometimes but I should stop that because I don't even know myself what that means. They are convenient and mostly empty terms.

We'd have to talk about specific works to get anywhere near a satisfactory answer. And even then it's a crapshoot. I would say that most modern jazz artists (so-called) are not working from anything like Objectivist principles. They seem to be powered by an anti-conceptuality and chaos. That's true of most artists of any category but is especially true with jazzbo's.

But then, if Tony Bennett's version of Fly Me To The Moon is jazz then I want more of it.

Post 8

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 2:08pm

Good points, Lance. Most musical labels, "rock," "jazz", "classical", etc., are nebulous at best and point more to social conventions, historical periods and groupings than actual objective musical definitions. Although Rock and Roll referred to something specific, i.e. sex, and the original songs had a musical referrent, it's not the only sexual music and it seems limited to a narrow view of sex.
Has anyone attempted to create an objective lexicon of genre definitions?

Post 9

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 2:13pm

Sounds like a JOE project to me...;-)

Post 10

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 2:21pm

Could be, could be...but I wonder if it's been attempted before? The only thing I can think of off-hand is the idea of naming compositions based on form (i.e., ninth symphony, opus 14. etc...).
Not that there's anything wrong with a more evocative label (i.e. "Moonlight Sonata), but that doesn't tell us about the FORM of the music, only the associations inspired by the music, it's function...and even there, it's troubling, since one person might not have the same associations...

Post 11

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 2:44pm

I think that it's OK to say rock. If someone asks me what kind of band I'm in, it's a rock band. If they ask me what kind of guitar I play (thank God most people have figured out that you can be both "lead" and "rhythm), I tell them I'm a rock guitarist. I have a huge eclectic base, and I use all kinds of compositional concepts, but in the end, I know I play rock guitar in a rock band. Why? Because we can get loud, we use distortion, and it doesn't sound jazzy. I mean, when someone tells me they like rock, I know what they're talking about, more or less. I think it usually means they don't like jazz... :)

Rock and roll is about grinding. It's played from the hips, not from the head.

Post 12

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:07pm

In a limited sense, sure, Rich. But what about Carly Simon, Simon and Garfunkle, etc., do they "rock?" If not, why are they lumped in with rock music? And what happens when a band like Black Sabbath does a piece like "Laguna Sunrise, featuring only violins and acoustic guitars, or when Kiss does "Beth," strings and piano only? Are they temporarily "not rock?" What happens when Miles goes electric, or Dylan for that matter?

Post 13

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:36pm

Roger,

You raise some important issues in your article.

But I would have liked to see you give more musical examples, particularly of the approaches you dislike.

Quotations from the musicians sometimes imply things that their playing doesn't. I haven't done a discography on Charlie Mariano, but what I've heard of his alto saxophone work from the 1950s and 1960s doesn't sound like screaming and hollering and kicking and biting to me. (Some other musicians were screaming and hollering in 1966.)

Examples become more important when we get to a major figure like Ornette Coleman. Are performances like "Peace" or "Ramblin'" the work of a con artist? (Both were recorded in 1959.) Does either indicate inability to play the alto saxophone--or to write a memorable melody?

Robert Campbell

Post 14

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 6:08pm

Rodger,

I check out the forums from time to time and I just had to comment on this article.

Its really simple: If you don't like jazz don't listen to it. Similarly, if you don't like be-bop, don't listen to that either. But please spare me the highly inaccurate history lesson on Jazz.

Regarding the division of Jazz -
"Historically, jazz falls into three periods: traditional and swing jazz, which began about 1900-10 in New Orleans; bebop or bop jazz, which began 1940-41 in New York City; and avant-garde jazz, which began about 1959, at which time Ornette Coleman�one of my all-time un-favorite jazz musicians�arrived in NYC."
-manages to obliterate several majors jazz genres and needlessly combines others. It makes about as much sence as saying that all the real numbers between 1 and 100 can be divided into three groups: the numbers 1 thru 50, the number 72, and the number 87. On the planet where I live we have several styles that can fall under the heading Jazz. There's Ragtime in the pre 1900 period followed by New Orleans Style or Classic Jazz in the early 1900's. Then there's the 1920's and the Hot style (think flappers, speak easies, and prohibition). The 30's and 40's gave us Swing and Big Band. Bebop of the 40's opened the floodgates of more modern styles and, thru the 50's and 60's, spawned Cool, West Coast, Post Bop, Hard Bop, and eventually what you called avant gard or free jazz. The 70's gave us Jazz Fusion and since then we've seen Hard Bop and Swing revivals, smooth jazz, Acid Jazz, and others (there's a guy around today named Bela Fleck who seems to combine Jazz with Bluegrass). (this isn't meant to be an extensive or exhaustive list, apologies if i missed someones favorite style)

One of the particularly grating things about the division of Jazz into your three historic periods is that Swing and Big Band is closer in form and style to BeBop than to the early New Orleans styles or the Hot Jazz of the 20's. The division you present also seems very artificial and other than allowing you to isolate BeBop for the purposes of your essay, really doesn't do much to help one understand the variety of Jazz styles and their history.

Now, as far as your reliance on Henry Pleasants' book Serious Music and All That Jazz, I'll admit to extremely bitter memories. Back in the day when I was investigating Rand and fancied that I just might just be an Objectivist I got into many arguments about music and Jazz. Many folks quoted Pleasants and treated it as grounds to berate my choice of music as distincly non-Objectivist (I was told that as I became a "better" objectivist that my taste in music would change and I'd start to like the kind of music they liked. Believe me when I say it wasn't pretty for anyone involved in those arguments.)

Anyway, moving on, the bit about bebop being mainly a way to exclude 'square' players or listeners and that it was put-on that got away from itself-
"In any case, I suspect (but cannot prove) that it was this particular practice that "ran away with itself" and was a large contributing factor to the excesses of bebop jazz. Boppers were encouraged in this and other immature, elitist behavior toward a public historically disposed to appreciate them by critics who told them they were Artists to whom "the public has a solemn obligation to listen, to render homage, and to pay." (SMAATJ, p. 140)"
is NONSENSE!!! The part of the quote above where Pleasants says "I suspect (but cannot prove)" is telling. Granted the quotes from Gillespie seem damning, but then he was something of am SOB anyway. He was good (and he knew it) and he was egotistical. He didn't want to play with you unless you were good... real good... and god forbid you you didn't play your heart out because otherwise he'd eat you alive. In fact I'll direct you to the liner notes of an album he did with Stan Getz called, appropriately enough, Diz and Getz. In the liner notes Oscar Peterson says how Diz wanted a piece of Getz that day and how Max Roach was suprised by some of the tempos that Diz counted off. Of course Getz wasn't and angel either and, according to Peterson, he was going after Diz as much as Diz was going after him. Anyway its a great album (circa 1953) if you want to hear what bop is about and how a supposed Cool player was so well acquainted with Bop.

A few other notes:

Regarding Paul Desmond and "tiddlywinks music". I can't even comment on this. There is nothing lite or superfitial or 'tiddlywinks' about Paul Desmond. I'll refer you to his work with Dave Brubeck or his solo work. Of particular interest might be the work he did with Gerry Mulligan on an album called Two of a Mind. (By the way, according to your three periods of Jazz, since Paul Desmond didn't play Swing/Big Band, BeBop, or Avant Gard, does that mean you don't think he was a Jazz musician?!?!)

That brings me to my last gripe. Of the bright sides of BeBop you said- "without bebop's influence, we wouldn't have had many great non-stylists such as Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Erroll Garner, Dave Brubeck, Stan Getz, Gerry Mulligan, Bob Brookmeyer...". Again I refer to your divisions of Jazz and have to ask... didn't you know these guys played Jazz as well?

I'd really rather see you tell us what music you found that is in the Objectivist spirit instead of telling us what isn't. As I alluded to earlier I've had many unpleasant experiences with Objectivists trying to tell me what wasn't good. They also spent precious little time recommending what was good. As far a melody in music goes, instead of concentrating on how Bebop fails in your opinion, show what other types of music succeed. Talk about what makes music worthwhile and what part does melody play in that. That will go a lot further than a borderline denigration of a style that others might enjoy and revel in.

For the foreseeable future I'll take the advice you offered here:
"In regard to artistic consumption, as Nathaniel Branden said long ago (Chicago, 1971)�and I paraphrase (with the standing offer to look up the exact quote from my files, if anyone is interested)�be very cautious about giving up supposedly irrational pleasures. (For they very well might not be irrational, in fact�as opposed to being irrational in someone else's opinion.)"

BTW, about the Country Music, you're in good company... Apparently Charlie Parker was also a big fan ("the stories, man. Listen to the stories"). I know Louis Armstrong was a fan as well, and lets not forget Sonny Rollins and his album "Way Out West". I'm a fan too if you consider the likes of Kate Campbell or Lucinda Williams country.

Josh

P.S. I'm not a musician and I don't play one on TV ;-)

Post 15

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 8:10pm

Damn, Roger! Thanks for this brilliant, exciting, entertaining read!

Cool, man, cool. :)

Post 16

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 8:11pm

Ok, I have some time to offer more of a response than my initial post....

Regarding the ethos and origins of bebop, my understanding is that a lot of it grew out of the competitive spirit amongst professional musicians. Around the time bebop started emerging, the best musicians generally played in large dance bands and orchestras.  When they weren't playing professional gigs, many of these same players would take part in informal jam sessions which featured "cutting contests," where musicans would take turns trading licks and trying to outdo one another on the same tune.

Often times, when a big name guy rolled through town, local guys who thought that they had the stuff would square off against him to try and make a name for themselves.  To 'up the ante' and keep the amateurs out, the pros would call out standard tunes in unfamiliar key signatures, and they would speed up the tempo significantly.  (I once read that a young Charlie Parker got his ass handed to him in a cutting contest because he only practiced a tune in one key, and he couldn't even get an idea out in the key they called out that night. He was laughed off the stage and he went home crying - he obviously got over that!)

Anyhow, my point is that there is a certain amount of esotericism in bebop. Generally speaking, it is music by and for bebop musicians (not to say that 'civilians' can't genuinely appreciate it, there are simply few of them).  There is a certain point where the tempo gets so fast that it's hard enough to follow the form of the tune even as a listener (let alone to be able to play over it). But make no mistake, the form is there - the music is anything but random. A is A - you're either making the chord changes or you're not, you've either got the chops or you don't. The emperor is anything but naked.

And as you pointed out, players who study bebop often integrate elements of it into other musical styles. Just think of how Stan Getz can play a delicate melodic phrase, and then insert a double-up 16th note lick at the right moment to make it that much more elusive. A debt to bebop, no doubt.

Oh, and regarding "free" jazz, I share your opinion. Free jazz, avant garde - whatever you want to call it - is without question the "pomo wanking" of jazz music. Someone needs to hand this emperor a robe!

I'm sure I'll have more to offer on this upon rereading your article and the resulting posts - that's all for now.

(Edited by Pete on 11/17, 8:14pm)

(Edited by Pete on 11/17, 8:19pm)

Post 17

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 8:26pm

Roger-
Thank you for this article. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Post 18

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 2:34am

It's very late at night, after an interesting evening listening to an ARI lecture on Intelligent Design, followed by trying to cope with three computer crashes, and I have a very early start "tomorrow" morning, so this will be brief...

Thanks, everyone, for your passionate remarks, whether appreciative or not. I'm glad I was able to stir interest in this subject and to strike a responsive chord with at least some.

The one specific item I regret was the very poorly written section in which I referred to Stan Getz, Bob Brookmeyer, Dave Brubeck, et al as "non-stylists." I was horrified when, after being called on it by two friends off-line, I re-read it and realized what I had meant to say, and how different were the implications of what I wrote. Arrrrgh!

Let me say it more clearly: these guys were wonderful jazz stylists, but they were not be-bop stylists. I love progressive jazz, West Coast jazz, and the like -- but they are not be-bop jazz. I guess I could have salvaged the point if I had simply said these fellows were "non-bebop-stylists," rather than assuming that everyone would understand what I meant. (Remember: when you assume, you make an ass out of Uma Thurman! :-)

Also, specifically to Bob Campbell: I'm so glad to see you up and typing again! I hope that means you're feeling and functioning a lot better. You are right that specific examples would help to support my points. I must confess that I heard three or four cuts in the late 60s by Ornette Coleman, at the urging of someone who wanted to "turn me on" to OC, and I formed my negative opinion of him based on that. I have not heard his version of the tunes you named, and I don't know anything about where they fall in his developmental curve, whether they fall into his early and (to me) acceptable period, before he developed his distinctive approach for which everyone either loves or hates him.

I also confess that my opinings about the melodic abilities (or lack of same) of the jazz artists I love and hate are based on impressions from listening -- I have a very good ear for melody. I have not done a detailed melodic study of any of them. A project for another day...

In general, I admit to being a total eclectic in my musical tastes. Why can't I savor the bebop I do like, while criticizing what I don't? Give me some melodic threads to hang onto and some musical atmosphere to savor! You know, enjoyable figure and background, as the Gestaltists would say? Give me Charlie Parker and Clifford Brown and Frank Rosolino and Carl Fontana! Give me Michael Brecker on "Cityscapes"! Give me Miles Davis on "Sketches of Spain"! Give me Stan Getz on "Focus"! Give me Eddie Daniels and Gary Burton on "Benny Rides Again"! Give me Pat Metheny and Chick Corea et al on "Like Minds"! Give me Dave Grusin et al on his two marvelous CDs of Gershwin and West Side Story! Give me Stan Kenton in "Standards in Silhouette." I could go on, but this is my "desert island" list -- "spirit of Objectivism" or not. :-) And spare me the bleeps and bloops and screeching, please! And don�t tell me there haven't been plenty of those out there, masquerading as cutting-edge artists!

But above all, love what you love, and think about why you love it, and don�t let anyone talk you out of it! (Including me, of course. :-)

Best to all,

REB

P.S. to Michael Kelly -- yes, the theory of emotions Leonard B. Meyer used in his books was lame. But really, all I had to do to make sense out of what he was saying about music was to plug in Nathaniel Branden's model of the emotions. He is a marvelous music theorist, and I highly recommend him. Check out his Music, the Arts, and Ideas, but also his later compilations of essays...And yes (in re Claudya's stylings), a little scat singing goes a long way. Frank Rosolino was marvelous at it, yet he did it very sparingly. Mel Torme was my favorite, more so than Ella Fitzgerald.

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 11/18, 2:38am)

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 11/18, 2:46am)

Post 19

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:31am