<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello all,<br>
<br>
I apologize in advance for this non-Gouldian posting. I haven't
checked up on Gould's writing on jazz, but I know he liked Evans
-- more about that below -- and he said he felt, at least early in
his career, that the New Orleans jazz was fun to listen to. But I
don't really think he was very happy with jazz as an art form. The
improvised element was anathema to his approch to music. I also
don't think he appreciated the showing-off element of group
improvisations; the sometimes almost duel-like character of the
individual solos. Anyway, for those not interested in the jazz
discussion we're having at the moment, please stop reading now.<br>
<br>
Well, Bob, I can't agree with you there. That the Rolling Stones
and the Beatles are more jazz true -- or how I shall interpret you
-- than Dave Brubeck??? You've gotta be kidding me!<br>
<br>
The degree of improvisation is in my mind always in question in
most jazz performances. When listening to for example Art Tatum's
mastery at that I get the distinct feeling that more is prepared
than we might think. There's at least one single example of him
really inventing when he plays, and that sound VERY differently.
Gould's favourite jazz record, Bill Evans' "Symbiosis" I think,
could also be a questioned on the amount of on-the-spot
improvisation there really is. This kind of over-dubbing probably
demands a greater percentage of preparation. And that is my point
really: the higher the degree of complexity, the more amount of
preparation, "composing" if you like (at last in the head), there
is.<br>
<br>
The fact that Brubeck uses contrapuntal devices in his jazz --
yes, I will not call it anything but that -- makes him less free
in the over-all structure of a piece I guess. But -- I have no
proof, I'm no jazz musician -- I doubt if Brubeck was that bad at
improvising as you say. There are example of him really inventing
complex things. Listen for example to him and Paul Desmond playing
"Brother Can You Spare a Dime", an almost successful improvised
two part contrapuntal invention on the theme (which by the way
sounds very much like the first movement of Bach's D minor
concerto for two violins). <br>
<br>
If your "white man's jazz" label on Brubeck has to do with him
playing pretty, that's also not very apt either. Few pianist can
sound so brutal and harsh -- he was pretty bad at making the piano
sing. Evans was much better at that, then again his dynamic levels
weren't as pronounced as Brubeck's. Lastly, if I'm correct when it
comes to Brubeck's intellectual approach, I doubt he'll ever be
the safe alternative, at least not for a general public. In this
respect, what would you categorize "Moden Jazz Quartet" as? It
can't be jazz since John Lewis pretty much sticks to his formula
-- a wonderful formula, full of contrapuntal devices; his fugues
are hardly improvised! -- and isn't exactly full of folk music
feelings is it? Does this mean MJQ doesn't play real jazz??? I
also think you're forgetting that Brubeck and his units really
could swing. Doesn't that count for anything? By the way,
complexity is in my mind something positive. I'm no folk music man
at all. Bach enriched and purified (another positive word!) the
popular dances and folk music. The original is pretty
uninteresting as music goes.<br>
<br>
If you don't like Brubeck, fine -- I don't like the Beatles or
Rolling Stones. But I think it's sad if jazz is diminished into a
discussion of "what's more improvised, down to earth and closer to
the roots". Jazz is like classical music a very broad canvas and
the better for it.<br>
<br>
Your last questions how much we are willing to risk for our music,
or in a broader sense art is really important. It's easy to take
the abundance of the modern world for granted. We might even stop
appreciating what we have. Gould playing the 5th English suite
might just become another pastime, streaming from our digital
systems. It must not happen, ever!<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Jorgen<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:8715C8B1F1704EF88CAA6CEBD7D5773C@ownerPC"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19328">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">Nil nisi bono de
mortuis.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">Beyond his freakish
finger span -- I think he could play a 12th -- Brubeck filled
a very undistinguished niche in jazz. He produced a "safe,"
unsurprising product that white college-educated audiences
felt comfortable consuming. It was also "television safe"
because with very few exceptions, USA commercial networks took
decades to broadcast African-American (Negroes in those days)
artists. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">(Only Hefner's
"Playboy After Dark" featured integrated or black jazz
artists; it was a syndicated show never broadcast in the
racially segregated South.)</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">With his
"revolutionary" and whack time signatures, Brubeck's work was
European//classically sophisticated -- but soulless. He seemed
to view improvisation -- the heart of jazz -- as a slovenly
embarrassment; there's not a measure of improvisation in his
super-selling breakthrough albums.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">That's
why saxophonist Paul Desmond deserted the DB Quartet. He knew
Brubeck wasn't playing jazz and never would. Desmond and Gerry
Mulligan were the only white contemporaries of Brubeck who
"got it," who seamlessly recorded with black artists.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">I'm sorry to say that
in the USA 1950s, genuine, historical-roots black jazz and
R&B scared white Americans. It was spontaneous, energetic,
exciting, thrilling, and worst of all, highly sexual, its
sexual references only thinly veiled with puns and jokes. That
didn't matter until the 1960s, because none of the major
recording labels would touch black artists; their brilliant
(and naughty) work got its limited airplay and sales on "race"
labels sold only in the black ghettos.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">Brubeck got all that
airplay and filled stadiums because his stuff wasn't very
challenging, contained references to respectable classical
music, and didn't frighten white kids (or their parents who
snooped to hear what the kids were listening to).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">Brubeck didn't invent
this niche. In previous decades, Paul Whiteman (and no white
man was more aptly named) sanitized George Gershwin's jazz
derivitives for white audiences, and in the '40s Benny Goodman
did the same. Goodman actually featured African-American
musicians in his band (I don't think Glenn Miller did).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">It's easy to blame
the big labels and radio and television networks as the
villains of this sad American history, but it was the timidity
and conformity of white consumers which did most of the harm.
(It was rock's "scholars" like the Rolling Stones, Eric
Clapton and the early Beatles who re-discovered historical
African-American jazz and blues for white audiences.) </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">Europeans weren't so
timid. During the Nazi era, Germans (Berliners mostly) braved
the concentration camp to smuggle in black American jazz
records, and during the Soviet era Eastern Europeans would
risk the gulags to listen to their beloved jazz. This was,
after all, depraved and decadent Western music.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">I've often wondered
if I'd have the guts to risk prison to listen to my favorite
music. But for decades thousands did -- and I suspect in some
"Great Firewall" places, people still do.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">Bob</font></div>
<div><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="3">Massachusetts USA</font></div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>