Once in a while, a literary star turns to jazz. James Kaplan came up through the rank-and-file at the New Yorker, spent time polishing scripts for Warner Brothers, and worked with Jerry Lewis and John McEnroe on their memoirs. He cracked the larger literary market with best-selling and possibly definitive biographies of Frank Sinatra and Irving Berlin; now, his newest book is
Exactly! CA is the third solo on the album…it just makes no sense to say Kind of Blue is Miles, Coltrane, and Bill but NOT CA and Cobb, Chambers, Kelly..
Sigh...Once again a book has been written that looks so, so, far back into the music called jazz.
I wonder if we will ever escape this seemingly endless need to focus on the long ago past.
I ask music students if they ever stopped to wonder why Charlie Parker ever moved past the playing of Sidney Bechet, or Prez. Do they wonder why Dizzy, Fats, or McGhee ever began to play the way they did, when Louis Armstrong had already made his great contributions? The same question could be asked of drummers, bassists, and just about any other instrumentalist throughout the evolution of jazz.
The icons so greatly appreciated from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, were generally considered icons because they moved the music forward, and didn't freeze it, or look back to re-create the past.
There have been, and always will be, people who are more interested in the past than today or the future. That said, the things that made jazz/improvised music so vital, vibrant, alive, and creative, have seemingly been pushed aside, swept under the rug, or cast as some fringe idea that doesn't pay enough respect/attention to the past/nostalgia. Sadly, we will have mostly ignored the greatest contributions and contributors to the evolution of the music with a constant look backwards for what makes for great, creative minds, music, and voices that connect to the world we live in and that we have inhabited since the late 60s to today. If jazz and any other kind of music should be a reflection of our individual and collective lives, why do we ask young people to recreate ways of playing that have little to nothing to do with their world, culture, and experiences, that offers them little to no room for their own creative vision?
I'm not sure that every kind of music will continue to evolve forever. The blues seems to have run it's course. Rock music seems to mostly have run it's course. Classical music has new creative ideas, but they have been cast aside in favor of nostalgia, just like in the world of jazz.
I realize that this post is about a book I never even read, but I've read "this book" and books like it to many times.
To those who are involved in creative endeavors in the world of jazz, improvisation, New Music , etc...my only hope is that one day your creations will be given there proper due.
I've been accused of being anti-tradition. I am not anti-tradition. I have a great respect for the entire history of the music. I am however, very pro equal treatment and respect for the entirety of the idiom.
I believe it was Lester Bowie who said something akin to this...If we are going to talk about the history of jazz, we must include ALL OF THE HISTORY, up to and including today. We cannot cut it off at any point along the way. If we are going to talk about the importance of John Coltrane, we must hold his entire life and musical output equally important. This would include going all the way back to his earliest recordings around 1949, and ending at Expression.
I agree it's bad for writers talk about jazz as a thing of the past, but: "If we are going to talk about the importance of John Coltrane, we must hold his entire life and musical output equally important." OK, but why exactly? His earliest recordings are certainly interesting, but *equally important* as A Love Supreme? I don't see it. (To me they were mainly inspirational, due to the fact that there was a time when Coltrane really wasn't very good!) I think there's something to be said for prioritizing focus on an artists' works based on the impact each work had on the culture around them, and from that perspective Expression isn't up there with his earlier works. The Rite of Spring is justifiably more studied and talked about than "In Memoriam Dylan Thomas," and I think that's fine. And if jazz today has a far smaller cultural footprint than it did in its heyday, I guess that's our job as practitioners and fans to try to improve.
I only mentioned his entire output because his last few years and recordings are often an afterthought and not given much merit, because he grew to embrace the changes that were happening in the music at that time (Avant-garde). I wasn't ranking or giving any kind of hierarchical placement to his output. I was merely pointing out that once the music evolved away from post-bop and into what came to be called free jazz/Avant-garde, the music was slept on to a great degree by writers, historians, critics, and hence, the audiences.. I was also trying to say that jazz, with the exception of a few years when jazz/rock or fusion had a bump in popularity, the music that was evolving went into the shadows as far as the jazz press/magazines were concerned, and a lot of great music went uncovered. The "young lions" brought nostalgia into vogue, and the rise of jazz education buying into the earlier traditions kind of froze the music in a way that outside of a few major cities in this country left no real possibility for growth, creative vision, and a chance to bring the music into the 21st century.
I asked for this book for my birthday to read on a trip down to Big Ears festival. Only my high hopes for the festival were fulfilled. Extremely disappointed in the book. Thank you for articulating my frustration
What is an "empire of cool"? Aren't "empire" and "cool" antithetical? Isn't "cool" the expression of people who were abused by empire (not the only expression in response to empire, to be sure... but a sly and subversive response). Lester Young wasn't an Emperor: he was 'elected' by those who loved him, not anointed by those who feared him.
Still don’t understand how anyone can write a book about Kind of Blue and not give Cannonball his due.
Right!!!!??? My thoughts exactly; not to mention Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers, Jimmy Cobb…
Exactly! But even if just the frontline, I mean, come on, CA is reason enough to call the fire department every time he puts the horn in his mouth
Exactly! CA is the third solo on the album…it just makes no sense to say Kind of Blue is Miles, Coltrane, and Bill but NOT CA and Cobb, Chambers, Kelly..
Sigh...Once again a book has been written that looks so, so, far back into the music called jazz.
I wonder if we will ever escape this seemingly endless need to focus on the long ago past.
I ask music students if they ever stopped to wonder why Charlie Parker ever moved past the playing of Sidney Bechet, or Prez. Do they wonder why Dizzy, Fats, or McGhee ever began to play the way they did, when Louis Armstrong had already made his great contributions? The same question could be asked of drummers, bassists, and just about any other instrumentalist throughout the evolution of jazz.
The icons so greatly appreciated from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, were generally considered icons because they moved the music forward, and didn't freeze it, or look back to re-create the past.
There have been, and always will be, people who are more interested in the past than today or the future. That said, the things that made jazz/improvised music so vital, vibrant, alive, and creative, have seemingly been pushed aside, swept under the rug, or cast as some fringe idea that doesn't pay enough respect/attention to the past/nostalgia. Sadly, we will have mostly ignored the greatest contributions and contributors to the evolution of the music with a constant look backwards for what makes for great, creative minds, music, and voices that connect to the world we live in and that we have inhabited since the late 60s to today. If jazz and any other kind of music should be a reflection of our individual and collective lives, why do we ask young people to recreate ways of playing that have little to nothing to do with their world, culture, and experiences, that offers them little to no room for their own creative vision?
I'm not sure that every kind of music will continue to evolve forever. The blues seems to have run it's course. Rock music seems to mostly have run it's course. Classical music has new creative ideas, but they have been cast aside in favor of nostalgia, just like in the world of jazz.
I realize that this post is about a book I never even read, but I've read "this book" and books like it to many times.
To those who are involved in creative endeavors in the world of jazz, improvisation, New Music , etc...my only hope is that one day your creations will be given there proper due.
I've been accused of being anti-tradition. I am not anti-tradition. I have a great respect for the entire history of the music. I am however, very pro equal treatment and respect for the entirety of the idiom.
I believe it was Lester Bowie who said something akin to this...If we are going to talk about the history of jazz, we must include ALL OF THE HISTORY, up to and including today. We cannot cut it off at any point along the way. If we are going to talk about the importance of John Coltrane, we must hold his entire life and musical output equally important. This would include going all the way back to his earliest recordings around 1949, and ending at Expression.
I agree it's bad for writers talk about jazz as a thing of the past, but: "If we are going to talk about the importance of John Coltrane, we must hold his entire life and musical output equally important." OK, but why exactly? His earliest recordings are certainly interesting, but *equally important* as A Love Supreme? I don't see it. (To me they were mainly inspirational, due to the fact that there was a time when Coltrane really wasn't very good!) I think there's something to be said for prioritizing focus on an artists' works based on the impact each work had on the culture around them, and from that perspective Expression isn't up there with his earlier works. The Rite of Spring is justifiably more studied and talked about than "In Memoriam Dylan Thomas," and I think that's fine. And if jazz today has a far smaller cultural footprint than it did in its heyday, I guess that's our job as practitioners and fans to try to improve.
Hello Ian
I only mentioned his entire output because his last few years and recordings are often an afterthought and not given much merit, because he grew to embrace the changes that were happening in the music at that time (Avant-garde). I wasn't ranking or giving any kind of hierarchical placement to his output. I was merely pointing out that once the music evolved away from post-bop and into what came to be called free jazz/Avant-garde, the music was slept on to a great degree by writers, historians, critics, and hence, the audiences.. I was also trying to say that jazz, with the exception of a few years when jazz/rock or fusion had a bump in popularity, the music that was evolving went into the shadows as far as the jazz press/magazines were concerned, and a lot of great music went uncovered. The "young lions" brought nostalgia into vogue, and the rise of jazz education buying into the earlier traditions kind of froze the music in a way that outside of a few major cities in this country left no real possibility for growth, creative vision, and a chance to bring the music into the 21st century.
Thanks for the many ideas John…
Probably too, too, many!
I asked for this book for my birthday to read on a trip down to Big Ears festival. Only my high hopes for the festival were fulfilled. Extremely disappointed in the book. Thank you for articulating my frustration
Glad to help Ron! Live music forever…
What is an "empire of cool"? Aren't "empire" and "cool" antithetical? Isn't "cool" the expression of people who were abused by empire (not the only expression in response to empire, to be sure... but a sly and subversive response). Lester Young wasn't an Emperor: he was 'elected' by those who loved him, not anointed by those who feared him.
🤣🤣 Exactly!! It makes no sense.
2nd to last paragraph really sums it all up :)
Thanks Erez!
The positivity shown in your last 3 paragraphs speaks volumes about you and your music. Well done!
Thank you Vince!!!!
Absolutely bang on. My thoughts articulated (far better than I could be bothered to even attempt at the moment) exactly. Cheers.
Thank you Bill!
thanks for this. his treatment of sinatra was similarly underwhelming, to put it kindly.
Thank you Lloyd; I’m far from versed in Sinatra (of course I’m a fan/admirer) but I’ll approach Kaplan’s other works cautiously…