[NewMusic] Peacock: A baboon's ass?

[Phillip Greenlief]

----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of George Cremaschi
Subject: Re: [NewMusic] Peacock: A baboon's ass?


Slusser wrote:

>Hopefully, I'd like to be around when you're 70, and hear
>what you have to say (and play).

I knew I'd get somebody riled up.

Whatever I'm playing when I'm 70, it sure won't
be a cocktail hour version of "Come Rain or Come Shine".

"More of that cabernet, sir?"

-George

PG:
Sure, why not take the bait?

The problem I have with so many improvisers' attitudes about "jazz" is
that the common perception is pretty black and white. You're either out
for blood and tearing the paint off the walls with some noble free jazz
or you're playing bossa novas in a cocktail lounge for silver haired
patrons.

There's obviously a lot of ground between those two poles. And, you can
play great music without being innovative all the time. There are
traditions for a reason - because the tradition you're following is a
good one - why else would someone follow a lead? And a lot of great
things can come from that. 

And, a bassist is a really important part of any trio in the jazz
construct. I apologize for minimizing Peacock's role in the trio with
Ayler. It's an amazing group dynamic and yes, all three members are
critical to that sound. I put the emphasis on Albert in that context
because for me, there really wasn't a precedent for him when he broke on
to the scene. Yes, Coltrane had started to stretch outside the realm of
song forms and his sound was extending the "normal" role of the
saxophonist as a harbinger of melodic and thematic development, but
Ayler's sound concept (along with Peacock and Murray) is really unique
historically to the saxophone. That was a very special group. I could
almost say the same out Giuffre's trio with Steve Swallow and Paul Bley,
but of course, I'd probably be jeered for that because they're not
radical enough...

I don't think people have to imitate Charlie to make great jazz these
days; in fact it's obvious that Charlie's role/influence in post-60's
jazz is severely over-rated. There have been a lot of great players
since Haden and La Faro that live in the canon of jazz.

I guess it gets down to intention really. The main problem that I have
with jazz after 1970 is that we don't seem to be able to get past the
dialectic of neo-cons vs. the avant garde.  Again, it's kind of a black
and white/us and them - construct/approach that seems difficult to
resolve. 

I think if you like a certain kind of music you should play it. That's
why I still like playing with The Lost Trio - we have a really good time
playing "tunes", and I don't feel we're compromising - we're taking
everything we know about music and trying to plug it into the sound of
the band in a very sincere way. That's the best I can do...and I
approach all music that I play with the same sincerity and intention. I
play material that I like with people I enjoy working with. Is there any
one member of the band that is more important than the other in the
creation of our sound? I don't think so. Trios are so compact that every
sound counts...