[NewMusic] Zorn/Taylor Lincoln Center review in NYTimes

[Phillip Greenlief]

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Robair, Gino
Subject: [NewMusic] Zorn/Taylor Lincoln Center review in NYTimes

Anyone seen this yet? Some interesting comments from Ben.
****
March 13, 2007

Music Review | Cecil Taylor and John Zorn
Barricades to Storm, Whether or Not Any Guards Were on Them
By BEN RATLIFF

PG:
Goodness. "Interesting" comments indeed...

For example, how is it that Cecil's music can be deemed as avant garde
today? I didn't hear the concert, but I doubt that it sounds radically
different from any of the Cecil trio recordings from over the past four
decades. And of all the groups Zorn could have brought to Lincoln Center
(or would have been welcome to bring), Masada is perhaps his least
"avant" group.

So, here is the NY establishment, patting themselves on the back for
bringing "new music" to Lincoln Center that isn't all that new. I'm not
saying Taylor and Zorn are not innovators. But Cecil's innovation was
potent in the 1960's. Regardless of the passion and intensity with which
he performs, I would resist calling it "ground-breaking" at this point.
And now he's introducing funk as a rhythmic element in his music - say
it isn't so!

Of all the works that Zorn has written, or groups that he has written
for, Masada seems one of the more traditional. While many folks assume
he invented "Jewish Jazz", locals know a different score: Zorn inherited
the Masada idea from Ben Goldberg, local bay area clarinetist and
composer. It's a real shame that Zorn didn't keep Ben in the band - the
quartet he put together out here (and toured with once before he ever
got Masada off the ground) was a really inspired ensemble. I'd much
rather listen to Trevor and Kenny than Greg and Joey. And the clarinet
kept the ensemble rooted in the tradition of Jewish music, while
allowing Zorn to step beyond the Ornette instrumentation. And, for my
money, for this kind of music, Ben is a more interesting improviser than
Dave Douglass (but not as much of a star).

Both ensembles on the Lincoln Center bill featured a tried and true
instrumentation: piano trio (piano, bass, drums - gee that is radical)
and Zorn's Masada lineup (some might say Ornette brought the saxophone -
trumpet - bass - drums lineup to the forefront, but it was a popular
ensemble going back to the Dixieland days of New Orleans...). Chet Baker
and Gerry Mulligan also had a chord-less quartet with nearly the same
instruments (baritone saxophone, not alto). But those guys are rarely
lauded as being "innovators". Those nice recordings they made were
recorded before Ornette's "classic quartet" releases (The Shape of Jazz
to Come, etc.) although stylistically, Ornette's recordings were clearly
more of a departure from the melodic and harmonic language of the
Baker/Mulligan band.
 
And Ratliff has the gumption to tell us that Wynton's music isn't
traditional or mainstream. He does nothing in the article to support
this claim, apart from a single independent clause where he assures us
Marsalis doesn't sound like anyone else. I don't feel I need to argue
against this statement. It's wholly ridiculous. OK, no one ever wrote an
opera on the theme of slavery, and it seems a much needed statement in
the operatic canon (from American composers). But Wynton has never
surpassed any of his predecessors (Miles Davis or Gil Evans in
particular and Gershwin with regard to the opera) with regard to style
or idea. His "Standard Time" recording is one of the only records he has
made that I enjoyed listening to (apart from his Christmas album...sappy
as that may sound - but it used to beat out listening to my mom's
Christmas organ LPs, my dad was in agreement on that one). 
Standard Time was a nice return to the kind of conception Miles Davis
used with his excellent quintet with Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Ron
Carter and Tony Williams, where the ensemble would change tempos and
time signatures at the drop of a pin. Mind you, it's been a few years
since I listened to a recording by Wynton, he could have turned into a
radical innovator for all I know (but I doubt it).
 
I don't see much going on in this article outside of a bit of a
commercial for Lincoln Center. The NY Times is a fine newspaper, but
their critics (especially in film, now that Elvis Mitchell is gone)
remains a pretty conservative publication, which is ironic when you
consider that most of the country views it as a liberal rag.