[NewMusic] Zorn/Taylor Lincoln Center review in NYTimes

[Kristian Aspelin]

Phillip, I definitely agree with your point, especially as seen/given from the perspective of an improvising musician.  Cecil's initial and main "impact" was around 1960 - that initial buzz, controversy, and newness can never be replicated.  However, getting back to the NY Times article (which was written for the masses), while improvising musicians such as yourself and Damon understand that what Cecil is doing now is not necessarily "new" or radical (if for no other reason than his musical development has been ongoing for over 40 years now), for "regular" people or even musicians who do not listen to or are simply not aware of music such as Cecil's or Zorn's, I believe that the music can indeed be heard/interpreted/felt as radical when first heard, thereby potentially causing the same type of reactions that occurred on 1960, albeit on a much smaller scale, and at a different time.  

Phillip Greenlief <pgsaxo at pacbell.net> wrote:  -----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Damon Smith
Subject: Re: [NewMusic] Zorn/Taylor Lincoln Center review in NYTimes

Cecil is still at the forefront, especially if we only consider 
jazz-based music. His music continues to evolve, just because he 
started 40 years ago does not mean his music is still the same.

Damon


PG:
As it so often happens, you're missing my point. Yes, his music has
evolved...slowly. The advancement from the departure he took from
traditional forms in 1960 was a much greater leap from the "jazz" of the
day than say, any of his recordings that have occurred since 1970. What
was "avant garde" in 1960, when Cecil's recordings started to emerge
with some consistency, is different from what is deemed radical today. 

My question was not whether or not he is still making "vital" music
today - I think he is - but rather this: is it a big departure from
anything else that is happening today? 

So many groups have digested Taylor's approach. Yes, he's an innovator
and has influenced countless players. Yes, he continues to inspire and
influence players. No, his music does not sound as radical today as it
did in 1960...(that was my point).

But to re-think my whole argument (and to acknowledge your statement
above), it's possible that the music that Zorn and Taylor are making
today really are as far out as jazz can get...and still be termed jazz.

There are lots of innovations that have occurred over the past two
decades, but I think most of us would have a hard time linking those
developments directly to jazz. The electro-acoustic movement, lower-case
groups, tape music, various strains of electronic music, and all the
post-modern cross-fertilizations, don't necessarily align themselves
with jazz. The "improvised music" genre may have come out of jazz, but
it seems, in the European context in particular, it was a conscious
effort to create their own music - a music that was not an extension of
"American" (read: "Black") music. Fair enough - each culture designs its
own architecture.

But you can easily link Taylor and Zorn's Masada project to jazz. And it
is possible that these groups are playing the outer limits of music that
can be linked directly to the traditions of this music. While the other
innovations I mentioned above may have elements that come from jazz
(with improvised music, it's really all about the individual
improviser's background that makes the connection more than the genre
itself), they have many other influences that are non-jazz.

_______________________________________________
Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
NewMusic at music.mills.edu
http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic


 
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.