How Ken Burns got me hooked on Cecil Taylor

[crawjo]

Hey gang,

As a new member of JC, this afternoon I decided to take a leisurely stroll through the archives. My first reaction to what I read was, Man, JC used to be a much nastier place than it now seems. I wonder why that is? Maybe the avatars have something to do with it? After all, it's harder to call someone a lousy s.o.b. when there's a picture of a puppy dog or a harmless kitten next to their name. I think the avatars might help to humanize us for other readers, which is, I think, a good thing. It's a reminder that there's an actual person on the other end, and not just some abstracted enemy. (By the way, Pete C. and mke, the above should not imply that if it were not for your avatars, I would call you lousy s.o.b.s. I'm just using it as an example.)

Of course, you can't respond to stuff in the Archives, but I wanted to say something about the Ken Burns Jazz series, three years later. Prior to Ken Burns, I knew next to nothing about jazz, and was not interested in the music. My cd obsession was basically Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan, and then some more Bob Dylan. I owned two jazz records: a symphonic Duke Ellington CD, and Kind of Blue. That was it. I hardly ever listened to either.

As a baseball writer, I knew Burns's work well from his Baseball series (which is not quite as a flawed as Jazz, in my opinion, but still flawed.) I found "Jazz" to be very long, and quite boring in some parts, but I must admit that it did get me interested in the music. After I watched it, I went out and bought the Ken Burns compilation CD. Then I listened to Kind of Blue some more, and started buying Miles Davis like crazy. From there I branched off to Coltrane, and some other musicians from the 50s and 60s. One thing that stuck in my head from the documentary, though, was the way it dismissed Cecil Taylor. I had absolutely no idea who Cecil Taylor was, but I was curious as to why he, and so many other musicians after 1959, were treated so rudely. Even as a non-jazz afficianado, Wynton Marsalis's influence on Burns was obvious and disturbing. As a historian, I could tell right away that there were some serious bias issues going on.

As I recall from the final episode, Burns spends about 30 seconds on Cecil Taylor. He shows a clip of Taylor playing, then mentions something about how Taylor likes to rehearse in front of his audiences. Cut to Branford Marsalis: "To me, that's just sanctimonious bullshit. Nobody goes to watch a baseball player field grounders, they go to watch them perform." Now, as a baseball fan, I can tell you that I absolutely love watching batting practice, watching the outfielders shag fly balls and the pitchers run wind sprints. So right there, I thought Marsalis was full of it. And I had this feeling that if Taylor was inspiring this much venom through his art, there must be something there. So I consciously started to keep my eye out for Cecil Taylor cds. This took me awhile. There are a lot of record stores that don't carry Taylor, period. Finally, after a few months I found Jazz Advance. Bought that. Loved it. Loved Rick Kick Shaw, and several of the other tunes. I'm not a musician. I know little about music theory, and I can't play an instrument. But Taylor played the piano the way I always imagined it should be played, the way I heard it in my head. In most pianists' hands, the instrument seems almost tame, but with Taylor, it's bursting out of the speakers. It was an incredible experience. I kept looking for more Taylor cds. Bought Unit Structures, The World of Cecil Taylor, Looking Ahead!, Nefertiti, the Beautiful One Has Come, Jumpin Punkins, the Cecil Taylor Unit, and just now, 3 Phasis, which is my favorite so far. It has taken me awhile, because I'm on a limited budget and Taylor is hard to find. But reading the old discussions in the archives made me realize the connection between Burns and Taylor for me. Burns dismisses Taylor, but paradoxically, that dismissal caused me to seek out Taylor, and without Burns I wouldn't have Taylor, and probably wouldn't be a jazz fan. Jazz is basically all I listen to now, and has been for the last two years. (I occasionally mix in some blues, classical, and rock, but mostly it is just jazz.)

Someone in the archives predicted that the only people who were going to watch the Burns program were going to be jazz fans who would either embrace its conservative bent or dismiss it. I guess I'm a counterexample to that theory. Burns brought me into jazz, but he didn't bring me into the pantheon he tries to set up in the documentary (as defined by Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis.) So I guess my point is that, at least for me, Burns' documentary was the kick in the butt I needed to start listening to this music and trying to understand it. I'm still in that process, and it's a thrilling one, to say the least. I watched the documentary again this past year, and this time around I could see more readily the bullshit that was going on, and the second time around, his dismissal of Taylor and the avant-garde pissed me off a lot more. But, oddly enough, the only reason it pissed me off was because my first viewing of the film had caused me to find out what the avant-garde was all about in the first place. I had always had this image in my mind of jazz as being something of a museum piece, the favored music of pretentious aesthetes. Maybe I am now a pretentious aesthete, but I never really knew about the avant-garde at all, and it made the music seem so much more vital (as do the other movements, but I mention the avant-garde because it has a special place in my heart and because Burns treats it like it's a bad joke.) So, sometimes good things can emerge from something bad.

Anyway, thanks for letting me share this story. It's fun to be able to talk with people who obviously have a deeper knowledge of the music than I do, and to learn from their accumulated wisdom.

[Pete C]

When I want to be a lousy S.O.B. I use this avatar:

[Cem]

Great story crowjo...almost brought a tear to my eye. But, would you agree with Branford's assessment? Of course, I know squat about baseball, but I don't know that I'd qualify what Cecil does as resembling what's considered by some as more ho-hum in baseball. Cecil's more like an organic robot or some alien, who's lived among humans for a long time and is capable of hitting homeruns which are not always visible to the naked eye. Either way, it's a lovely story.

Maybe this could be my entry into baseball. I've always been curious about it. I'm not a sports fan whatsoever -raised by non-sports-loving women-, but something graceful & "righteous" about that game and the spirit surrounding it.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

Outstanding. I'm glad you've found the world of Cecil Taylor, crawjo. And what a way to find it. For me, CT's music was hard to get into for a while. Then I put on my copy of silent tounges one night while I was reading notes from the underground by dostoevesky. Click. Now I'm a big fan.

About Branford, I remember reading somewhere that what he said was completely taken out of context. I don't think he was even talking about cecil when he said that.

I'd be frankly suprised if Branford wasn't a big fan of CT.

[crawjo]

Cem,

I wouldn't compare Cecil Taylor's music to baseball. Miles Davis, yes. Cecil Taylor, no. Cecil Taylor really is in his own league. What the Marsalis quote did for me was it gave me a window into his point of view. There's a saying among baseball fans: you aren't really a fan until you learn to love batting practice. I think this is because watching batting practice is, to the fan who is just interested in action action action, boring. But for those who are tuned into it, it's a pleasure...it reveals some of the subtle beauties of the game. That Marsalis would dismiss it so out-of-hand exposed (for me, as a baseball fan) a certain shallowness, a lack of curiosity about that which is not immediately accessible. And it then opened my eyes even more to the biases of the people who were talking about the music.

For me, Cecil Taylor is immediately accessible, though I imagine for others, he's not. As I indicated in my above post, I instantly identified with Cecil's playing. I couldn't explain it, and I still couldn't tell you what he's doing. But I feel it in my gut. The sense of rhythm, the energy and the precision, the way Cecil plays off of the drummer, the way he uses the piano as a truly percussive instrument. Listening to Taylor for the first time, I felt like I was hearing for the first time the way music should sound. It's an incredible experience, to discover an affinity between what's in your head and what you are hearing. I listened to Jazz Advance the first time while I was driving home from work, and when I came home, I was visibly excited. My wife had to get me to calm down. I played it for her, and she said she could barely tolerate it. As I said, it's a music that is not immediately accessible for many people. But Marsalis' quote about baseball just made me think, "Well, if this guy doesn't like batting practice, and I do, and this guy doesn't like Cecil Taylor, maybe I will." Combine that with Burns's horrible treatment of the avant-garde in general, and his pathetic attempt to make the RETURN OF DEXTER GORDON into this major, earth-shattering event, trumped only by the ARRIVAL OF WYNTON MARSALIS, and my instincts for art and for history just told me something wasn't right. I could sense that something important was being glossed over, and I wanted to find out what that something was. His narrative could basically be reduced to: Miles Davis made Kind of Blue, John Coltrane made A Love Supreme, and then, for a long time, nothing happened...Jazz was dead. But wait! Here comes Dexter Gordon, and here comes Wynton Marsalis. Jazz is saved! I knew that this could not be an accurate or authentic portrayal of jazz history. Burns's claim that he glossed over the last forty years because it's too recent is complete bullshit. Burns did try to make a history of jazz in the last 40 years, centered around the decadence of the avant-garde, which was saved by Marsalis' return to the roots. That was his history. When he tries to claim that he doesn't put any history of the last 40 years into the film, he's lying, or he's an idiot. And I don't think he's an idiot. I think he just put out this incredibly biased story and passed it off as history. In that way, the last episode of Jazz is kind of like "Birth of a Nation."

As for baseball, it's really a discussion for the alley. But I will just say here that I think it is the most beautiful sport ever devised, and that, like jazz, it rewards contemplation and attention to detail. Like jazz, the more you put into it, the more you get out of it. Like jazz, it draws you in, if you let it.

It is also interesting to note that what inspired Burns to do the Jazz documentary was a quote by Gerald Early in the Baseball film, which said something to the effect of "Hundreds of years from now, there are only three things that this country will be remembered for: the constitution, jazz music, and baseball. Those are the three most beautiful things this country has ever devised."

[Cem]

Sal, I actually get the same feeling about Branford. I've met him before, but never had an in-depth discussion about anything. He did, however, strike me as an open-minded fellow with "big ears", both when I met him and in interviews I've read.

crawjo, I'm a junior poster/music fan here, but, I'd imagine a lot of what can get you about Cecil's playing has to do with his honesty. No bullshit there. He means business, as they say. The man sheds all these layers of protection we all use and reaches for IT. There's that instant recognition of someone revealing something deep within them without fear of being judged or chastized. Maybe that aspect of his playing can be likened to baseball. That and the immediacy & urgency in his playing probably what knocked you on your ass...

I remember the first time I felt I "got it". It was a sunny, lazy afternoon. I was listening to Coltrane Live In Japan and dozed off. I must've been gone for at least 20 minutes. When I woke up, the music had an effect on me, in a way it didn't before I passed out. Sure, I was physically refreshed and that association helps, but I felt like someone or thing cast a net over me and I was captured by something beautiful, more like captivated. I was definitely overjoyed and immediately following this experience, a whole range of not-so-accessible music became a part of my life. Ever since then, when I occassionally fall into this half-sleep state at concerts, I seem to get something extra out of the experience somehow. I know there's a scientific explanation.

[Tom Storer]

Ken Burns hoist with his own petard! Great story, crawjo.

However, not to defend the Burns jazz series, which I haven't seen, but the return of Dexter Gordon was rather a big deal, even though it wasn't really a return since he had never stopped playing in the US, even if it wasn't all that frequently. At least it was a big deal to me. I was a teenager at the time, enthusiastically listening to jazz; but where fusion and free both seemed easily accessible to me, bebop took more effort for my ears. The return of Dexter, as it was deftly marketed with that Village Vanguard record, pushed me considerably further into "the tradition," and I doubt I was the only one. I first saw Dexter live in 1977 and accepted bebop as my personal savior then and there (not that I don't do a lot of sinning with both pre- and post-bop.)

[Brian Olewnick]

Excellent, crawjo. So, you're up to the late 70s but don't, I repeat DON'T bypass the amazing early 70s solo albums including 'Indent' and 'Silent Tongues'. Also, especially assuming you dug 'Unit Structures', ya gotta hear 'Conquistador!'. Finally, check out the Mantler/JCOA disc, 'Communications', recorded in '68. Half of it is Cecil at his most powerful backed by a raging orchestra. This was my first experience with Taylor and it utterly blew me away. I still remember the downbeat review of the album where the writer said that he quickly turned to look at his stereo, entirely expecting the vinyl to be levitating off the turntable.

[Pete C]

Originally posted by Cem
Ever since then, when I occassionally fall into this half-sleep state at concerts, I seem to get something extra out of the experience somehow. I know there's a scientific explanation.

I'd guess your analytical facilities are down and you're better able to take in the music without intellectualizing or trying to rationalize it.

[Derek Taylor]

Crawjo, your post at the top of this thread is among the best I’ve read at JC in awhile- very cool. I’ll be curious to learn your opinion of Cecil’s so-called ‘European’ turn solidified during his (still ongoing) sojourn with FMP. There’s a beautiful bulk of work to be found there.

As for locating Cecil’s work relatively cheaply/easily, I’d definitely recommend mail order over brick & mortar through places like Cadence/North Country, Squid’s Ear and Jazz Loft.

Branford’s definitely got an affection for the ‘avant garde’- witness his advocacy of David S. Ware at Columbia for one example. I think his words as quoted by Burns were in response to a terribly loaded question.

[chuckyd4]

I remember when I saw that clip from the Ken Burns thing, I thought it seemed like Burns had asked him something like "What would you think if a musician started practicing right on stage and told the audience they need to practice listening on their way to the concert?" Which isn't even a description of Cecil - to my mind - but phrased that way of course Branford would say "That's self-indulgent bullshit"...

Regardless, though, I'm glad someone else has found the world of Cecil Taylor, and it's great no matter how it happens. Mine was when I was going to NYU and I walked into the student center, and there was this funny guy playing this crazy piano in the lobby for about 50 to 100 people. It was truly a blindfold test for me... I had no idea who this guy was until he left and they announced his name. I remember I watched the whole thing, fascinated, though... I even told my friends (who were unimpressed) to go on without me - I was gonna stay and watch this crazy guy.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Baseball...the Zen sport. My wife loves it. I watch with her. It's made things really lovely at the house.

Cecil is more like the fictitious sport played on the playing field depicted on the cover of Nick Mason/Carla Bley's album of the same name.

[Reid]

I believe the complete transcript of Brandford's interview was online somewhere, maybe at the NPR site.

Btw, I believe Herbie Hancock made a comment about the live performances of the 2nd Great Quintet being akin to practicing live. I could be wrong about that, though.

[crawjo]

I was probably too hard on Branford in my original post. I was just trying to explain what made me start thinking about Cecil Taylor. I actually did check out the transcripts (available at PBS' web site) and the quote wasn't exactly how I remembered it, and it was completely a loaded question. So chalk it up to Ken Burns, yet again. Which I guess just reinforces the subject line of this thread.

[Chris D]

crawjo,

Thank you for sharing your story. It's also nice to get yet another baseball nut involved around here.

You know, for me, the tragedy was that Burns could have made whatever points he wanted to about the New Music in a much less loaded fashion. I remember when the series was first in production, and Burns and his crew sent out feelers in jazz newsgroups about what should be in the series.
I e-mailed that a cogent way to deal with post-1965 -- leaving out a meaningful discussion of fusion, and yes, there is a meaningful discussion that could take place -- would be to approach it from two angles: The Canonicals Creating a New Academy (Marsalis, et al) and the Downtowners. Sure, this would be reductionist, but it would offer a more thorough and honest overview than was presented.

I guess my main problem with the whole Crouch-Wynton-now Burns approach is that it's exclusionary, when, at its best, jazz is the most inclusive and welcoming of musics, open to any influence and raw material.

[crawjo]

Chris D,

That would have been a better approach. Anything would have been a better approach. In the last couple of weeks I've watched two jazz films: A Great Day in Harlem, and Imagine the Sound. I think it would have been more interesting if Burns had followed the Harlem model and tried to talk about the different schools and styles without getting preachy about what was better than what.

For starters, where were the avant-gardists in his film? He talks with Charlie Haden briefly, but that's about it. He loaded up his roster with neo-traditionalists like Crouch and Marsalis, and kept going back to them, again and again and again. His film embraced this ridiculous "Man of Destiny" storyline with Marsalis, without critically discussing his music in any meaningful way.

As for fusion, I can't say that I've explored it fully. But from what I've heard, I wouldn't dismiss it as "non-jazz." I just listened to the Complete Jack Johnson sessions, and there is some interesting stuff going on in that box, and it is most definitely related to jazz. I don't know. Ultimately, Burns' film is a colossal failure. It is easily the worst of his three epic films. He tried to tell the story of Jazz the same way he told the story of baseball--chronologically--but jazz as an artform resists such a simple narrative. He should have realized this earlier on, and found a new model, instead of copying the same one he had used with more success in Baseball and the Civil War.

[Cem]

Sorry about spraying all over this thread (& others) last night with my drivel, folks (especially crawjo). I was working with deadlines, I was blocked & frustrated & w/out sleep. I know some will argue it was the first time ever I was coherent...nevertheless...

btw/ what'd you think of Imagine The Sound, crawjo?

[crawjo]

I enjoyed Imagine the Sound. I thought that Paul Bley was more interesting in his interviews than in his performances, and I thought that the poem Cecil Taylor read was pretty mediocre. But I loved being able to watch him play (I've never seen him live), and I also loved watching Bill Dixon and Archie Shepp as well, both in their interviews and in their performances. I thought it did a pretty good job of presenting the music and some of the ideas and personalities behind it. And I also thought, as the interviewer noted at the end of the movie, that it was kind of ironic that it took 20 years after the avant-garde first emerged for a film to be made about it. That's unfortunate, because many of the figures (such as Dolphy, Ayler, and Coltrane) who were important to the movement were dead by then.

But I did enjoy it. Have you seen it? What were your impressions?

[Cem]

I liked it a lot...really oughta see it again, soon. It's been quite a while since I've seen it, but I was really impressed with the affection, respect, frankness and casualness it was made. The stories were interwoven appropriately and the film had a pretty good flow to it, if I remember correctly. I remember being impressed with Bill Dixon, as I hadn't heard him enough before. I enjoyed it enough that I remember thinking, I'd like to own it on video to watch it once a year or so. Kinda like I do Straight No Chaser, another film made about jazz, more specific and biographical, but also by people who respect & love the music. I know one of the filmmakers, Bill Smith, who lives nearby here on one of the Gulf Islands, is a fine music writer, photographer, reedsman and was one of the owners of Coda magazine (which used to be excellent and may be a great source for you to check out stuff, btw...they may have a bunch of back issues you can order cheap). Anyways, I don't think one can make a good movie about jazz unless one has embraced it like a religion, connected to it at a pretty deep level.

[crawjo]

Cem,

I completely agree about the filmmakers. Their love for the music is obvious, and without it a good film about the music simply couldn't be made, in my opinion.

I was also really struck by Bill Dixon's playing. I'd never heard him before, and after hearing him I tried to look up some of his records, but there don't seem to be many. Anyone know some good Bill Dixon recordings? In the film he comes across as a very innovative player, and also very passionate about the music. The other thing that struck me about the film was Cecil's smoking habit! The guy's puffing away at a cigarette in every scene where he's not playing any music. It's good to know that he's been able to stay healthy and strong, nonetheless.

I found this film through interlibrary loan, but I'm thinking about buying it. It's available at amazon.com for $20, if memory serves.

Speaking of Cecil, yesterday I found another disk to add to the collection: Celebrated Blazons. I listened to it once and was blown away. What a sound! Between that and 3 Phasis, I'm going to have plenty of Cecil to digest for the next few weeks. I'm sure at some point I am going to have to give up looking for Taylor cds in stores, (especially for those '88 sets he made in Germany that were part of the FMP box), but for now I like doing it this way because each time I find something, it's exciting, like finding a little piece of gold in a field of hay. I'm sure if I wanted to I could go out and search the Internet and get most of these disks that my collection is still lacking, but for now I like building my collection slowly and methodically, gives me time to digest and appreciate each disk.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Terrific story, crawjo!!

Cecil's "Indent" pinned me to the wall when I first heard it on KPFA. It's the only album I literally ran out and bought immediately after hearing it.

"One Too Many Salty Swift And Not Goodbye" needs to move to the top of your buy list.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally posted by crawjo
Anyone know some good Bill Dixon recordings?

Check out the Downtown Music Gallery website, and check out this interview!!

[Bill Barton]

Very cool thread, crawjo! Regarding Bill Dixon, in addition to Dennis's fine suggestions, take a look here .

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Dennis Gonzalez
Check out the Downtown Music Gallery website, and check out this interview!!

Just don't check out DMG's latest lp sale list, unless you want to see some serious scamming.

I would pick up Dixon's Vade Mecum. I also like November, 1981 a lot.

[MRS]

Agreed. . .those prices are horseshit. Who do they think they are?

[crawjo]

Interesting interview. On the other hand, Bill's demeanor/behavior to everyone (including Cecil) at Victoriaville was a huge drag. Yes, his music DOES deserve more attention...

He comes across as bitter in Imagine the Sound, and he also comes across as bitter in that interview, in my opinion. Of course, as you say, there are good reasons for him to feel bitter...

[Pete C]

Originally posted by crawjo


He comes across as bitter in Imagine the Sound, and he also comes across as bitter in that interview, in my opinion. Of course, as you say, there are good reasons for him to feel bitter...

His music isn't a laugh a minute.

[Dan G]

Regarding BMarsalis' comment about Cecil, here it is, from http://www.pbs.org/jazz/about/pdfs/MarsalisB.pdf

I've included some relevant stuff - it came out of his admission that it took him quite a while to understand the WSQ. Seems it is OK for them to be tough to get, but not Cecil. But the real crap is after - the comparision to baseball. I doubt Taylor has ever said that someone should be a pianist before going to one of his concerts, but more that they should know a bit about the history of the music and where he is coming from. As a better comparison to baseball, that would mean at least understanding the basic rules of the game before going, but not necessarily being any good at it.

We could talk about World Saxophone Quartet?
Um-hum.
What were they 70s, late 70s, early 80s. What were they trying to do
that was different?
Well, I mean, I was at the very first World Saxophone Quartet concert. It
was in New Orleans at the Southern University of New Orleans. Kid Jordan,
who was a, another New Orleans family, the Jordans, you know Kent
Jordan’s father was a proponent of free jazz and he brought them down and
it was their first show ever. I was 16; I had no idea what was going on. I was
just, this music was flying by and I was like, “Huh?” Whatever, you know,
just I, I couldn’t make heads nor ta..., head nor tails of it.
These 4 guys get together - what do you think of this music?
I didn’t like it when I first heard it - I was 16, but I didn’t know. When I got
older and I came to New York, I really understood what they were trying to
do. And, and, you could really hear the tradition of the music, you know, I
mean... You know, I mean, I’ve heard various groups, you know, with Arthur
Blythe was in it a couple of times, you know, a..., you know, away from the
original four. Arthur was in it, a couple of times, and John Stubblefield was in
it a couple of times. But, the group with Hemphill, Hamiet Bluiett, David
Murray, and Oliver Lake was just... I really, really enjoyed listening to them.
I mean it. They were just playing music, I mean, what they were trying to
do, I mean, they were just trying to play, they were trying to express
themselves. And I think they expressed themselves within the boundaries
and the traditions of the music, very well.
Do you think the audience likes to be educated? I know Cecil Taylor
has said, “I prepare for my next concerts. The audience has to
prepare.”
Oh that’s...
Would the audience have to be able to, to hear that or know...?
That’s total...
to study for it?
That’s total self-indulgent bullshit as far as I’m concerned. I mean, you know,
I love baseball. I mean, I’m not going to go and catch a hundred grounders
before I go to a game. I mean, that’s what... we pay to see them do what
they do and to appreciate them. I mean, why would the audience sit around
and practice and prepare? I mean, they pay their money to hear what it is
that we do and to appreciate what it is that we do.

[mke]

[HLJ]

I agree with Branford I don't have to listen to anyone before going to dig them.I rolled up to dig Mel Waldron and Steve Lacy never heard thier music.I did remember them get props here and my man Jason Bevins said come on down and check it out.Now I didn't really dig it and if I had listen to them ahead of time I would have kept my jack in my pockets.I have tried to listen to Taylor ain't feeling him thats cool different strokes.But prepare Hell No!!!Peace and all that.