Tomorrow’s Jazz Library is my personal tribute to wonderful Chicagoan saxophonist Fred Anderson, who died in the summer. I made the trek to the old Velvet Lounge, which has to be one of the greatest jazz clubs ever, seedy, run down, in the middle of a redevelopment area and yet full of amazing atmosphere. The bar seemed to be a relic from the repeal of prohibition and Fred presided over it all, most successfully when he stepped out from behind the bar and played his heart out on the tiny stage with all 75 members of the audience crammed into the restricted space.
Comment by Andrew Mayne
October 14, 2010 @ 1:57 am
Enjoyed the prog. on Fred Robinson – up to a point. But as with much free jazz, I wish someone would explain how we are meant to listen to this kind of music. We were told that Fred Robinson built on the harmonic language of Charlie Parker. But in what precise way did he build?
Whenever I hear a discussion about free jazz, I never seem to get much further than a lot of vague stuff about the musicians involved ‘having to listen to each other very closely’ and the ‘degree of trust that is essential between the participants’ Etcetera.
What this particular listener would really appreciate would be some analysis of what is happening musically when free improvisation is felt ‘to work’.
Comment by Andrew Mayne
October 14, 2010 @ 2:02 am
Apologies for ‘Robinson’ read ‘Anderson’. Here’s to you Mr. Anderson.
Andrew Mayne
Comment by Alyn Shipton
October 14, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Good point Andrew, and I think the section on this in my New History of Jazz is more an explanation of what the Chicagoans were trying to do than the “how” of listening. Take a look at Barry Kernfeld’s “What To Listen For In Jazz.” The chapter on Sun Ra’s Outer Nothingness has some good clues as to how to approach listening to this type of material, and in my book I make explicit the links between Sun Ra and Fred Anderson.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Listen-Jazz-Barry-Kernfeld/dp/0300072597
Comment by Andrew Mayne
October 14, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
Thanks for this. I feel there is no substitute for the ‘explanation’ being linked with immediate and specific examples of the music. This is where Kernfeld scores, because he does include (on a CD that comes with the book) examples of the music on which he comments. Wouldn’t radio be an ideal medium for extending this approach?
Comment by Alyn Shipton
October 19, 2010 @ 8:01 am
Hi Andrew
Yes, I think radio is the medium for this, but to some extent that depends on what your audience brings with it. There’s an ongoing debate about how much explanation to include. Maybe Fred would have benefited from more, but then the immediacy of using the interview with him would be punctuated by explanations, and that – I think – mediates it to its detriment, losing immediacy. Try one of the shows with a guest reviewer – indeed either of this weeks with Chris Batchelor on Harry Beckett or John L Walters on Gil Evans to see what I mean. Both currently on BBC listen again.