Jazz, Hip Hop Etc.

[Scott Johnson]

James Schmidt wrote:
> 
> Doug Kellner writes:
> 
> >In regard to Adorno's jazz critique, it is rarely noted that the critique
> >has force and relevance when applied to the crap jazz Adorno listened to
> >on the radio when he was researching CBS programming with Lazarsfeld. But,
> >as noted above, Adorno never heard the good stuff and thus generalized
> >excessively....
> 
> I think this is only partly true. Much of Adorno's discussion of jazz does
> treat "jazz" as basically equivalent to big band swing music. But, certain
> of his discussions (most notably the review of Sargeant's book "Jazz Hot
> and Hybrid" -- which appears in English in the 1941 volume of STUDIES IN
> PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE (IX:1:167-178)) do seem to advance a stronger
> claim that ALL jazz has a pseudo-emancipatory character to it. This would
> include more complex forms of jazz such as some of the Ellington band
> recordings. It is worth noting that Adorno pretty much stopped writing
> about jazz before be-bop and other more complex forms emerged. So, Adorno
> may well have heard some of the "good stuff" -- or at least was familiar
> with discussions of it in Sargeant's book. What he made of it, is -- of
> course -- a different story.

Bingo! It was only with be-bop that the rhythm section lost its
dance-band roots. Maybe the most important change was the liberation of
the rhythm section, and in particular moving the explicit statement of
the beat to the ride cymbal. The qualitative difference in the
transition to be-bop was apparent to everyone at the time, as can be
seen in the heated discussion of it at the time. The change, though, was
in the direction of an increase in complexity -- which is not a value in
itself, but is valuable because it means an increase in the
possibilities inherent on the music. Adorno couldn't have forseen this.
I would argue that this development, though not sufficient, was
necessary for the development of jazz as a music with expressive
potential which exceeded its commodity form.
   After be-bop things get more difficult to analyze, particularly in
the sixties when "out" music was consciously associated with social
protest (as hip-hop has today). Much of that stuff is just garbage, pure
and simple. Many of the "out" players were not particularly skilled (at
least early in their careers; Pharoah Sanders would tell you that
himself, I'll bet, and one thinks today of Charles Gayle), but maybe
brought to the instrument a personal style which expanded the
possibilities of their instrument and served as an inspiration to
others. A phenomenon like Gato Barbieri exposes the sham of much of that
"out" music, though. It's just not hard to "freak out", and that can be
put in ones bag of licks and tricks like anything else. (For a while
there was no end of brothers in dashikis and sandals riding the wave,
and even musicians who know better would go in for it -- take _Sonny
Rollins On Impulse_, or those horrible live recordings with Don Cherry.
All told, the far less "revolutionary" recordings with staid Jim Hall
are what I'm likely to listen to today.) Sometimes it's just plain hard
to decide: on one album Lester Bowie will sound terrible, and yet on
another he'll knock you out? What does it mean that someone as talented
as Joey Baron can make an album as bad as the first Baron Down album?
Why does Ornette Coleman's Prime Time stuff do little for me, when I
love Henry Threadgill's Very, Very Circus? Articulating these reactions
is what criticism is all about. But there is no question that much of
the praise of musicians like Gale comes from the idea that, considering
the source, this MUST be "authentic" music -- and that percieved
authenticity overrules one's good sense. I believe the same happens with
Hip-Hop. To my mind, its contribution to music is small. But it can have
a positive effect on more serious music. Steve Coleman, Gary Thomas, and
the M-Base people have pulled off some recordings which demonstrate that
(and some that don't).
   I've got a friend who just won't open up to jazz -- it bores him.
He's very eclectic, though, and he's happy to listen to *some* jazz.
Charlie Parker is OK (he's authentic, and he was a junkie), Phil Woods
is not (Parker clone. Which is pretty much true, but a very good one.
Why is it cool on a scratchy old record by Parker, with a less
sophisticated rhythm section?). Miles is cool (he was hip, dig those
fusion albums -- he was no elitist and purist), Wallace Roney is not
(just another copycat in a suit. It's not the ears that decide this,
because in fact Roney has more going for him that that assessment would
credit.) My friend thought it was impossible that Kevin Eubanks, who
he's seen on Leno, could do anything interesting. I had to play him Dave
Holland's Extensions CD and some other things without telling him who
was playing guitar to get a positive opinion. The appearance of
authenticity and other factors have a lot to do with the appeal of an
artist. Why Chet Baker and not, say, Art Farmer? He looked like James
Dean and he was a junkie. Yada, yada, yada...
   Musically, all the posturing in hip-hop is nought. I don't care what
you say over your stereotyped rhythm, it's still so trapped in its genre
as to be musically uninteresting. The real value of this stuff will be
revealed in what future musicians have gotten from it. And some artists
(heh heh) will emerge as having been creative within the genre. But time
is usually required to separate the wheat from the chaff definitively.
Basically, ears have to get tired of what is cliched in Hip-Hop before
they search out something more. Since the rapping is so intrinsic to the
form, it will of course matter how good it is, too. And here, there is
no need to priviledge "revolutionary" content as more artistic, unless
one wants to fall into the old mistake of "revolutionary art" like
orthodox Marxist theorists in the thirties. For myself, I'll leave all
this sifting to others.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
                     Scott Johnson

105 W. 1st St. #214                sjohn@cp.duluth.mn.us
Duluth, MN   55802             voice/fax  (218) 722-1351

   http://www.cp.duluth.mn.us/~sjohn/sjohn_on.html
 --

A memo signed by Major Okuntimo of the Rivers State Internal
Security Task Force, dated May 12th 1994, states: 
"Shell operations still impossible unless ruthless military
operations are undertaken for smooth economic activities to
commence."

-- From a web page (http://www.gem.co.za/ELA/ken.html)
dedicated to executed Nigerian activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, 
who led a group resisting Shell Oil's activities in his
homeland. The memo referred to was sent 10 days before 
Saro-Wiwa's arrest.