Jazz Monthly in February 1968 had a five page article on Albert Ayler and "The New Thing" in music, defending avante-garde jazz and Albert Ayler, no doubt to still conservative jazz fans in the late 60s. The first section of the article is below. I'll follow up with the remainder in future blogs.
Albert Ayler—Conservative Revolution?
It is when we
come to the work of the rhythm section that we find a little more in
the way of real innovation. Even here however there has been
considerable exaggeration of
the amount of innovation which has actually taken place. One cannot
help suspecting that some critics regard it as their obligation to
find new developments even where none exists: how else are we to
explain all these references to the elimination of the distinction
between the rhythm section and the front line ? We are assured that
it is now difficult to say who is accompanying whom, that the rhythm
section now occupies a position of equality with the horns. Now one
can think of examples where the rhythm section dominates the
proceedings, but this is invariably when the horns are extremely
weak. (Or perhaps the horns are so weak because of the dominance of
the rhythm section.) Perhaps l might refer the reader to the review
in this magazine of “Barrage” by the Paul Bley Quintet; Max
Harrison (in the June 1966 issue) opens with some comments on
collective improvisation in the New Thing, and manages to include the
inevitable remark that . . it becomes absurd to speak of “front
line‘ and ‘rhythm section’ as separate entities". He goes
on however to admit that “the horns . . . actually say very
little"; then he concludes by saying that . .this record is
more attractive for its manner (i.e. the collective improvising) than
its matter". Whilst agreeing entirely with this assessment of
the quality of the music, I should like to suggest that it is the
manner which is responsible for the low standard of the actual
content.
It seems to this
listener that on all the most musically worthwhile of the New Thing
recordings there is no doubt whatsoever about who is being
accompanied and who is doing the accompanying. This is most certainly
the case with Ayler, whose solos show a formal perfection which would
be impossible if Ayler were prepared to change the course of his
solos in order to accommodate every whim of his accompanist.
During the course
of this article I have, as l am well aware, tended to avoid
discussing in very much depth the work of the rhythm sections on
Ayler’s records. This is because quite franklyl find it difiicult
to discern the underlying principle behind their work. Most of the
figures played by Sonny Murray on drums are clearly related to the
beat, but do not actually seem to give much consistent rhythmic
support. This does not detract as seriously from the records as one
might imagine, because Ayler‘s rhythmic control is such that he
seems quite assured even in passages where he gets no rhythmic
support at all. And it is not really so wildly revolutionary either,
because the accompaniments that country blues singers give themselves
can often amount to a sort of free commentary rather than a rhythmic
backing. From myown point of view I should like to hear Ayler with a
more positive accompaniment. It can however be said of Murray and the
various bassists that their contribution never actually clashes with
Ayler’s soloing, which may seem faint praise indeed, but which is
really saying quite a lot in view of some of the rhythm sections to
be heard today. Murray in particular shows a considerable awareness
of dynamics and his frequently simple and repetitive but powerful
figures can heighten the efiect of a climax. Of the bassists, Lewis
Worrell gives the most consistent rhythmic support on Holy Ghost from
the “New Wave in Jazz" album. Peacock is the most individual
of Ayler’s accompanists, and the one whose ideas can at times seem
most independent of Ayler’s soloing, although some of the most
memorable moments on Ayler’s records occur when Peacock plays
strongly rhythmic but imaginative figures behind him. There is no
doubt that today's rhythm sections have become tired of the
stereotyped but efficient devices which constitute standard practice
in Modern and Mainstream jazz. There might be some reason for
maintaining that in throwing away the rule-book today‘s players
have made way for some inefficient and even downright unhelpful
rhythm section work. This is true enough but to talk about throwing
away the rules is rather misleading. The standardised conventions of
rhythm section playing have no really universal application. They do
not, for example, apply in New Orleans jazz, which might be compared
to the New Thing in that the absence of any real accepted practice
gives plenty of latitude to an individualist such as Baby Dodds but
also allows lesser musicians to get away with some very poor work. it
also means that individually fine musicians may prove incompatible.
In the dispute surrounding the New Orleans All-Stars, for example,
the evidence of the record suggests that Max Harrison was right to
criticise the rhythm section. This does not alterthe fact that both
Frazier and Purnell have been outstanding in other contexts. The
danger of incompatibility is very real in free jazz but this is not
an insurmountable difiiculty, for two reasons. First of all, groups
within the new style tend to be organised on a less casual basis than
in standard Modern Jazz, so that there is not the same immediate
necessity of musicians being able to play together. Secondly, if a
leader feels that he is not getting very helpful accompaniment he can
always get rid of his accompanists. Critics who speak of anarchy when
rules are broken tend to ignore such essentially practical
considerations. Rhythm section men today have at least one discipline
on their work—they want to keep their jobs.
Comments
Post a Comment