I think we can all realize that while free-jazz or whatever we want to call it is still separated from the mainstream, it's pretty much just a different style (at least by this point) - a less popular one, but really just another style. Does Brotzmann really have in-depth explanations for everything or are you talking about certain portions of his audience? I must say I have remained blissfully unaware of any of Brotzmann's explanations of his music. I think we should take things musicians say about their music with a hunk of salt, though. Often they're pressed into explanations for things that make better sense when heard as music then as words. I guess that's why music is made in the first place... Rob Quoting skip Heller <velaires@earthlink.net>:
on 6/28/02 9:22 AM, Robert Pleshar at rpleshar@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
Should we expect Brotzmann, Parker, et al to do anything different really? Why? It's true that when they started they were breaking new ground and that "free-jazz" is as solidified of a genre as hard-bop or trad or whatever, but so what? Dizzy Gillespie did his thing his whole life, why should it be different for Evan Parker or Mick Jagger?
Dizzy wasn't separating himself from the mainstream, so he was spared that sort of judgement. What you say and how you present yourself has a lot to do with how people view your work.
Can't we just say Brotzmann is a great free-jazz stylist and his style is popular?
If he would allow people to leave it at that, yes. But look at all the shit people are saying about Bailey playing standards. The avant-garde community is full of people analyzing things past where just about any other community would take it, no? You think Brotzman is going to do anything without an in-depth explanation?