Thanks for reprinting this Howard. It was a great time, I wish I could do it again! Things have hardly changed for orchestras since then, eh? Still the same issues, though some rays of progressive thought.
I reviewed Threadgill's writing for Chamber Orchestra, a four-part suite performed at Cooper Union, for the Village Voice in the '80s. Threadgill is sui generis, as are so many of the brilliant musicians (Muhal, Braxton, Wadada, Roscoe Mitchell, Joseph Jarman) who arose from the Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians.
Hi Howard, I read your reprinting of the 2012 piece you wrote with great interest. I'm perplexed. All of the interviewers mentioned things that they learned, explored, etc. as jazz composers, arrangers players in regards to the symphonic orchestra through this program. All of these things, in the contemporary sense, were explored by IMO the most futuristic thinking jazz musician who has ever lived. Don Ellis. Why the program didn't use him, refer to him, or the participants themselves, even mention him as an example/model of what they are attempting to achieve is indeed puzzling to me. That said I can mention two contemporary living examples of musicians, composers who utilize the orchestral palette available to them through the symphony even though they are primarily jazz players/composers and have gotten their works performed on a regular basis. Paquito D'Rivera and pianist Emilio Solla who both have composed from string quartet, to chamber ensemble, to symphonic orchestra, and of course utilize elements from their own Cuban and Argentine cultures respectively and beyond. These musicians are living examples of what the program wished to achieve. Thankfully there are more.
Thanks for your comment, Bobby. The disappearance of Don Ellis from discussion in contemporary music circles is unfortunate. He was a trailblazer, whose directions have been extended by others although he’s lacked the constituency that would preserve his works in the repertoire. I think of two composer-leaders who have pursued interests he evinced: Karl Berger and Amir ElSaffar. But I don’t know if either of them refer back to Ellis. I am not familiar with Emilio Solia, but willlook into his music. As for Paquito, I believe he was involved in the Jazz Composers Orchestra Initiative the year after I was witness to it. Exploration of Afro-Caribbean rooted jazz-classical co-mingling has been slight, to my knowledge, and could be increased because it could be quite productive (as Sousa, Copland and Bernstein were among North American composers to realize). Can symphonic forces command so-called Latin rhythms? With guidance from rhythm-masters such as yourself, they might try.
Hi Howard. Of course I agree with everything you write here, and am truly surprised that you think I am not fighting for more inclusive-to-jazz policies with my piece. I also like Rhapsody in Blue -- it's a masterpiece, after all.
First quote from my article: "First-time listeners are struck by a bolt of optimism. A new day is here! Gershwin’s melodic material is spun with enchanting gold thread, from the opening clarinet swoop to the bluesy piano riffs to the epic sentimental melody near journey’s end. No phrase can ever be forgotten."
Second quote: "The reception history of “Rhapsody in Blue” is more problematic than the work itself. If the piece had been less successful, perhaps more could have been done to build on it. Instead, it has clogged the arteries of American music. Rather than seek out new possibilities, promoters, educators and other gatekeepers can just claim: The ‘Rhapsody’ is there, a guaranteed success, so why dig deeper?"
I agree with everything in your 2012 piece, and frankly wrote my NY Times article to do a related kind of thing. We are definitely on the same side, and I'm very sorry you don't see it that way.
Ethan, I’m glad to be corrected. Yes, your emphasis from the start of the pleasures of Rhapsody — I should have taken more cognizance of those sentences. As for the reception of it clogging creativity or programming of other works, I’m befuddled. Usually great works inspire emulation or competition to do even better, and it seems to me there have been many attempts by American composers, which you probably know better than I do. The unforgettable success of Rhapsody you cite strikes me as the direct appraisal of listeners, and not the fault of or flaw in the composition ( which I understand may not be formally perfect, anyway) but an issue for programmers and performers to address. It is for them to build in the possibilities Rhapsody suggested (and Ellington among others grasped the symphonic challenge for themselves, even despite realistic expectations of institutional rejections). I can read your NYT article as calling for attention to more music, across all bounds, supported without facile reliance on beloved repertoire. Glad to share sides with you, and apologies for any misreading. At least it got me to dig up some past work - thanks for reading,
I am comparatively intimate with the monolith of classical music performance and am trying to address its worst failings, but I have learned my perspective scans as egotistical to some.
I don’t see how you can worry about that. Every time a performer or writer does what we do, we put ourselves forth, and that can be taken as egotistical. As Miles said, So what?
Thanks for reprinting this Howard. It was a great time, I wish I could do it again! Things have hardly changed for orchestras since then, eh? Still the same issues, though some rays of progressive thought.
Glad to be able to revisit, Joel. Hope this kind of experience could be continued.
The New York Times's naming of Henry Threadgill's "The Other One" as one of the best >classical< albums of 2023 is encouraging.
I reviewed Threadgill's writing for Chamber Orchestra, a four-part suite performed at Cooper Union, for the Village Voice in the '80s. Threadgill is sui generis, as are so many of the brilliant musicians (Muhal, Braxton, Wadada, Roscoe Mitchell, Joseph Jarman) who arose from the Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians.
Hi Howard, I read your reprinting of the 2012 piece you wrote with great interest. I'm perplexed. All of the interviewers mentioned things that they learned, explored, etc. as jazz composers, arrangers players in regards to the symphonic orchestra through this program. All of these things, in the contemporary sense, were explored by IMO the most futuristic thinking jazz musician who has ever lived. Don Ellis. Why the program didn't use him, refer to him, or the participants themselves, even mention him as an example/model of what they are attempting to achieve is indeed puzzling to me. That said I can mention two contemporary living examples of musicians, composers who utilize the orchestral palette available to them through the symphony even though they are primarily jazz players/composers and have gotten their works performed on a regular basis. Paquito D'Rivera and pianist Emilio Solla who both have composed from string quartet, to chamber ensemble, to symphonic orchestra, and of course utilize elements from their own Cuban and Argentine cultures respectively and beyond. These musicians are living examples of what the program wished to achieve. Thankfully there are more.
Thanks for your comment, Bobby. The disappearance of Don Ellis from discussion in contemporary music circles is unfortunate. He was a trailblazer, whose directions have been extended by others although he’s lacked the constituency that would preserve his works in the repertoire. I think of two composer-leaders who have pursued interests he evinced: Karl Berger and Amir ElSaffar. But I don’t know if either of them refer back to Ellis. I am not familiar with Emilio Solia, but willlook into his music. As for Paquito, I believe he was involved in the Jazz Composers Orchestra Initiative the year after I was witness to it. Exploration of Afro-Caribbean rooted jazz-classical co-mingling has been slight, to my knowledge, and could be increased because it could be quite productive (as Sousa, Copland and Bernstein were among North American composers to realize). Can symphonic forces command so-called Latin rhythms? With guidance from rhythm-masters such as yourself, they might try.
Hi Howard. Of course I agree with everything you write here, and am truly surprised that you think I am not fighting for more inclusive-to-jazz policies with my piece. I also like Rhapsody in Blue -- it's a masterpiece, after all.
First quote from my article: "First-time listeners are struck by a bolt of optimism. A new day is here! Gershwin’s melodic material is spun with enchanting gold thread, from the opening clarinet swoop to the bluesy piano riffs to the epic sentimental melody near journey’s end. No phrase can ever be forgotten."
Second quote: "The reception history of “Rhapsody in Blue” is more problematic than the work itself. If the piece had been less successful, perhaps more could have been done to build on it. Instead, it has clogged the arteries of American music. Rather than seek out new possibilities, promoters, educators and other gatekeepers can just claim: The ‘Rhapsody’ is there, a guaranteed success, so why dig deeper?"
I agree with everything in your 2012 piece, and frankly wrote my NY Times article to do a related kind of thing. We are definitely on the same side, and I'm very sorry you don't see it that way.
Ethan, I’m glad to be corrected. Yes, your emphasis from the start of the pleasures of Rhapsody — I should have taken more cognizance of those sentences. As for the reception of it clogging creativity or programming of other works, I’m befuddled. Usually great works inspire emulation or competition to do even better, and it seems to me there have been many attempts by American composers, which you probably know better than I do. The unforgettable success of Rhapsody you cite strikes me as the direct appraisal of listeners, and not the fault of or flaw in the composition ( which I understand may not be formally perfect, anyway) but an issue for programmers and performers to address. It is for them to build in the possibilities Rhapsody suggested (and Ellington among others grasped the symphonic challenge for themselves, even despite realistic expectations of institutional rejections). I can read your NYT article as calling for attention to more music, across all bounds, supported without facile reliance on beloved repertoire. Glad to share sides with you, and apologies for any misreading. At least it got me to dig up some past work - thanks for reading,
I am comparatively intimate with the monolith of classical music performance and am trying to address its worst failings, but I have learned my perspective scans as egotistical to some.
I don’t see how you can worry about that. Every time a performer or writer does what we do, we put ourselves forth, and that can be taken as egotistical. As Miles said, So what?