Author Archives: helldriver

Deulogy

In December of 2004, an unusually deranged heavy metal fan leapt up onstage during a Damageplan concert in Columbus, Ohio and shot to death 38-year-old ex-Pantera guitarist “Dimebag” Darrell Abbott.

Less than a year later, guitarist Denis “Piggy” D’Amour, of the Canadian art/thrash/what-have-you band Voivod, died of cancer. He was 45.

It was a one-two, jab-hook combination against metal guitar, and from what I can tell, the genre is still down for the count.

I guess they were influential, these two D.D.’s, though inspirational is maybe a better term. In a genre cluttered with cookiecutter speedfreaks and Malmsteen wannabes, Dimebag and Piggy were nothing of the sort. If nobody really followed them, maybe that’s because following them would have been suicidal—the proverbial empty elevator shaft Dizzy Gillespie once identified with following Monk.

They couldn’t have been more different from each other. Thin and fat. Scorchin’ Texas and frozen Quebec. Good ol’ boy and techno death-geek. Dimebag, joker, all heart gut & balls, ever-busy making a spectacle of himself; Piggy, soft-spoken, deliberate in approach, and always pushing a lot of brain (okay, I lifted that phrase from an old Maximum Rock n Roll).

They did have one thing in common: both claimed to lack formal instruction. Maybe it was partly this that enabled them to re-imagine the boundaries of metal guitar in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, to push an already marginally tonal genre to extremes of artful dissonance and sheer noise. In this respect, the difference between Piggy and Dimebag is something like the difference in twentieth-century classical between modernism and the postwar avant-garde. Piggy was the Schoenberg figure here, or at least the Bartok; Dimebag was Steve Reich, or Pierre Boulez.

Holy shit that’s pretentious. Okay, you’re over it now.

***

Dimebag had to go out a rock star. It was the way he came into the world. What the actor Tom Towles once said about himself applies to Dimebag as well: he was unsuited to regular employment. Only a lifelong fan of the genre could have played the guitar the way Dimebag did. (Actually, that’s not a bad definition of metal. Forget all that shit about power chords and operatic vocals; metal is the genre in which the deified performer is but the apotheosis of the fan.) Watching Dimebag was like watching a dog chase a frisbee, and then chew on it. He played his guitar in the same spirit that Kiss painted their faces—and, good exhibitionist that he was, he was never averse to painting his own in the pre- (lead singer Phil) Anselmo years of Pantera, when the band looked a like a southern-fried Mötley Crüe. He was clown and wizard, a cross between Eddie Van Halen and Ace Frehley. He was a first-class snakeoil peddlar, too, and the music, the solos in particular, were always part salespitch and part magic show. He worked with a fairly restricted harmonic palette, but a seemingly endless range of timbres, the more abrasive the better. And he made an absolute virtue out of his obnoxiousness.

For Dimebag, there was nothing metaphorical about the guitar’s phallicism: it was a penis, and every solo a masturbatory epic. Here is what Sartre said about Jean Genet: “He jerks off the universe.” Not a bad line to describe Dimebag. (Yeah, I know: not a bad line period.) Like Genet’s sainted murderers, the guitar was bride as much as phallus; one got the impression that he took the instrument to bed with him, as legend has it Hendrix did. Perhaps one has to marry one’s own penis to be a great guitarist in the mold of Dimebag. And yet, if Dimebag was the most masturbatory of players—and in a genre as masturbatory as metal, that’s saying quite a lot—it was masturbation without ritual; it was pure play, as if he had just discovered pleasure and was indulging himself for the first time.

Because the guitar was an extension of his body, one couldn’t imagine Dimebag thinking before the note. Of course he did think, was a very conscious player; but the way he approached the instrument convinced us he didn’t, that the music just came out of his pores. Maybe that’s why, even at its most outlandish and distorted, Dimebag’s playing retains an organic fluidity and warmth. And then the guitar was so much his center of gravity that he looked ridiculous without it, all hunched and gangly, with too-big feet and hands. (I took my partner to see Nancy Griffith a couple of years ago, and it was the same thing with her (Griffith, I mean): she looked ridiculous without her guitar. Except that, in her case, wearing those metal fingerpicks, she reminded me of Max Schreck in Nosferatu.)

*

Pantera may have started the Anselmo years with something of a “nu metal” vibe, fusing southern rock and funk/rap to classic metal on Cowboys From Hell and Vulgar Display of Power. (I’m ignoring Power Metal here, and I hope you will, too.) But by their third album, they weren’t pushing other genres on metal, but metal itself, the metal they had made, out from the inside, trying to punch a hole in it, or crash land it somewhere. It’s as if the band had made a bet after Cowboys as to how long it would take them to pulverize the genre into noise. “You can free yourself,” Dio once sang, “but the only way to go is down,” and with The Great Southern Trendkill, Pantera hit bottom, the primordial metal mud: the album was even more “abrasive, oppressive, and hard to listen to” than Anselmo had promised Far Beyond Driven would be. Not for nothing Anselmo’s post-Pantera effort is named Down, and not just for being south (of heaven?). Nor is it surprising that Pantera would come back together for only one more great, underrated, and in many respects more traditional album, Reinventing the Steel, before disbanding for good.

Compare, for example, the seminal power ballad “Cemetery Gates” (on Cowboys) to “Suicide Note” (Parts I and II), or “10s,” or “Floods” (all on Trendkill). “Cemetery Gates” is firmly in the melodic-operatic mode; at the song’s climax, Dimebag and Anselmo go toe-to-toe, the guitar matching higher and higher cries of the word “gates,” until the guitar replaces the voice with a note that Anselmo’s falsetto can’t reach, and then careens down and crashes as the song fades out. This was back before the drugs or whatever had trashed Anselmo’s voice; on some tracks he sounds uncannily like a young Rob Halford (of Judas Priest, damn you). But if one can’t imagine Pantera doing a “Cemetery Gates” by the time they get to Trendkill, it’s not just because Anselmo couldn’t sing it anymore. Their whole ethos had shifted. They try for “Cemetery,” but end up with “Suicide Note, Part I,” which always struck me as the most sarcastic of metal ballads—the major key, the grotesquely pleading vocals; it feels like a sucker punch for the shrieking violence of “Part II.” As for the other late slow songs, they can no longer properly be called ballads. “Cemetery Gates” was a dirge, a power ballad with a necrophilic tinge. But songs like “10’s” and “Floods” literalize the cemetery feel; they’re sludgy, limp, crawl along leglessly, carrying more than a whiff of the charnel-house about them. All the romance of “Cemetery”—the afterimage of the dead beloved—has been drained out. They are embalmed ballads; you listen to them and think, This is what it feels like to fuck a corpse.

“Walk” (on Vulgar) and “Drag the Waters” (on Trendkill) also make an illuminating pair. Based on a similar riff, the change in rhythm, timbre, and arrangement creates two songs as different in feel as Hendrix’s “Who Knows” and “Machine Gun” (on Band of Gypsys, also based around the same riff). “Walk” is all funky syncopation, and the voice and lyrics are stuffed-crotch bravado; but “Waters” is grating and seedy, a rotting wharf of a song, bottomlessly vile. If we thought “Walk” was idle threat, “Waters” cashes in on it, bite to “Walk”’s bark.

Dimebag had everything to do with this relentlessly downward trajectory. Over the course of those first four albums his riffs became more minimal, his sound more dependent on noise and texture, his solos more spare, bend-heavy, and effects-laden, the musical equivalent of the grating screams of Anselmo’s trashed throat and the nihilism of the lyrics. While it’s true that one can find elements of later Pantera as early as Cowboys (on songs like “Primal Concrete Sledge” and the end of “Domination”; in the solo on “Psycho Holiday” or “The Art of Shredding”; even in the discreet false harmonics used to ornament the choruses of “Cemetery”), much of that album remains in a firmly thrash metal/southern rock mold (“Shattered” is a good example, as are “The Sleep” and the title track). Slowly, the oppressiveness builds outward: into the bridge of “This Love” and the outro of “By Demons Be Driven,” the overall sound and feel of “Live in a Hole,” the solo on “Rise,” and the distorted roar of “F*cking Hostile” (all on Vulgar). But none of these could really prepare us for the assaults on metal decency of “Use My Third Arm,” or “Throes of Rejection,” or “Good Friends and a Bottle of Pills,” or “Becoming” (all on Driven): the I-can’t-start-my-tractor sound Meshuggah would perfect on their later albums; the diligently massacred production, in which Darrell’s brother/drummer Vinnie participated, beginning with Vulgar; the songs and solos where melody and riffage alike are submerged under cascades of bends, wah, overdrive, whammy, false harmonics, and flange.

Dimebag could find extremities of pitch and timbre, not just that no one had ever heard before, but that no one imagined anyone would ever want to hear. I can see him dumping effects out of a box like they’re Legos, and building sounds and whole songs from them in much the same way. He could always find something to make his guitar sound messier, or heavier, or more grating (check out “Use My Third Arm”). As the band’s sound grew more pared-back and minimal, Dimebag became more a texture, an aura. On some songs on Trendkill, there is hardly any harmonic foundation left to solo over; the leads rise up like the cries of burning victims from a bombed-out musical landscape … and that’s when he bothered to solo at all (the number of solos had shrunk from all but one song on the first two albums to just over half on Trendkill). Already on Vulgar he had begun to move away from the gorgeously melodic and showy classic metal solos of Cowboys, like the one on “Cemetery Gates” and the song-closer on “Shattered.” The sixteen-beat-long bend that devolves into a whammy flying saucer on “Regular People (Conceit)” and the wah-seizure on “F*cking Hostile” are prototypes for the solos of “I’m Broken,” and “Throes of Rejection,” and “Suicide Note (Part II),” and “The Underground in America”: effect becomes a structuring element rather than ornament or climax, as it was on, say, “Rise.” (A good comparison would be to Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Pantera’s sort of alter-ego in the blending of funk/rap and metal.) But Dimebag could be intensely lyrical and bluesy on those later solos, too: the raunchy Skynardisms of “The Great Southern Trendkill”; the beautiful, lengthy lament on “Floods.” It’s as if, as the music grew more pared back, the solos became the one place where he could still fully exercise his melodic imagination. It was something he never lost—melody, a certain playfulness—no matter how brutish and nasty Pantera got.

What Pantera showed—better, I think, than any other metal band ever would—was that the genre could always be pushed further, that all superlatives are temporary—that, in fact, the band would have to keep outdoing itself if they planned to stay at the vanguard of the genre’s evolution—if, that is, they planned to keep marketing themselves as the world’s most something-or-other metal band—and what is metal without being the most something-or-other at something? Death metal bands would always play faster, doom bands slower, Norwegian black metal bands would always be evil-er, etc.; but I don’t think any of them came close to doing what Pantera did in terms of disintegrating metal riffage into dagger-thrusts of noise. It’s a tribute to them that they never fit comfortably into any of those subgeneric niches … and even more, that they did what they did (at least seemingly) without alienating their more classic and pop-metal audience. I imagine they succeeded because they never entirely lost those elements of southern rock, funk, and rap that had made their early albums so popular. They were also damn good at marketing noise, anger and nihilism as a sort of New Populism.

***

Killing Technology (1987), Voivod’s third album and the first on which they could be said to have found their voice, suggested that the band might be involved in a genre-pulverizing project similar to Pantera’s. Here, the idée fixe was the flatted fifth. For a metal band, this was nothing if not traditional: the association between tritone and devil, the diabolus in musica; its presence in the very three-note riff that inaugurated the genre (Black Sabbath’s “Black Sabbath”). At least since hardcore forced metal to look in the mirror of its own corniness and find its inner motherfucker, the genre has been invested in pushing dissonance in the direction of atonality. Piggy just broke down the door Sabbath had cracked, a door nobody until him had really thought to try. Unlike Pantera, though, by the time of 1989’s Nothingface Voivod was working hard to meld their distinctly outré sound with an alt-pop melodicism—a project which came to fruition on Angel Rat and Outer Limits (albums 6 and 7, respectively), although with varying degrees of success.

One can’t claim Piggy was devoid of spectacle, though Voivod had outgrown the outsized trappings of a black metal band after their first couple of albums, even as they retained their custom jagged-cut axes beyond the leather and spikes. On stage, Piggy did his fair share of thrashing, both feet firmly planted, occasionally scooting left or right while bassist Jean-Yves Theriault (“Blacky”) or vocalist Denis Belanger (“Snake”) weaved around him. He smiled a lot, too—not the “yes, I know I’m kicking your ass” smile of most metal musicians, and certainly not a smile one associates with black metal (!). This was an open, boyish smile, as unguarded as Dimebag’s sound.

That said, Piggy was metal’s most bizarre, cerebral guitarist. As with Dimebag, one can hear traces of his style from the beginning: in the bridge of “Black City” and the finale of “Warriors of Ice” (on the brilliant debut War and Pain), when the midrange drops out and raw guitar and bass begin to wend their way apart and together through the mix; in those high, bright chords used to punctuate the musical phrases on “Ice” and “Iron Gang”; and above all, in structuring the intro to “Horror” (from the enthusiastically-titled RRROOOAAARRR) around a diminished arpeggio. These three elements would evolve together and coalesce to become the essence of Voivod’s sound, which was really Piggy’s sound. You could separate Dimebag from Pantera and still have a great metal guitarist in some other band; but if you took Piggy out of Voivod and put him somewhere else, you would still have … Voivod.

By Technology, that damned flatted fifth, a tweaked power chord on a re-tuned instrument, was being employed so ubiquitously (if ubiquity has degrees) that after a while the music stopped sounding dissonant: Piggy convinces us the guitar was supposed to sound that way. The grating diminished chord progressions on the verses and choruses of the title track; the flagrant abuse of the same all over “Tornado”; the burning-carousel finale of “This Is Not An Exercise”: these are songs that seem to move in the interstices of tonalities, a space that Voivod would come to inhabit: an inter-space … a Canadian space, perhaps?

To this first, harmonic innovation Piggy added a second, in pitch, opening the upper registers of the guitar to the song as a whole: those high, bright chords cease to be used merely for exclamation, and instead become a building block of the band’s songwriting. The space above the twelfth fret was a sort of thrash metal no-man’s-land; if guitarists crossed it, it was only to solo or play a harmonized lead. Without those deep power chords, the heaviness of the music was compromised. In fact, by the early ‘90s it had become standard practice to tune guitars down—Dimebag sure as hell did—and singers’ one-time falsetto screams were replaced by menacing growls. (I’ve often wondered to what extent the explosion of bass-oriented music like hip hop influenced metal’s ‘90s propensity to de-tune. I should also note in passing that Piggy’s propensity to use higher-pitched chords betrays a strong punk influence, as do drummer Michel Langevin’s (“Away”) beats.) With Voivod, it was as if the guitarist had been freed to solo for the entire song; sometimes a Voivod song can sound like a single long chordal lead.

Finally, Piggy’s freedom to fiddle with the skinny frets is partly attributable to Blacky’s filling the low end with distorted, orchestral-sounding double-stops. The gap between them actually magnifies both ends of the spectrum of pitch: the heaviness of Blacky’s bass on the one hand, the metallic stridency of Piggy’s guitar on the other. (A similar thing happens with Pantera’s solo sections, beginning with a few songs on Vulgar, and then spreading to the later albums as a whole. It’s a sound Metallica might have learned something from, given the layered turgidity that besludges much of their later music. Is it any wonder that, after spending a decade buried under congealed Hetfieldisms, bassist Jason Newsted would leave Metallica to reform Voivod in 2002? It was surely his greatest career move since founding Flotsam and Jetsam.) The contrapuntal feel that ends “Black City” would find its apotheosis on songs like “X-Ray Mirror” and “Inner Combustion” and “Sub-Effect” on Nothingface. One can’t help but think of the band’s fascination with insects: here is a wasp-waisted band if ever there was one; their sound is all head and abdomen.

It was but a stone’s throw from Technology to Dimension Hatröss (1988) and Nothingface (1989); but what a throw, each album exploiting yet more fully and originally the elements of the Voivod sound. “Experiment,” Hatröss’s overture, rewrites Technology’s “Overreaction” to punctuate each line of verse with four high chordal stabs, and then feeds from a weirdly syncopated 6:8 bridge into a jazzy, cruising chord progression … which, after passing through the odd-time intro section again, returns in terrifying variation—those flatted fifths, replacing the jazzy ninths!—over a pounding orchestral backdrop. The lead feeds naturally into a solo, and then into the song’s finale: an eerie, powertool sound pinched from the very top of the neck. “Die-men-sion … Hay-tross,” vocalist Snake (Denis Belanger) nasally intones: the protagonist of this fully-fledged concept album has arrived, and with it the band’s sound in its purest crystalline form.

“Experiment” is overture in that it encapsulates everything that follows, sonically if not thematically: the obscenely dissonant intro to “Chaosmongers,” and the bridge, where the guitar sounds like an overdriven Theremin; the dancey Lydian melody of “Brain Scan”; the alternating shriek and thunder that presages “Psychic Vacuum.” Although the slant toward pop melodicism and funkier rhythms can begin to be heard here—as well as a tendency to proggier dynamics and more fractured song structures—Nothingface continues the evolution of the aforementioned elements as well, outdoing Hatröss in almost every respect: the dissonance of “Pre-Ignition,” the ethery chord progressions on “Inner Combustion,” the jagged counterpoint of “X-Ray Mirror,” the shimmering jazzinness of the bridge of “Sub-Effect,” with its brilliantly dark variation on the main theme at its conclusion. This evolution would continue, in a somewhat more traditional direction, true, but always with the same attention to dissonance, effect, and tone color, through 1993’s The Outer Limits, the last album until Newsted featuring three of the four founding members.

Part of the brilliance of Piggy’s playing arises from the contrast between his chordal leads and his traditionally minor pentatonic (blues/rock) solos. I mentioned in a previous post that rock solos tend to be overschematized as moments of liberation from the lockstep ostinato of a typical riff-based song. With Piggy, this schema acquires a new, harmonic meaning: the listener is momentarily released from the treacherous dissonance of verse/chorus, into a solo that sounds more AC/DC than avant-thrash. In this respect, the solos are never the focal point of a Voivod song; they’re moments for us to catch our breath before plunging back into the sonic maelstrom. For all the joy of Piggy’s blues outbursts, he was always more himself (more original, certainly more interesting) in the verses and choruses. If I were less charitable, I would say that only with something so straightforward could Piggy hope to navigate the bizarre harmonic waters of the surrounding song. Musically, though, it might be said that Piggy just exploits the Janus-like nature of the flatted fifth: between diabolus in musica and the blue note, the devil and the deep blue sea.

If it’s in that jagged, angular sound that Piggy is most at home, a sound that is all edges and no middle, a sound sometimes more like a mechanized assembly line than a guitar, it’s also a sound that sometimes finds a surprising warmth—and not (just) on those blues solos. I always think of the end of “Pre-Ignition” in this regard. The song could serve as a microcosm of band’s entire project, sonically and conceptually. It’s a monument to dissonance, particularly the bridge, following the line “un-in-ten-tion-al split” (Snake always disassembled words in this way, like some weird language-processing machine). The song begins by taunting the “cy-ber-ne-tic beings” that work in a mine; at the end, “some are set free; / Emotion floods their gaze.” It’s a remarkable moment, this sudden transition from mechanical to human, one for which the band’s sound is perfectly suited; and all of it, it seems, is taken up in Piggy’s guitar, and in that beautiful, multilayered chord that ends the song. Throughout his career, despite the fascination with grating dissonance and the band’s fascination with technology, Piggy’s playing was anything but cheerlessly mechanical. The playfulness of “Cockroaches,” undercutting the fittingly apocalyptic end of Killing Technology; the lobotomized waltz of “Brain Scan”: there were a lot of good reasons for that smile. And if Voivod never made it as a ‘90s alt-pop band, maybe that’s because their sense of humor, as much as their sense of melody, was just a bit too bizarre and introspective to find an audience. Meanwhile, when they tried for nostalgia or teen angst, they ended up with weird hybrids like “Into My Hypercube” (the title says it all). They went from having Soundgarden and Faith No More open for them in ’89 to the Spinal Tap “where are they now?” phase in a few short years. It was partly what happened to thrash metal as a whole, of course—only unkillable Slayer, a limping Anthrax, and something that sounded suspiciously like Metallica made it out alive.

***

If there were something equivalent to the digital photo slideshow for music—but something accessible to a technophobe like me—I’d put together a sort of musical slideshow for each of them, with DJ fades and crossovers between riffs, solos, and sounds, to match the snazzy dissolves and wipes available on photo software.

I wonder what was played at their funerals; I wonder if either of them left instructions, or made a passing comment: bury me to X. Now, had I been anointed to choose the music for either man’s funeral …

Such morbid fantasies!

Modern American

Two notes, which I hope to braid into a discussion of the great stride pianist Willie “The Lion” Smith.

First—in case it isn’t obvious from previous posts—I’m kind of a piano snob. In jazz, many of the bebop giants—Bobby Timmons, Kenny Drew, Cedar Walton, even Wynton Kelly and Tommy Flanagan at times—leave me cold. Heresy, but I can’t connect with solo Monk either, though there’s hardly a pianist I prefer in a group context, whether comping or soloing. Latin pianists mostly makes me cringe—all that flamboyant pounding—this though I get the virtuosity of Latin jazzers like Chucho Valdez and Michel Camilo. And the less said about rock keyboards, the better. I try not to make a habit of shooting fish in barrels, and anyway, it might just be the metal in me talking.

With jazz, I gravitate toward pianists in whose playing I can recognize something of the classical tradition. In terms of technique, this pretty much boils down to a more active left hand, a more precise articulation with the right, a greater facility with the pedal, and a greater feel for the piano’s dynamic potential, all of which serve to expand the range of the instrument’s expressive possibilities. That a pianist has to be able do that and swing, too, is sort of a given. And yet—to borrow the old logical formula—swing is necessary, but (heresy again!) not sufficient. That is: It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing, but swing ain’t everything. Bud Powell, Bill Evans, Brad Meldhau, Stephen Scott, and Joey Calderazzo are a few of the names that pop into my head.

If the names above are weighted toward contemporary players, that may be because jazz pianists today are more likely to have had conservatory training, and a fair number of my favorite young pianists seem to be refugees from classical music programs. This is suggested in part by the number of wonderful young Asian women who have fled a future in the recital hall for the bandstand. Some of them gig regularly around New York: Helen Sung, Eri Yamamoto. (Is it only in America that we think of classically-trained jazz musicians as refugees? And if so, why?) By the way, for the rest of this post, every time you think, “But what about Monk?” just imagine me saying, “Monk excepted.” I’ll get back to him at some length in a later post.

Now, there was a period a while back when I was borrowing a lot of discs from the public library and copying them onto my computer. To avoid racking up fines, I tended to copy them without listening to them, and would not get around to hearing them until turning over the music on my little 4-gig iPod about every four to five months.

This is why the first time my snobbish pianistic ears heard Willie “The Lion” Smith, I was walking across the 149th Street bridge on my way to work. I stopped walking—or I must have stopped walking. At least, I performed the mental equivalent of stopping walking, whether I actually stopped or not. But enough of the Beckett pastiche. My first thought was: I pushed the wrong button. This isn’t … jazz. What was this gorgeous little slice of American modernism I had stumbled upon? Had I inadvertently put on Samuel Barber’s “Souvenirs”? Edward MacDowell’s “Woodland Sketches,” or some other spliff of homegrown Debussy? No: the screen said I was listening to Willie “The Lion” Smith: 1938-1940. I actually had a moment’s crisis of faith in my iPod. Maybe it was broken, or possessed, displaying one title while playing another, laughing …

And then all at once I became reconciled to my ignorance, and realized that it was time to start listening to stride.

Because (as I quickly realized) it wasn’t just Smith. It was the great undiscovered country of pre-bop piano: Fats Waller and Jelly-Roll Morton and James P. Johnson and Earl Hines, and those geniuses we tend to associate only with big-band music, Mary Lou Williams and Duke Ellington. God, Ellington; I imagine a globe with his name ranged across a blank continent the size of Eurasia:                    E L L I N G T O N. I actually have to turn the globe slightly to see the whole word, or project it onto a flat space … which, as we all know, causes distortions.

So I went back to the library and borrowed a couple of discs by Waller and a couple by Morton. But neither impressed me quite like Smith. Granted, with all three I’m making judgments based on an extremely limited sample. I’ve since come to understand that the 1938-40 Smith recordings actually encompass what critics consider to be his finest work. As for Morton, the discs covered recordings made between 1923 and 1926—my original, unrealized intention had been to go forward from there—and mixed solo piano with “Dixieland” band; the Waller recordings, though apparently made when he was at his peak (1927-9), were all with his band, or “Buddies.” It may be the case that Smith struck me the way he did simply because I heard him first, or that the 1938-40 recordings reflect refinements of the previous decade. Regardless, I should probably save the comparisons for some future revision and instead just try to close-read what it was that struck me about Smith.

Listening to Smith, my first thought was that he was doing with the parlor music of his day what Debussy and Ravel had done with theirs: playing it at an angle, as García Márquez once described magic realism’s relationship to conventional realism. Familiar melodic structures, rhythms, and harmonic changes are tweaked, flipped, toyed with, decomposed. The tunes remain, like leaves frozen in ice; but what we’re really listening to is the pianist skating over the top of them, his dazzling pirouettes and measured stumbles. Conversely, compared to many later bebop players, Smith sounds harmonically more advanced; and this makes me wonder whether the stride pianists serve a similar role to contemporary jazz musicians that baroque did to some modern classical composers: someone bothered to climb over the mountain (of bebop on the one hand, the nineteenth century on the other) and discovered a wealth of musical ideas that had been abandoned during intervening evolution. That said, I don’t mean to suggest that Smith and Debussy belong to separate kingdoms. Quite the opposite: ragtime players influenced the French (and other) moderns, while some of Smith’s pieces sound like syncopated Chopin.

Baroque notwithstanding, one of the main things that attracted me to Smith (and stride more generally) was the prevalence of the left hand. It’s something I miss in a lot of bebop. Even a post-bopper like McCoy Tyner, so often cited for his left hand, uses it more as an anchor than as an independent voice. It’s an anchor in stride too, of course, but it carries much more expressive weight; it vies for our attention with the right, and we are more likely to conciliate it. As a result, stride has a much more polyphonic texture than bebop. There is often a marvelous independence of one hand from the other: the left can oompah or boogie-woogie away while the right remains free to ornament the melody … or perhaps lose the melody in whole or in part to its competitor, bounding back and forth at the other end of the keyboard with its dukes up, always poised to take a swing (“Sneakaway Willie”). I can’t think of another pianist who can play three against two so effortlessly as Smith does on “Echoes of Spring,” his right hand waltzing while the left twiddles, each as carefree as the other. Think of a horse cantering while its rider upper-body-dances with an invisible partner. The left hand can suddenly take on a life of its own, too, break stride, and descend the piano in syncopated octaves, sometimes twice or three times in just a few measures, the righthand chords tumbling after, before we’re comfortably back in the rag again (“Rippling Waters,” “Between The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea”). Or it can follow a call-and-response between the two hands by climbing up to meet the right, or hang the melody on high chords (“Morning Air”). Or it can darkly busy itself beneath the melodic surface with Beethovenian foreboding.

As for those right-hand flourishes, they are lovely, seemingly inexhaustible, and give the impression of having been discovered at the moment(s) of their execution. The trills-with-tails, for example, on “Squeeze Me” and “Echoes of Spring” (3-4-3-1 in the minor pentatonic scale, and variations on that theme) with which he seeds the whole upper range of the keyboard, his left keeping time like a planter walking a row, body swaying like the pendulum in a grandfather clock. And then those tinkling 6-3 trills on “Squeeze Me”; the unobtrusive ornamenting of de rigeur chromatic descents; the myriad scoops (at least, that’s what jazz guitarists call them), like minor banana-peel slips; and the limpid split octaves on “Echoes,” so reminiscent of Chopin (although the most Chopinesque touches about this piece are the chromaticism in the melody and the modulation in the left hand).

I have a recurring image of Smith waiting at a bus stop. He paces, looking now and again up the road. He hums a tune, lights his cigar. And then he’ll do something amazing—if you wait around long enough he’ll have to. Not self-consciously; he’s trying to keep himself entertained. A glassy chord. A weird little dissonance. An oddball ending, like “Sneakaway Willie”’s skitter up to the top of the keyboard (the song ends not because it resolves harmonically, but because he runs out of keys). The saltpeter little unswung righthand figure in “Doggin’ the Dog,” just before that dark ladder of fourths that calls Big Joe Turner back in: “And I ain’t gonna be a low-down dog no more …” (Turner sings on the last two tracks of the disc.) Smith does that little figure twice, and then just as quickly abandons it, seemingly bored with it, a kid throwing jacks, moves on to something else. And rest assured he’ll find something else, too, the left hand measuring, whiling time away, always ready to spring.

The mistitled “Rippling Waters” is maybe the standout piece on the disc, the other side of the coin to “Echoes”’s serenity. Maybe I feel it’s mistitled because Marcus Roberts’ song of the same name sounds like … well, like rippling waters. It’s a tune deeply infused with a gospel feel, even as it is ornamented like a romantic piano fantasy. But Smith’s waters do anything but ripple, they splash and bounce and whirl; trills and chords circle treacherously around each other; resolutions jar, opening the way to the hardest-stomping of bridges, or to a sudden end. So much, it seems, for MacDowell-style impressionism. There is not a busier, more uptempo tune on the disc, or one that better showcases the pianist at his most exciting.

*

I scanned around a bit in my jazz books and on line to see if anyone had made a case for Smith’s classical inflections or relationship to American modernism. Indeed, Smith’s interest in classical music is widely acknowledged, with “Echoes of Spring” the most cited. And critic Martin Williams called Smith the most musically interesting of the Harlem school (although he prefers New Orleans’s Morton), and compares him to MacDowell. That said, there is remarkably little written about Smith, at least compared to Waller and Morton.

Now, Gary Giddins’ curt dismissal of Smith (in his piece on Fats Waller, in Visions of Jazz) is worth discussing. Smith is used briefly as a foil for Waller, whom Giddins seems to consider the greater artist; Smith, Giddins claims, had a tendency toward sentimentality. Reading through many of the densely brilliant little monographs and duo-graphs toward the beginning of Visions of Jazz, one can’t help but come to see sentimentality as the arch-villain of the grand narrative of early jazz; it’s a kind of smothering mother-figure (for mother-love and mother-lovers also take a whuppin’ here) out of which the music struggled toward maturity, mentored by figures like Armstrong, Oliver, and Ellington. You can almost hear Giddins crying out, “Clowning, minstrelsy, grotesque parody … anything but sentimentality!” Notably, when classical music is mentioned with respect to, say, Waller, it seems that jazz can only approach it via parody or pastiche. To do otherwise, perhaps, is to risk sentiment—or to become, as Miles Davis so memorably put it (according to the liner notes to Sketches of Spain), “a hip cornball.”

I’ve watched loads of silent movies over the past year, slaking myself on MOMA’s ongoing “Auteurist History of Film” series, and now on the “Weimar Cinema” series as well. Some of the greatest of them seem pretty sentimental to me, at least from a century’s distance. And yet, what power many of them still have! I suppose I’ll be told that, well, then, it’s not sentimental … that, or I’m a maudlin fool. I guess I find sentimentality difficult to gauge when watching films or listening to music so far removed from my own time. A zoologist can probably tell me to a reasonable degree of certainty whether I’m looking at the finger-bone of an ape or a rat’s femur. But how can a cultural historian claim with a similar degree of certainty that a movie or a song is or is not sentimental? Reception studies? Sentimental, that is, for whom? I can’t imagine being moved by a silent film—or, for that matter, by a Romantic symphony, or an Elizabethan play—without some imaginative effort to see beyond my contemporary prejudices and expectations, and to inhabit the conventions of another age. And then the longer I live, the more I start to feel like there are worse things than a little sentimentality. At least in literature, I’ve found more sustenance in writers who are willing to risk sentiment than in those who make careers out of studiously avoiding it.

I’ll stop here, but not before giving a shout-out to Lewis Nash, who played a disc of the Lester Young trio (feat. Nat Cole and Buddy Rich) for a small crowd gathered at the Jazz Museum of Harlem some months back, and suggested that listeners and musicians alike had much to gain by digging into pre-bop jazz. He’s hardly the first to have suggested it … but then the others didn’t have “Prez” standing behind them, helping them make their case.

Leviathans

An hour or so before dusk last Friday I walked out of the Upper West Side and into Central Park, started north following the dirt riding trail along the embankment of the reservoir. This was the first real day of fall; the park had the feel of a location shoot for Wuthering Heights, sky all overcast and wind gusting leaves off the trees. The trail climbed slowly, meeting the top of the embankment at the reservoir’s northwest corner. From there the water looked like the pate of a great tonsure, and the fountain in the distance like the spout of a whale. Maybe the whole island was leviathan, I mused, and that its blowhole. Walking north again, I glanced back now and then, until all I could see was the top of the spout and the mist. The illusion was complete.

I had just watched King Kong for the umpteenth time, and for the second in recent memory on the Big Screen, so I had leviathans on the brain. What struck me this time around was that all the movie’s beauty is in its stop-motion behemoths. The name of the craft is actually misleading: the creatures are in constant motion from the moment they appear: tails and necks writhe, wings flap, mouths roar or hiss; when they square off, they feint and jab, pounce, snap, and pummel. There is a great ka-boom every time their bodies hit the ground. Watching them dance, I felt like I was not at a horror movie, but at one of the first great musicals of that genre’s golden age: Busby Berkeley and Willis O’Brien collapsed into each other.

A few days earlier I had gotten an email from the Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito, where I briefly volunteered some years back, about the carcass of a blue whale that had washed up on the California coast. The email was encouraging people to go see the animal for themselves, and to touch it—a rare opportunity, it said, to touch the largest mammal that ever lived (the carcass measured 80 feet). There was a link to Facebook pictures of its body, with people climbing along and around it. I thought of the “Bower in the Arcasides” chapter of Moby-Dick, one of my dozen or so favorite chapters in the book, where a sperm whale’s beached skeleton, “woven over with vines,” has become an object of worship and a chapel, “the skull an altar,” incense-smoke rising from its bony blowhole.

As I walked and pondered I was listening to Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues, a piece to which I find myself returning with the sort of routine urgency that one returns to a place of prayer. The Preludes and Fugues document the composer’s struggle with the leviathan of Bach, and particularly with the Well-Tempered Clavier—leviathans wrestling leviathans. Like Kong and the Tyrannosaur, though, it’s less a fight than a carefully-staged dance. Perhaps Bach was as ambiguous a god to Shostakovich as the whale’s vine-skinned skeleton is to Ishmael: it “seemed the cunning weaver,” the “busy,” “unseen weaver-god,” “himself all woven over with the vines; every month assuming greener, fresher verdure; but himself a skeleton. Life folded Death; Death trellised Life; the grim god wived with youthful life, and begat him curly-headed glories.” A moment later, Ishmael will break through the ribs and almost lose himself in the labyrinthine chapel; “naught was there but bones,” he declares, before daring, against the outcries of the priests (“That’s for us!”), to measure it.

Shostakovich’s preludes and fugues run the gamut from the meditative and the never-quite-mournful—there is always a kernel of assertiveness lurking inside them—to the agitated and kaleidoscopic. I love the meticulous attention to structure in building his sonic cathedral, necessarily so different from Bach’s, but just as different, I think, from any modern church or skyscraper. I love its domes and buttresses, its cornices and spires, the whole clear architecture of it, and only wish I could stand back from it far enough to see it all at once, like one can from the carcass of a whale, and to measure it, like Ishmael with his switch. To my ears, it is as little Solzhenitsyn’s cathedral as Stalin’s, probably because one can hear Shostakovich raising the stones himself, rather than finding a ready-made home in God’s, or the State’s. (And if you were looking for a Tyrannosaur here, take your pick: God, the State … though we should perhaps add Capital to the list, and not forget the image of Kong astride the cupola of the Empire State Building. It is in those intensely affecting moments right before he falls that his movements most clearly resemble a dance.)

The lamplight was scattered in the turtlepond. The willows were ransacked by the new cold gales. And if I happened to reach the twelfth fugue, one of several regularly-spaced spires, as I climbed the Great Hill, then no doubt I intended to, or someone intended for me to. I had modified the pace of my walk; I had come across a propitiously downed tree. At the top of the Hill I cut across the grass to the flat schist outcrop at its center, another peak among many. Only to me, this evening, it was the crest of leviathan; I could sit on its rocky brow like a leviathanic thought, and say, Here is where the music has brought me; no further. For the Shostakovich—or maybe the Shostakovich post-Kong and dead blue whales—makes me think about what music can and cannot do, what its limitations are, where its natural boundaries lie, to what heights it can climb in its desire for the infinite. Anyway, it was a nice place to finish listening to the wild peasant leaps and washboard chromaticisms of twentieth-century Russia, and to intuit for a moment that there is order, maybe inexplicable, but not necessarily oppressive, that emanates like a light from within.

Life in the Upper Balcony

I wrote a version of this a couple of years ago on the occasion of Alfred Brendel’s final performance (Carnegie Hall, February 8th, 2008), but never had anyplace beyond a drawer to stick it. I’ll occasionally be revising and posting older pieces, particularly during these, the most relentless times of the semester, when I seem to be able to start things but not finish them. FYI, the posting hiatus is also partly due to my computer having gone kaput. A reminder to all ye who pass this way: have ye backed up your files recently? Well, have ye?

I was watching Alfred Brendel’s final performance when it occurred to me that, were we to cross paths on a busy sidewalk, there is a good chance I wouldn’t recognize him. In person, I’ve mostly only seen the top of his head, so that when I try to call him up to my mind’s eye, his face appears foreshortened, all wrinkled brow and wispy hair. For me to recognize Brendel, I thought, he would have to approach me with his head bowed and cocked to one side—a posture that might seem obsequious, or threatening, or just plain ridiculous, depending, I guess, on his speed.

Then it occurred to me that I would recognize none of the pianists I had seen at Carnegie Hall over the last thirty-odd years, except as imagined above. Like a helium balloon, I have always managed to stick as close to the ceiling as possible.

It’s a money thing, of course. Buying better seats would reduce the total number of concerts I could attend. This was always my father’s argument; I grew up, in a sense, in the Balcony. (An old joke, at least in my family: “Romeo, Romeo, where art thou, Romeo?” “In the Balcony—it’s cheaper!”) And though I may not have two kids or parking or tolls to pay, the ledger-book approach to classical concertgoing has remained my rule of thumb into adulthood. My standard line at the Carnegie Hall box office at the beginning of every season: “Balcony” (which, since I am not a subscriber, implies “Upper Balcony”); and, for piano, “Lefthand side.”

But the financial justification always carried with it an elaborate sustaining mythology: those of us who sit in the Upper Balcony know music in a way that those who sit below us do not. The inhabitants of the Orchestra are as spiritually and intellectually bereft as were their Gilded-Age forebears who occupied the boxes on the Hall’s opening night in 1891. Conversely, we poor saps in the Upper Balcony are martyrs. We are starving artists, academics, lay intellectuals, music students, devotees who carry scores around like evangelicals do the Bible and Senator Robert Byrd did the Constitution of the United States. Our lack of finery is proof of our disdain for material things. Thus, the top of the auditorium represents the top of the hierarchy—closer to God, one presumes—in music appreciation.

A second justifying myth is that the sound is better up here, like the air in the mountains is for consumptives. This is really a corollary to the first myth, since the purist comes to appreciate the music, not the spectacle of performance—a distinction arbiters of taste have sought to make absolute since at least the 19th century. Our distance from the performer thus equates to an ideal distance from the artwork itself.

I can’t testify to the sound being better or worse in the rarefied atmosphere of the Upper Balcony, since I’ve almost never had occasion to sit elsewhere. Once, I shelled out for stage seats when the concert was sold out and the opportunity presented itself; once, a kindly usher let me occupy an empty seat in Orchestra after intermission. A couple of times now I’ve sat in Dress Circle with my parents, who themselves forsook the Balcony a decade ago. Whether because after moving to Houston the original economic calculus for sitting in the Balcony changed, or because they’re exhausted of the martyr’s calvary up the stairs, I don’t know. My point is that I have very little data for comparison.

As for the wealthy philistine versus the humble devotee: I confess I’ve observed a goodly amount of philistine behavior in the Upper Balcony. It seems as likely that somebody has bought cheap tickets on a whim as that they’re rationing the season’s concerts. Nor are my Balcony comrades averse to wearing their Sunday best on Tuesday evening. Nor, for that matter, is the Balcony any safer from the terrorism of the cell phone. (Would that we were all as pedantic as Tibby Schlegel in Howards End: “profoundly versed in counterpoint,” he “holds the full score [of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony] open on his knee” and “implore[s] the company generally to look out for the transitional passage on the drum” …)

In hindsight, I wonder to what extent these myths of the Upper Balcony are specific to my family, or can be attributed to my parents’ background. They might have been truer for the Teatro Colon in Buenos Aires, from which my parents carried their formative experiences in concert-going to the United States. The Buenos Aires of the 1950s seems to have been a place where class barriers were more keenly felt, the appreciation of classical music was more widespread, and the devout were content to pay a peso and stand in the back to get a chance to hear their favorite performer.

I suppose the easiest way to tell the educated from the un- would be to survey audience members about what those pesky encores were. But even that would be unfair to those of us in the back, who can never hear the titles when the performer deigns to announce them. Instead, we listen to the murmur of those in the lower tiers repeating the title to their companions, often during the encore’s opening bars. Then again, it does make for a nice conversation-opener with the stranger with whom we’ve spent the last two hours rubbing knees. If the way up is an exodus of the unwashed to the wilderness of the Balcony, at least the way down offers the possibility of community. It is necessarily a different kind of community from that which forms in the lobby. For this one blossoms in motion; it is the solidarity of fellow travelers, of pilgrims, and the strength of the bond emanates in part from recognizing something of the other’s circumstances in your own.

If there is any truth at all to the foregoing myths, then surely we in the Upper Balcony must appear as strange to the denizens of the Orchestra and Lower Tiers as fishes of the abyssal plain do to the average cod. I am one such beast, perfectly adapted to my low-pressure, low-oxygen environment. I suppose I’ve always looked more fit for hiking or bird-watching than for concertgoing. I arrive at the hall carrying my backpack with binoculars and a thermos cup of coffee, and maybe a book for the intermission. If it’s late spring or early fall, I may be in shorts—ready for the grueling hike up the stairs, yes, but also taking my parents’ disdain for the moneyed classes one step further: my attire says, Go ahead. Judge me. I dare you. (Once again, in deference to the Zeitgeist, I’ll blame my parents, who were (it must be said) lax when I was a child about how I dressed for concerts. I pitied the boys in suits, like I pitied my friends who had to go to Hobby Hall to dance with girls. I was eight years old when an usher asked me if I’d lost my pants. Where is the usher who will ask me that today?) I sit sipping coffee as I await the appearance of that rara avis, the pianist. The lights dim; the stragglers find their seats. I hastily screw the lid back on my thermos and stow it, take out the binoculars … there he is! Looking very much like a magpie! He finishes bowing before I can focus the lenses; he scoots the piano bench forward, flips back his coattails, and puts out his hands …

Remember when those redtail hawks first appeared in Central Park and built a nest next to Woody Allen’s apartment? People would sit in the park to watch them through their binoculars and telescopes and zooms. Weren’t the celebs jealous that week, to be upstaged by a bird!

Maybe binoculars are more indicative of life in the Upper Balcony than musical scores or starving artistry. I can still remember the first time I remarked mentally on the lag between watching a baseball hit a bat and hearing the crack. Had I been watching that batter through binoculars, the lag would have remained despite the illusion of proximity. So it is watching piano through binoculars from the Upper Balcony. Were my father not a pianist beside whom I have stood many a time watching the miracle of the fingers making music, I suppose this sight/sound disjuncture would seem like a product of the mechanism of the instrument itself, and not my perception of it. (It could be argued that this dislocation only reinforces the divide between the purity of the music and the spectacle of its production. And yet, where watching classical piano is concerned, the binoculars have only one real purpose: to marvel at the dexterity of the pianist’s hands. So much, again, for the Balcony’s vaunted purity!)

Maybe one day I, too, will get tired of the Upper Balcony, and begin my experiment in social mobility by buying tickets for Dress Circle. After all, my credentials have been compromised: I have a middle-class salary now. Time to stop slumming. It will be difficult at the box office; the ticket-seller will look at me funny; he might even call his manager and whisper something in his ear. But this will be nothing compared to how I’ll feel the night of the concert, when the usher rips my ticket and says, “Straight ahead, three flights up” (that’s the way I’ll hear it); when I stop before the last flight of stairs, on a floor that has never signified anything more than “Restroom”; when I confront the backward glances of those still climbing (their eyes will scream, “Traitor!”); and when I’m forced to find my seat in a hostile new wilderness, as strange to me as Gulliver’s islands, the natives huddled behind the flora, peering at me, readying their gilded spears. With my shorts and backpack and baseball cap, my thermos cup of coffee, and my binoculars, I will no doubt appear as alien to them as Mr. Brendel’s face will forever remain to me.

Briefly

Some comments on previous posts, together with my finally getting around to reading The Metaphysical Club this summer, prompt the following reflection on writing about music:

That whatever pleasure or profit is to be gained by it arises out of failure. You can never hit the bull’s-eye, the music. (There is no bull’s-eye.) But you have to shoot at it anyway, have to make believe it exists. (The words can help you do this.) You can’t write without it, without making out of that absent center a positive presence. It’s a target, but not a goal, for the writing remains something other. Anyway, the richest place is not in that unreachable center, but in the surroundings.

And after you’ve been shooting for a while, you realize that you’ve never listened quite so closely before.

*

Since this is such a short post, let me take a moment to mention a few recent updates (or lack of them) in the design & function of this blog. (1) I mentioned before that I was going to try to change the comment filter so that I don’t have to pre-approve comments. The site is currently set up so that, once the commenter’s identity has been approved a first time, there is no secondary approval needed. This seems fair, and particularly given how many “comments” are spam about selling shoes or chronic depression, I’ve decided to leave the filter as-is. Please just bear in mind that, if it’s your first time commenting, your comment won’t appear until the next time I visit the site and approve it; and if you don’t say something at least semi-specific (that is, a bit more than “your blog is very interesting” or “this blows”), I’m going to assume it’s spam. (2) I finally figured out what widgets are, and so have redesigned the side column a bit. There is a monthly archive; it seems like there are now enough posts to warrant such a thing. The links section is under construction, so you should see new links and new categories added over the next month or two. (3) As for tags—categories under which I can file certain posts to help the reader navigate the blog—more in a few months, when I figure out how to actually make them appear (if, that is, the design template, which I intend to keep, supports them).

Thesaurus Metal

Of the great forgotten early-nineties metal bands, I’d like to put in a word for Demolition Hammer. DH released two full-length albums, Tortured Existence (1990) and Epidemic of Violence (1992). (There was a third, Time Bomb, but for a variety of reasons it isn’t considered a bona fide DH album.) The band’s well-regarded drummer, Vincent “Vinny Daze” Civitano, died of globefish poisoning (!) in 1996, dashing my hopes of a reunion tour, show, or comeback album, at least featuring the classic lineup. (No reason, of course, they can’t grab some unemployed drummer of that era and this area … what’s Glenn Evans doing these days?) By the way, the above information, and some of what’s below, comes from the fabulous web resource Encyclopedia Metallum. Did you know, for example, that there are 16 bands just called “Apostasy”? The spirit of Diderot lives on, and not just in the Encyclopedia, but in Demolition Hammer as well.

DH was a thrash metal band that had the misfortune to arrive just as the scene was on the wane—that is, as Metallica were mutating into rock superstars, and grunge and “nu” or “alt” metal were submerging those thrash bands that, by straining toward greater melodicism, seemed poised to follow them. That DH is sometimes classified as death metal—this though they lack the cookie-monster vocals, detuning, and blast beats which would become hallmarks of the death-metal sound—is partly a testament to the sheer pummeling brutality of their music. Some reviews actually anoint Violence “the heaviest thrash album of all time.” If so, then it is a subgeneric apotheosis that arrived too late to garner the recognition it deserved.

But Demolition Hammer might also be associated with death metal because of their lyrics. Slayer set an early bar here; although they were hardly the only metal band to go out of their way to write the most thoroughly disgusting, offensive lyrics they could muster, seemingly for the sheer thumb-your-nose-at-the-PMRC glee of it, they were probably the most consistently and successfully offensive. Younger metal bands and some crossing-over hardcore bands were eager to take Slayer’s penchant for the grotesque and run with it. In particular, it is a sub-sub-subgeneric offshoot of death metal dubbed goregrind (from its parent sub-subgenre grindcore) to which DH’s lyrics bear more than a passing resemblance. Goregrind bands revel in the anatomy of the wounded, infected, and decaying body. The autopsy is a lyrical subgenre in itself; disease is another common subject, as are cannibalism, exhumation, egregious medical malpractice (with an emphasis on “egregious”), and human experimentation. Album covers tend to feature cartoonish Grand Guignol artwork, like storyboards for some ideal Italian zombie film. My recollection (for I, a child of thrash, have only a passing acquaintance with goregrind) is that at least some of the members of these bands were vegetarians … which I guess most of us would be, if we thought about the vicissitudes of the flesh so relentlessly, and with such relish for putrefaction.

Don’t let the album artwork for Epidemic of Violence—a partial reproduction of the marvelous “Lovecraft’s Nightmare,” which you may or may not remember piecemeally gracing the covers of those ‘70s Del Rey Lovecraft collections, rather than the typical eviscerated corpse of their lyrical brethren—fool you. Atmosphere is not the first thing on these men’s minds. Excess is. Musical excess, yes, but linguistic excess as well. Among my friends, one of the reasons DH is remembered so fondly is for their dauntingly capacious vocabulary (for, yes, one must enact Demolition Hammer in order to speak of them). We still laugh at the idea of the lyricist sitting around with a pen in one hand and a thesaurus in the other. Most of DH’s song titles are composed exclusively of three- and four-syllable words: “Pyroclastic Annihilation,” “Aborticide,” “Carnivorous Obsession” … and even some of the two-syllablers, like “Gelid Remains,” are quite evocative. It is thanks to Demolition Hammer that I know what “anthropophagy” is. I still don’t know what “pyroclastic” means—I haven’t yet bothered to look it up. The list hardly stops there. I have no idea what “cyber-protestants” are. Should I? Is there such a thing as a “microscopic iconoclast”? (Must the icons, too, be tiny?) “Perfuse,” in the gerund or no, is not a verb I am familiar with. Nor is “manducate.” And then there’s requittal, decontorcicate, evulsion, incendiary hyle, syolite, subrelluric force, desquamated cells, recessitating metabolism …

I am confidious, saith Mrs Slip-slop, that you get the picture.

As you can see, the language tends to the scientific or faux-scientific, very much in keeping with the anatomy-lesson-cum-orgy lyrics of goregrind. Like goregrind, many songs treat the disease and dissolution of the body in graphic detail, and are occasionally organized into procedural narratives. In fact, after a few songs you can get to feeling like you are trapped in a gothic medical amphitheater, walls caked with filth, being lectured to by a deranged pathologist … when all at once you realize that yours is the body on the table! (I know! You probably feel this way all the time.) One reviewer in the Encyclopedia actually comments that DH’s lyrics “sound like they were penned by a medical student”—oh please let them not be my doctor—and another praises the band for their “college-level vocabulary.” And how can the heart of a teacher not smile when DH are congratulated for doing their research? That said, there are those details that make me wonder what kind of research DH actually did. I mean, the “Burning protein stench/ From a screaming steel bonesaw”? Sure, I got to play in the cadaver room with a medical-student roommate of mine, but these guys sound like latter-day Herbert Wests, kicked out of med school for … for …

What seems to distinguish Demolition Hammer’s lyrics from goregrind’s is that they apply the genre’s penchant for scientific polysyllables more broadly than the dissection table and the graveyard, to prehistoric monsters, prehistoric men, forces of nature (volcanoes, glaciers), industrial pollution, and so on. On the one hand, the grotesque ethos of goregrind transforms things not of the body (e.g. the volcano’s “orifice”); on the other, in those songs that treat a goregrindish theme, the focus tends to be wider than the body. From “Infectious Hospital Waste,” a song which strikes a chord with we Jerseyites who remember Sandy Hook’s sad harvest: “Virus, absorbed by a school of fish/ Wields a cuisine of demise.”

Wields a cuisine of demise? That’s surely one of the most brilliant, most “metal” lines ever penned. And how could they have known they were writing Vinny Daze’s epitaph? If I ever happen upon the man’s grave, by God, I’ll chisel it on his headstone. (N.B. You might think that’s the first time a metal band would have used the word “cuisine,” but you’d be mistaken. Here is Exodus back in 1984: “Now you’re hell’s cuisine.” Oh, for the day the Encyclopedia enables me to run a concordance!) I should add that fish seem to have inspired this band throughout their short career. The “Omnivore,” for example, is accused of “piscatory savagery,” and described as “gormanding with ferocity,” a close second to “cuisine of demise.”

But then these albums are veritable crowns studded with such gems wrought of excess. Or, if you prefer, cornucopias stuffed with mulched flesh. I love the image of “cryonicists” maintaining their “metallic sarcophagi” (“Gelid Remains”). I am jealous of the compound “pyrocataclysm” which climaxes “Pyroclastic Annihilation.” I much admire elements of the ice-age saga “Cataclysm,” where the glaciers create a “mosaic of inertness.” The crushing last line: “tundra trudge.” I may not know what an “ulcerated carbuncle” is, but just as much as I know I don’t want to get one, I just love how it sounds (“Crippling Velocity”). For sheer gross-out value—which, lest we forget, has its legitimate place in the hierarchy under “terror” and “horror”—one can’t outdo the “barbaric cannibals reveling in flesh” as they “englut raw viscera” (“Carnivorous Obsession”). But the award must go to the song “Epidemic of Violence” just for using the word “defenestration.” I waited a long time to hear the word “defenestration” in a song. My wait ended with the advent of Demolition Hammer.

The chief pitfall of this approach is that the lyrics can sometimes sound cropped from the encyclopedia, rather than arranged into grotesquely novel combinations—when you hear the encyclopedia rather than feeling its weird gravity: in “Cataclysm,” the “expansive power of pack ice”; in “Omnivore,” “massive tissue loss,” “immense bite radius,” and so on. (Watch Jaws much, fellas?)

It would be unforgivable if I didn’t thank the Encyclopedia Metallum for linking to any and all available lyrics. Since all my Demolition Hammer was taped off friends, I have never had access to the words, and so had to make do with what I could decipher. For the last twenty years, that is, I have had to sing “something-something-something without a degree/ Forty-four caliber brain surgery” (“.44 Caliber Brain Surgery”). (The actual lyric: “Practicing without a degree”; in another place, “All I ask is one final plea,” et al.) Then again, sometimes knowing the words is actually counterproductive. If the point is to get as many scientific-sounding polysyllables into a song as possible, then to a certain extent, the less the listener knows, the better. Together with the grating vocals and pummeling music, and surrounded as they are with clearer images of disease and death, unknown, misheard, and corrupted words can take on a Val Lewtonesque suggestiveness: excess is itself exceeded. Which brings me back to “pyroclastic”: what with the “seas of boiling mud” and “magma bombs,” “pyroclastic” is a whole hell of a lot worse before I look it up than after. As much of the above suggests, these productive misunderstandings need not be the listener’s. “Omnivore,” in Demolition Hammer’s universe, is not a qualitative term, but a quantitative one: “eats everything” means not “plants and animals” but “everything in sight” (particularly everything meaty … like you). It makes me wish they had written a song called “Homo Sapien.”

In rock songs, particularly in metal, guitar solos are often—too schematically, I think—treated as moments of climax or catharsis. But while DH’s guitar playing is generally competent and occasionally inspired, it is always trumped by a combination of the frenzied excess of language and the creepy vocals. Instead of waiting for the solo, I find myself waiting for a particular lyric, often during whatever passes for the bridge, or right toward the end of the song, and always after the solo, as if the solo were just a platform for the vocalist to declaim upon (savagely, of course). In “Carnivorous Obsession,” for example, it is the line, “A boiling human broth.” No one says “boiling human broth” like Demolition Hammer does. And yet, even as I write this, it occurs to me that the climactic, post-solo, vocals-driven, bridge back into the verse/chorus happens in a lot of metal songs—Slayer does it in “Silent Scream,” Judas Priest in “Fever” and “Devil’s Child,” to name a few examples that spring to mind—and if I thought about it a while longer, I’d probably find it happening all over rock and pop.

*

My original intention for this post was to waffle on a while longer about Demolition Hammer, about the rhythm and tone of their word choice and the interesting meters of their lyrics. But I eventually realized that I was in over my head; the topic really requires its own post. So instead, I’ll let the stream of consciousness dictate my conclusion.

The drummer in my high school band and I took German together all through high school. Besides learning German, which we did pretty well, our other primary occupation in the class was playing connect-four (on paper) and hangman. One day Arjun (for that was his name) drew the stick-gallows and a series of blanks—several words … a phrase … a sentence, with a question mark at the end. I took one look at it, and then looked at him, and said: “Disapprobation, but what have I done?” It’s a little disconcerting to me to think how readily Slayer’s lyrics could percolate up through my consciousness, and still do. The full lyric, from “Criminally Insane”: “Disapprobation, but what have I done? / I have yet only just begun/ To TAKE YOUR FUCKING LIVES!”

I’m pretty sure I know what “disapprobation” means. I can guess. But it’s really a conveniently academic-psychological-sounding five-syllable word to get us to “take your fucking lives,” which is the meat of the lyric. Not that “disapprobation” doesn’t add something. But I could pretty easily sing “blah-blah-blah-blah-blah TAKE YOUR FUCKING LIVES!” and get away with it. In fact, I’m sure vocalist Tommy Araya has gotten away with it loads of times, and am sure he will in the future, as he crests an early drug-and-alcohol-induced dementia. It reminds me of a speech Bob Dole gave back when he was running for president. This was somewhere in the midwest. He muddled a whole string of words, but still managed to come out with a blazing “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!” at the end, for which he was grandly applauded, although no one knew what “The United States of America” was the object of. As for the association between “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!” and “TAKE YOUR FUCKING LIVES!”—between, that is, the politics and rhetoric of nationalism and criminal insanity—I will leave it for the analysts and the more politically-minded among you to ponder.

On Bands, Very Large and Very Small

In the Joshua Redman chapter of his lovely recent book The Jazz Ear, Ben Ratliff—apparently paraphrasing Redman—writes, “Great bands, more than great individuals, make jazz matter in the larger culture” (135). Redman argues that Coltrane’s quartet functioned as a unit and a whole, rather than as a platform for the leader (Sonny Rollins is the foil here). “I think the most interesting jazz these days doesn’t take the form of a soloist backed by accompanists,” he says; “it takes the form of a group interacting, improvising together” (136). Ratliff believes this attitude extends beyond Redman, to “many musicians of Redman’s generation … [whose] Rosetta stones are bands, not individuals.” Interestingly, the bands Ratliff goes on to list are Miles Davis’s, Bill Evans’s, and Ornette Coleman’s from the ‘60s, and Keith Jarrett’s from the ‘70s—this though Redman’s original list included Tortoise and Led Zeppelin. (That’s the gambit of The Jazz Ear, by the way: Ratliff asked a bunch of musicians to pick pieces of music they wanted to talk about, and then interviewed them while and after listening.)

Born in 1968, Redman is just a year older than me; I am “the broader culture” for which the Coltrane quartet “matters.” So Redman’s comment, and Ratliff’s gloss, got me thinking about the special resonance bands have, not just for musicians, but for listeners of my generation.

There are a couple of contemporary jazz bands (Masada and The Vandermark 5) that I love unreasonably. I think this is so because they act as surrogates for those rock bands I once loved unreasonably, their logos etched across my cortex. If you were to take one of those porcelain phrenology heads and substitute ANGER and CREATIVITY with IRON MAIDEN and PINK FLOYD, you’d have a pretty good representation of my one-time mental life. There is an element of nostalgia at work here, of course: my taste may have matured in fits and starts, but I still carry along the residue of a desire; and, since it seems harder and harder to cathect rock bands with anything like the same intensity I used to (though with a few I’ve come close), the old energy, which I imagine must be conserved, is transferred to other genres.

I don’t say this to disparage the music or musicianship of either Masada or the V5. Both bands beautifully embody Redman’s concept of “a group interacting, improvising together.” I’m trying to identify something in excess of the music—a supplement, an aura; an ethos that coheres as a sound. In this respect, it’s not just the gestalt idea that the sum of the playing is more than its parts. That is true of any successful ensemble. Rather, the charisma of the band radiates at once from a persona or identity created by its distinctive, collective voice, and from the contributions of each of its members, in whose individual identities the persona remains intact and present. This persona is eminently marketable, and circulates as much in images, concepts, narratives, etc. as in sounds. It is most marketable, for reasons suggested above, to listeners of my generation; and above all, to male listeners. I’m not sure why; all that shared sweat and camaraderie, I guess. Life as one long Howard Hawks war picture.

It’s not just jazz bands. I came to string quartets on my own, in my twenties, my parents’ taste being focused around piano, orchestra, and combinations thereof. Can I discount the impact of my generation’s popular music on my gravitating toward the chamber ensemble? Do I really need the Kronos Quartet to play Metallica and Meshuggah for me to figure this out? Why else would I be able to name every member of the Emerson Quartet? Do you think they’d hire me to do their logo?

As the cult of the soloist gives way to the dynamic of the group—at least at this point on the helix of cultural history—I can’t help but wonder if the big band, with its greater focus on composition and arrangement, and its often tightly-controlled and thoughtfully-ornamented circumstances for improvisation (I am thinking of Maria Schneider’s comments here, in another chapter of The Jazz Ear), is also experiencing a resurgence.

And then can the orchestra, that nineteenth-century musical equivalent of the jumbo jet, be far behind?

For my part, I can’t imagine it. Excepting the orchestral works with which I bonded in my teens—the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms, the tone poems of Richard Strauss, a number of piano concertos, a handful of other pieces—I find it harder and harder to suspend my disbelief before the orchestra. I said something in a previous post about a culture of distrust, and I can’t claim to be immune from it. Why belabor with a string section what can be said by a single violin? The orchestra’s size and grandeur seem unsuited to audiences today. Spectacle has moved to the arena and the cinema—and the orchestra with it, to the limbo of film scores and playing backup for heavy-rock ballads. If I ever get around to exploring the symphonies of Mahler, Bruckner, and Shostakovitch, it will be for my own edification … which is another way of saying that I don’t expect to fall in love. (But I’m happy to be surprised.)

Undiscovered string quartets, on the other hand, retain the potential to move me greatly, both intellectually and emotionally. Again, there is an element of emotional memory at work here that can’t be discounted. To my ear, though, quartets and similar-sized groups (octets are pushing it) work with a manageable number of voices, timbres and rhythms for my ear to parse. As with the band, I can simultaneously appreciate both the discrete threads and the fabric. And to the whole can be assigned an identity that is neither individual (soloist, conductor, or bandleader) nor a faceless mass (the collective of the orchestra).

Maybe it’s an issue of the performance ethic, too. Interaction among members of an orchestra is always filtered through the conductor, many of whom have reputations for being disciplinarians. (The same is true of big band leaders.) My impression is that the history of the orchestra is as rife with mutinies and desertions as naval history. According to a trombonist friend, orchestra positions have a job satisfaction rating on a par with working at a toll booth. Last year when I was in Houston visiting family, the orchestra was out on strike. True, both an orchestra and a quartet have their first violin, but their jobs aren’t really comparable. An orchestra’s first violin seems like a bureaucratic post. Meanwhile, if you’re the Emerson quartet, you can always trade first fiddle down the middle: three Bartok quartets for Drucker, three for Selzer.

Then again, maybe it’s just that my ear has been ruined by digital recording. The warm distortions of vinyl always helped the orchestra’s sound cohere into a mass; and it was the mass, not the individual voices, that made the orchestra compelling.

Sometimes I imagine the string quartet like the first mammals in those Charles Knight paintings of prehistoric life, when the paradigm that dinosaurs died of their own lumbering ineptitude still held sway. Small, supple, adaptable little critters, emerging from behind the stumps and grasses, ready to lay claim to their evolutionary title. Maybe Disney got it right, in Fantasia, when they made of The Rite of Spring the dinosaurs’ death-march. It was an image of the age of the orchestra coming to a close.

“Footprints”

Jazz music thrives on the tension between composition and improvisation, the planned and the spontaneous. As a listener, depending on the song, or on my mood, or on just about anything, really, I might find myself listing away from the latter and toward the former, impatient with whomever happens to be soloing, anticipating the ever-prodigal melody. There are a few albums that stand out in this regard—albums where the tunes are so strong, or their arrangements are so interesting, that the solos become an extended tease. Jackie McLean’s Jackie’s Bag immediately jumps to mind; so does Wayne Shorter’s Adam’s Apple.

Shorter is a well-recognized composer, and “Footprints” is among his best-known compositions, so I’m hardly going out on a limb by singling it out. But I want to focus here not on the song as a whole, but on the way each section of the melody resolves, or rather fails to resolve, and attempt to analyze how this feeling of suspension is achieved.

The key word here is attempt. Because, honey, I don’t do this sort of thing very often. But “Footprints” is low-hanging fruit, and as Shorter’s album title suggests, I am a victim of temptation. True, I don’t approach the Tree of Shorter entirely naked … but nearly so, armed only with my Harry Dexter’s Harmony-Theory Pocket Book (in which I never made it to the harmony section), and the tatters of know-how that still cling to me from my years of guitar lessons.

In an effort to commit as few glaring errors as possible, I also did some cursory internet research and read the album liner notes. Was that a muffled scream I heard from the librarians? Well, some of the finest writing about music can still be found on the fungusy backs of records, and in those little booklets you get with the now-vanishing media called compact discs. This time, though, the notes didn’t help much. They label “Footprints” a blues in 6:8; one of my internet sources calls it 3:4; to me, that’s six of one and a half-dozen of the other. (Actually, I agree with the liner notes.) They also note that the version Shorter recorded with Miles a year later (on Miles Smiles), actually the first version I heard, “recast the rhythmic terrain.” Then they compare Herbie Hancock’s playing on Adam’s Apple to the John Coltrane quartet. But nothing about that beautiful, tantalizing, troubling cluster of notes and times that haunts me on each listen, and that I am desperate to understand. So let me do what I can, stepping as carefully as I can, making sure to overcomplicate matters wherever I can, as all academics have a duty to do, particularly when one is outside one’s field, or when one doesn’t have a field, as is my case, creative writing being less a discipline than an excuse.

*

“Footprints” begins with four bars for the rhythm section, in each of which the bass and left hand of the piano (that is, Reggie Workman’s two hands and Herbie Hancock’s left one) play an ascending C minor arpeggio: four evenly-spaced notes ending on the minor third (C-G-C-E flat). After holding the E flat for two beats, the piano repeats the tonic on the last beat of the measure, although higher up on the keyboard. The fact that the third (the E flat) lands on the accented fourth beat brings it into relief, as does the time lavished upon it. In this regard, the tonic feels almost like an afterthought, or a foretaste of the next go-round: that clipped high C is really the first note in a skip down to the opening low C of the arpeggio (C-G-C). In addition, Hancock anticipates the E flat by half a beat with a chord, which, although not entirely penetrable to my ear, seems to include a B flat and a D. It is the D which most interests me: a half-step from that heavily-accented E flat, and arriving a half-beat before it, lodged between the tonic and third of the C minor, the D sets up a sort of oscillation in pitch and rhythm that Shorter’s horn will shortly (sorry) recapitulate, and extrapolate upon. Drummer Joe Chambers also has a role in creating this tension: he sometimes accents the fourth beat, sometimes the half-beat before it, with a strike to the high hat or a cymbal.

Shorter comes in at the beginning of the fifth bar. The A natural in the melody flavors the C minor with a major sixth (which, if I remember correctly, is a legit note in the so-called “jazz minor” scale, and according to Mr Dexter, in the ascending melodic minor … which may be the same thing). Or, if you prefer the relative major, the A natural is a sharped fourth—surely what lends the melody its air of loafing intrigue. The rather insistent A natural, however, suggests that the tune is not in C minor (or E flat major), but rather G minor (or B flat major). Again, what strikes me here is the D, which is where the horn pauses, like Hancock’s chord, before coming to rest on another clipped C. The D-C figure is repeated three times in the first part of the melody, twice in the more extended (and A natural-heavy) second, always with the accent on the sustained D. Rhythmically, Shorter also fiddles with the half-beat discrepancy. The first time he plays the figure, he tends to reach the D at the same time as the bass reaches the E flat, and then anticipates the beat on each repetition. And he loiters there, as if to idly threaten the harmonic terrain around the bass’s E flat. Perhaps the combined tension-resolution I hear is a war of thirds: the D is the third of B flat major, the key of the melody, and the E flat is the third of C minor (the second chord in the harmonized B flat major scale), where the bass remains for six of the opening eight bars of the melody. Interestingly, had Shorter chosen an E flat instead of a D, the melody would sound much more like a traditional blues, clearly walking down a well-trodden C minor pentatonic. But the A natural throws a wrench into this; the D becomes a natural pausing place.

The third part of the melody is interesting for the way it flirts with a new key (although I guess no moreso than the bridge of “Rhythm” changes): a G major triad precedes the reintroduction of the B flat; and, after an exhilirating perfect-fourth leap, the melody slinks down chromatically to an F, which fades from the horn without returning to the D … at least, until the head is played through a second time.

Things get a lot weirder this second time around. First, Shorter adds a trill—one YouTube guitarist who demonstrates the tune nicely calls it a “flutter”—at the end of each of the three parts of the melody. The horn, then, takes up that oscillation between the E flat and D, between bass and piano, between Hancock’s left and right hands, reinforcing the half-step quiver in the melody. Second, and even more thrilling, is the appearance of another trill at the same moment, but lower, quieter. It can only be the piano, but sounds more like a phantom string section. It creates a sort of aura around Shorter’s trill. But it is too entangled with the concurrent sounds for me to fully distinguish it; to the best of my ability, it sounds like a trill between B flat and B natural. Whatever it is, it reinforces and multiplies the overall feeling of hazy suspension.

Finally, in the second time through the third part of the melody, Shorter does not let the F fade, but returns, as if compulsively, to the D-C figure.

*

I didn’t take my school’s equivalent of Philosophy 101 until my senior year, and when I remember this I can’t help but sympathize with those students of mine who manage to avoid taking Expository Writing until their graduating semester. In my case it was partly because I spent two years as a physics major, and after making the switch to the humanities, I found myself with all sorts of new requirements to fulfill. In philosophy we read Plato, and Spinoza, and Hume, and William James’s Pragmatism. I remember running into the professor on the upper quad one day and walking with him, telling him that had I taken his class in my first year rather than my last, I might have ended up a philosophy major. He took this in good humor, though I doubt he believed me.

In one class, the professor said something to the effect that, while neurochemists could tell us that “love” is what happens when neuron A is excited, and in turn excites neuron B, etc., from a philosopher’s standpoint they would have told us absolutely nothing about love. In hindsight it seems like a somewhat facile point. But it is also a point I probably needed to hear, and hear when I did. And not just me: Here was a university stuffed full of proto-scientists and engineers. We were besotted with the scientific worldview; I doubt that many of us ever raised our heads from our textbooks to consider the ramifications of what we were studying, or the alternatives. By my senior year, my humanistic consciousness, that radically different armature for coming to terms with the world, was just beginning to develop. Probably this is why the idea stayed with me, why I chewed it over for years after that lecture, resisted it, came to terms with it, repressed it, resisted it anew, and on and on.

The connection to this post is probably obvious. I can analyze the music, or attempt to analyze it. Quite possibly what is happening at this moment of “Footprints” is not so theoretically marvelous as I take it to be. But were I to be enlightened, I doubt it would change the way my ear perceives that cluster of notes, timbres and rhythms, all of them slightly off from each other, vibrating in ecstatic equipoise. The transcribed notes, and the card-house of intervals they momentarily erect, cannot reproduce the act of listening (although I am aware that many trained musicians can “hear” a piece by reading a score), any more than these ridiculous little grey marks on the screen in front of you can resurrect that experience.

A colleague of mine likes to goad me by saying that writing about music is impossible. Impossible it’s not, but pointless it may well be. One feels that “about” very keenly: the words circle the music, never landing. By the time I finish a post, the music has receded, the words have risen like a tide to swallow it, and all I can do is close the lid of my computer and go put on a record.

Paying the Rent, Now and Then

The first time I went to the 55 Bar (on Christopher Street just off Seventh Avenue) was probably late 1992 or early 1993. A friend of mine living in Weehawken and working in the City took me to see Mike Stern, whose trio played at the 55 every Monday and Wednesday. It was eight dollars a set, and although it seems ludicrous today, I’m pretty sure that included two drinks.

Stern was my initiation into the New York jazz scene, and I could hardly have asked for a better one. A one-time Miles Davis sideman, Stern plays a sophisticated fusion, a cross between the Al DiMeola “more notes!” school, which my guitar teacher, trying to get me to sublimate my heavy-metal urges, had guided me toward as a teen, and the bebop and post-bebop jazz that I had only begun listening to the previous year, while living in Madrid. I had bought my first jazz discs only months before, to supplement the Art Blakey and Thelonious Monk I had taped off an Australian friend in Spain. It was a fittingly cosmopolitan introduction to the music. Now I was back in the States, and for the moment in the New York area, and I was eager to start digging into jazz at its source and mecca.

Stern generally opened his sets at the 55 with a long, driving standard that built slowly from shuffling, chorus-infused lines to a blues-rock-funk climax. At some point along the way the drummer would trade his brushes for sticks, the bass would stop walking and start stomping, and Stern’s pick, which he’d been using like the drummer had his brushes, would begin to bite. During this rising action you could pick out the guitar-heads on their 55 pilgrimmage from the drool on their chins. They were all sitting on their hands, waiting for Stern to hit the overdrive and start wailing.

The slow movement of the set Stern would begin and end solo, fingerpicking, accenting the rounder tones he could get from his Telecaster, a guitar more often associated with country music. The “Tele” probably helped him to split the difference between the overdriven twang of his rock soloing (a Telecaster, after all, is just a one-horned Stratocaster) and his quicksilver bop … as well as to avoid the bulbous sound that players using similar effects often get from their big hollowbody Gibsons.

As for the last movement, it would return to something like the original allegro, though a bit louder, a bit funkier, and featuring an extended cadenza for the drums.

Of all the many tricks Stern smuggled in his deep pockets and up his ample sleeves, my favorite was when he would pick a single note on the high “E” string in swung triplets and interpolate chords on the upbeats. It’s an effective technique for crescendo: the chords zigzag up the neck; after a few bars, the repeated note will move up a third, say—higher ground on which to build another set of relentlessly-climbing triads. The effect is almost pianistic, with the contrast between the insistent high note and the shifting chords generating tension. When the passage was over, Stern would be someplace other than where he began—further up the neck, certainly, but on a new emotional plateau as well, although maybe not quite ready to hit that overdrive pedal. It’s a technique that fellow New York guitarist Ron Affif would take to its logical conclusion, quadrupling the speed of the high note to a mandolin-like tremolo, while reducing the accompaniment from a chord progression to a melodic line. In both cases, technique acts as a signature: it announces the musician’s identity as surely as a composer’s name coded into a score.

I remember how Stern used to look when he came in: hair unkempt, face unshaven, wearing a nondescript grey shirt and jeans and holding a diner coffee. He looked like he’d just gotten out of bed, which he might have; and truth be told on some nights he played like he was still asleep, or had woken up on the far wrong side. The waitress would rip our tickets in half (I say “our” because I’ve tried to repay the favor done me and take as many friends as possible to see Stern), and while we drank our first drink we would watch the musicians filter in, greet the people they knew, and chat while they set up their gear. I appreciated the lack of pretension, and the lack of distance between the audience and musicians. In itself this was nothing new: I’d been catching rock acts at small to mid-size clubs for a good five years, and more than once I’d stuck around to chat with bandmembers, whom I generally found to be down-to-earth and eager to discuss their music. But this was something more: a fantasy of being in the musician’s workshop, like one of those all-night jam sessions at the old Minton’s, although for what I knew at the time the comparison is anachronistic.

I always figured the 55 barflies hated those Monday and Wednesday nights, when the tourists and so-called bridge-and-tunnel crowd would pack that little bar to the gills, the acolytes crowding a foot away from the head of Stern’s Tele and jamming up the doorway to the bathroom behind him. The waitresses had to do pirouettes to get drinks to the tables. In this respect Stern’s appearance was apropos: the 55 was a dive, and proud of it. I’m sure they welcomed Stern for the same reason The Tower art theater in Salt Lake City held over the hit sports documentary Hoop Dreams for months on end: even at eight dollars a head, he paid the rent.

It’s the early-nineties décor I remember best of all. One painting in pastels showed a woman doubled over the back of an armchair. At the top was the injunction to “practice safe sex”; at the bottom, much larger: “FUCK A CHAIR.” Next to it was a mural-sized painting of a group of American presidents at a sort of Last Supper, with Reagan in the place of Jesus, a miniature mushroom cloud rising from his plate.

*

Besides the price, the pictures are about the only thing that’s changed at the 55. I miss them. Today, the walls are covered with the clichéd jazz-and-blues memorabilia you can find in any club: smoky, heavy-chiaroscuro portraits, iconic photos of Miles and Robert Johnson, “A Great Day in Harlem,” Blue Note album cover reproductions. It’s a small but significant difference: the 55 has gone from being a bar where jazz was played to a jazz bar. Maybe noplace can withstand a regular gig by an internationally-known musician for long without changing in some fundamental ways. But in a broader sense, what’s happened to the 55 is indicative of what’s happened to New York City as a whole, which for the last couple of decades has been busy draining itself of all its wonderfully garish “local” color, and repackaging itself as one more franchise in a global urban chain store, drawing liberally on its own myths to manufacture a brand identity.

I still go to the 55 a few times a year, though it’s been a while since I saw Stern, who still plays there Mondays and Wednesdays, just less regularly than he used to. Wayne Krantz was my surrogate Stern for a time, but his invigorating Thursday-night sets have (sadly) come to an end. Of all the other great music I’ve caught there recently, I wanted to single out the last time I saw Chris Potter, in part (but only in part) because it makes for an interesting counterpoint with the 55 of yore (at least my yore).

Like Stern, Potter is a rent-payer, and the crowd was the typical mix of music students, locals and tourists. By the time I arrived, there wasn’t a seat in the house, although several people were being instructed to sit in places where there seemed to be no available chairs. The waitresses were engaged in their usual calisthenics, and drinks were being passed like buckets in a fire brigade. The bar itself—I mean the wooden thing you lean against and set drinks on—was packed two deep all the way down, with the biggest crowd, as always, next to the band, making it well-nigh impossible to get to the bathroom before the set’s end.

I took a spot against the back wall, right by the door, standing with my feet slightly parted and my backpack clamped between my shins—there wasn’t even room for it on the floor next to me. It was actually the first of several elements that conspired to make the night’s set one of those quasi-religious experiences that recorded music simply can’t reproduce. There’s nothing like a little pain to get you in the mood for spiritual uplift: ten minutes of standing with my backpack between my knees, and I was ready to sink down on them and beg the God of Music for a speedy deliverance.

Add to this that it was one of those school nights when I shouldn’t have been out at all, had snuck down to the Village in spite of my conscience and better judgment, reading papers on the train in both directions. In this sense, Music was not only my god, but my mistress as well, and I was at once martyr and sinner. Who knew what my partner would find on my collar when I got home?

As for Potter, he stood facing me at the other end of the pub, as if he were my mirror image, or I his. He seemed to stare at a spot directly over my head while he played. And I couldn’t rid myself of the idea that he was playing for me, and only for me—this despite the acolyte who stood almost directly behind him, also facing me, whose face I watched from time to time, and whose changing expressions I began to mirror, as if I could make his emotions (surprise, wonder, pleasure) my own.

And as for the music Potter played … well, this was almost a year ago; I couldn’t name you a single tune. I couldn’t even tell you who his band was. But that tone … that tone! For Potter was channeling Rollins that night, his big sound poured, and poured, and poured, until the bar ran over with it. It pinned me to the wall more than any crowd could. And it swallowed me, as sure as Jonah was by the whale. Except that unlike Jonah, I wasn’t fleeing the Lord; I’d boarded that boat hunting Leviathan as much as any Ahab, had stayed on deck through the gale, waiting for Him to find me. And when He did, and opened His mouth, I held my nose and jumped in.

*

A closing observation on the Potter set: Depending on the tune, the bartender would turn the AC on or off. A ballad, and the AC would go off; a burner, and the AC would come back on. I just can’t imagine this being the case twenty years ago, before the music was put on an altar. In fact, I can’t imagine the 55 had AC at all, though I’m sure it did.

Then again, clicking the AC off for a ballad is really only a stone’s throw from FUCK A CHAIR, isn’t it? This little pub-that-could has worked hard to brand itself as a cross between Dizzy’s and dive bar, a place to slum with the anointed. The altar is made of plastic.

And then again, who cares? Altar or no altar, plastic or solid gold, old New York or new, the music has stuck it out, even thrived. The wood paneling may smell like cigarettes, but there’s music there, too. Put your ear to the wall and you’ll hear it, like the sea in a shell.

No Tie-Picker He

 

Photo/ Daniel Sheehan/ EyeShotJazz

I took a chance on Jacky Terrasson’s trio at the Jazz Standard the other night and I haven’t stopped smiling since. I don’t always take such chances at the City’s higher-end jazz clubs, forty-plus dollars (between the music charge, “tax,” drinks and tip) being a lot to pay for potential disappointment. But something told me to take a chance on Jacky. Maybe it was the fact that I’d be leaving New York a few days later to visit family for a month; that always puts me in the mood for one last live-music fix. Terrasson’s was the name that loomed largest in the assortment of guides and internet bookmarks I use to keep tabs on the local music scene, this though I knew him only from a single recording with Cassandra Wilson, called Rendezvous.

So I listened to the available samples from his most recent album, Push. What I heard (and granted, it wasn’t much) made me nervous. Push has that contemporary mainstream jazz feel that rubs me all the wrong ways: melodious to a fault, hyperconscious about making nifty harmonic turns, glossy and flat and just a little dull. It’s sort of a thinking man’s smooth jazz, a jazz without corners. I suppose I could blame Pat Metheny for this, but that would be rude, particularly after Question and Answer had so recently reminded me of what a great player Metheny is when he lets his hair down.

I thumbed my nose at Push and went anyway.

If there’s a watchword for the Terrasson set I saw, it would have to be communication. There was a freshness and openness about the playing that really moved me, and that only happens when the players are really speaking with one another. Sometimes the success of a jazz shows rests on how much one or another soloist is able to impress you, and if he misses the mark, well, there’s always the next solo, or the guy with the other horn. In most bands, too, there’s either an implicit or explicit hierarchy, and even if we imagine that hierarchy rotates according to which soloist is in the spotlight, some version of the hierarchy remains from one moment to the next. But Terrasson’s trio was very much engaged in a dialogue from the moment the players took up their instruments, and it was so open and obvious a dialogue that the listener, the audience, couldn’t help but feel invited to participate. This constant contact between band members was underscored by shouts and calls and a lot of eye contact. Again, in many jazz bands (and for that matter, chamber ensembles) the musicians furtively eye each other for the next cue from whomever is equivalent of first fiddle. But the cues in this band seemed to emanate from all points. It was a participatory aesthetic, and I think the great sense of joy in the music and performance arose from this.

For example: often when musicians are trading eights or fours they end up playing “over” each other. The sense is that the soloist hasn’t quite finished his or her musical thought, and so treads into the second soloist’s space (usually the drummer’s) with a guilty air. The phrase will conclude at diminished volume, or simply trail off. This is participatory, I suppose, but in the sort of private-ownership way where everyone owns their appropriate share. With Terrasson’s trio, however, there were several instances of Jacky and drummer Jamire Williams “trading,” but each continuing to play with the other in a way that supported or promoted the current musical idea. I didn’t get the sense, that is, that these players were competing with each other, so often regarded as the motive force of the music. Instead, I got a sense of musicians working collectively toward some greater goal … and enjoying themselves immensely in doing so.

I don’t mean this to sound like a paean to authenticity. Terrasson is quite the showman; he does the sorts of flashy things with his hands I associate with early videos of Duke Ellington, and which Ellington himself (if I remember correctly) adapted from the great stride pianists. Terrasson has been compared with Monk, and one can hear and see why in performance—hear it in the fractured and complex rhythms, see it in the swaying and dancing and standing at the keyboard. He’s at home in both a pop and more experimental milieu, and alternates swiftly and randomly between them, or collapses one into the other. Nor is he afraid to play dirty with the keyboard, throwing in an elbow here and there, or reaching out to take hold of the instrument’s guts. He’ll collapse genres just as easily, making a choir piece out of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It,” then swing the melody in octaves to give it a Latin feel, bring it to a pitch and ease it back to near-silence, all without losing the groove. (Apparently, Terrasson’s version also incorporates “Body and Soul,” at least on the record, but I didn’t recognize it.) In fact, all the tunes that evening had this quirky, blended feel, maybe best exemplified by the last number, which superimposed the bass line from Herbie Hancock’s “Chameleon” with the melody from a standard I couldn’t place. All told, it wasn’t so much daring (the word most often associated with showmen) as play. Daring is the wire-walker who takes a risk the audience marvels at. Play is much less outwardly directed, and even though it demands a similarly great assertion of ego, it is more careless. There are no risks properly understood, because there is nothing at stake. That he can do this and yet remain utterly conscious of his audience is Terrasson’s great gift. And it is his great gift as a “leader” that he enables, even encourages, his bandmates to do the same.

The blending of cultures so much in evidence in Jacky’s music is evident in his features as well. He looks younger than his forty-four years, too. Terrasson’s lantern-jawed face radiates a boyish charm. Retains a boyish charm? Yeesh, forget it. Only in moments of intense concentration do lines appear around his eyes, and the flesh around his mouth sags, and one is reminded that he is not so young as he looks … or sounds. But then maybe it’s his band that keeps young: the sum of their ages might be less than Jacky’s. I was shocked when they first appeared, bassist Ben Williams with his dreads tied up in a bandanna, his surnamesake sporting a quasi-mohawk and hipster glasses. I dug their ties, too. Jacky’s was skinny lavender against a dressy blue shirt. (Toward the beginning of the set he had to keep rolling his shirt sleeves up over his elbows—all that dancing—while drummer Jamire had to keep pushing his glasses up the bridge of his nose.) Ben wore a huge tie hung loosely around his neck and down the front of a baggy, un-tucked-in shirt. I liked Jamire’s best: it was tucked into his breast pocket; you could just see it sneaking out over the top.

Several years ago I went to see Ron Carter’s quartet at one of those free sets they used to have on Friday nights at the Rose Space Center (of the American Museum of Natural History). During a break, Carter commented in his urbane, nasal drawl on the responsibilities of a bandleader. There were three, but I only clearly remember one: to pick the band’s ties. That’s maybe the easiest way for me to make my point about Terrasson’s trio: I can’t imagine he picked those ties. Everyone seems to wear whatever the hell they want, but somehow they all match.