Tag Archives: band/artist profile

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.

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.

Not An Apology

First, a disclaimer: I’m not going to address Rand Paul’s quoting lyrics from “The Spirit of Radio” in his recent primary victory speech.

Five years ago, I don’t think I’d have stood in line for more than an hour to get into a midnight showing of Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage, the band bio-doc that premiered (and won the audience award) at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival. But there I was, fingers crossed, at one with the marginally functional talking over the noise of their earphones, the jerseyed moms with their teenaged sons lamenting having missed Iron Maiden’s last tour, and the shmooish Gargantua showing off his homemade “Rutsey lives!” T-shirt. (If you don’t know who John Rutsey was, you might want to stop, toggle and Google before reading on.) I have to admit, I felt a little silly. Looking at “them,” I couldn’t quite recognize myself. I guess I’d forgotten what it feels like to be a fan.

I ended up getting an extra ticket off a guy wearing a Signals tour shirt. Of all things, my very first concert. The Garden, 1982. Can’t Fate be just a little subtle? I still have the same shirt, somewhere, faded to the same grey. The sleeves have climbed up my shoulders; the whole shirt throttles me now. As, of course, our past infatuations sometimes may.

A couple of hours later I left the theater walking on air, wondering why I’d ever questioned coming out in the first place. I had happily regressed, submitted myself to fandom; and as I crossed the Village, I carried the words and images and music wrapped about me like a blanket and a dare. I was acting like a recent convert; I wanted to stop at the nearest bar, order a beer, and share The Good News with the nearest drunk. But in reality I’d only been reminded of something: the undeniable truth that Rush is—I blush as I write the next few words—my favorite band.

I’ve always disliked the idea that one “grows out” of certain bands or kinds of music. You grow out of clothes, shoes, maybe allergies and political ideologies. But music? I don’t think so. At least, not in the same way you do shoes, etc. There are certainly some exceptions that prove the rule. (Styx, maybe.) But overall, this sort of willed obsolescence strikes me as immature as the opposite extreme: to wallow in nostalgia, to become the subject and victim of one’s youthful infatuations. Even today, when diversity and inclusiveness are supposed to define what it means to be a “cultured” person, there’s a regrettable tendency to equate taste with the sheer quantity of music one finds unpalatable. In this regard, “growing out of” something becomes the chief indicator of cultural maturity; for what more powerful way to demonstrate a ruthlessly narrow taste than to disparage what you once loved?

Most music grows with you, if you’ll let it. It’s much more rewarding, I think, to hear the old music in the contexts and perspectives of an ever-widening listening palette. That doesn’t mean you keep listening to the old stuff with the intensity or abandon you once did; you may hardly listen to it at all. But why not let your old favorites grate on your ears, and let that song you always found dull or troubling suddenly shine with a new light? In the end, all listening is an act of excavation (even if the archaelogical metaphor is complicated by the fluidity of the medium).

I suppose that after a certain time we should put away childish things, but where music is concerned I refuse to do so. Maybe music is itself a childish thing?

I digress this way with Rush in mind because, ever since I was in college, if I mentioned to someone that Rush was my favorite band, I always got a variation of the same response: I used to like them. I went through that phase, too. Which meant: You’ll get over it. Someday you’ll grow up. Or just: I’m sorry. It’s the sort of thing religious people used to say to me when I mentioned that I hadn’t found Jesus and wasn’t really looking, either. In the late ‘80s, growing out of Rush amounted almost to a rite of passage: not to do so was the cultural equivalent of ending up delivering Domino’s Pizza. In fact, the whole idea of having a “favorite band” smacks of a deranged naivete. They really go hand in hand: Rush (ugh!) is my favorite band (hurl!). Anyway, if this was the response I got when I was in my twenties, I can only imagine what most people my age would say to me today. I may as well just crawl into a hole with my “Rutsey Lives!” T-shirt, conduct mock interviews at home with life-size cut-outs of the band, like Rupert Pupkin in King of Comedy. Maybe I should have nailed a FANS ONLY sign to the head of this post.

Much of this perception has to do with Rush’s longstanding lack of acceptance by the rock critical establishment. In fact, if Beyond the Lighted Stage has a theme, it’s vindication: the sense that we, the fans, were “right all along”; at last, Rush have claimed their rightful place in rock history as one of “the greats.” Rush, it seems, was always condemned to be the band the hip don’t like, but that influenced all the bands the hip do. For the fan—that is, for me—one of the best parts of the movie was listening to testimonies by all these musicians from bands I never cared for, many of which were critically acclaimed, about how important and lasting an influence Rush’s music was for them. I left the theater on a self-righteous high.

It cuts both ways, though: Rush was listening to all those bands that were critically embraced through the late ‘70s and ‘80s, bands like The Police and The Talking Heads, and reshaping their sound according to what they heard. Once upon a time I could not understand how critics’ ears could be so tin (“oído de lata”) as to not hear that. I have a better idea today. Here is a band that in no way fit the image of rock-n-roll bad boys, and whose drummer-lyricist was (deep breath) a libertarian. In terms of the former offense, there’s none of the expected angry young Liebstod, none of the hope-I-die-before-I-get-old bullshit to milk over five or six reunion tours. Honestly, I always found this refreshing. Growing up, I was a bit too straight-and-narrow for rock-n-roll, and Rush told me that was okay. God forbid they sing about things besides smoking pot (which they do with great verve in “A Passage to Bangkok”), like honesty (ugh!) or integrity (hurl!).

From the filmmakers’ perspective, this may have proved a hard pill to swallow. How do you make a rock documentary without the de rigeur trashed hotel rooms, drug overdoses and messy breakups? How do you make a compelling story out of an uneventfully happy marriage? With the exception of Neil Peart’s tragic losses of his wife and daughter in the late ‘90s, there’s not much of a human interest angle to work with. As Lee and Lifeson say tipsily over the closing credits, the problem with the movie is that people will find out they’re actually boring. But then they’re so endearingly boring, so goofy and un-coiffed, that we tend to forget this. It may be the fan in me talking, but I can’t imagine that others wouldn’t find this refreshing, too—among other things, that being a rock musician, like any other musician, is a profession and not (necessarily) a lifestyle.

It’s the second issue, however—Peart’s libertarianism, and the way his politics are reflected in the band’s lyrics—that maybe best explains the critical cold shoulder. That I understand this today is in no way thanks to Beyond the Lighted Stage. The movie never asks why Rush was disparaged; it simply takes critical non-acceptance at face value, as an obstacle to be overcome in rock-Bildungsroman fashion. Given that this is the only real engine for the narrative, I’m surprised it wasn’t milked more heavily. I’m not saying the movie had to be “political.” I can’t think of a worse angle than, say, the “Reaganite ‘80s” explain the ascendency of Rush, or some other such reductive crap. But some measure of context—interviews with dissenting critics, say, rather than just a few blurbed reviews—would have helped to tease out the knotty relationships between music, commerce and ideology that are certainly part of the Rush story, if by no means all of it, and to balance the intimate portraits that are the movie’s strength. It’s as if the filmmakers felt they had to adopt the band’s ideology in order to portray them. (If one wants to understand why Rush can be so easily adopted by the likes of a Rand Paul, one should begin here: not with Peart’s libertarianism per se, but with the trope of the lone underdog struggling against some collective social evil (Big Government, Beltway Insiders, The Liberal Media, what have you), displaced onto aesthetics, emptied of all context, so that it takes on the crystalline purity of a myth.) According to this reading, critical dislike for Rush was always about something other than the music, and bashing the music was an excuse for bashing the politics. Then again, most of said critics would probably argue that the music and the politics are inseparable: Rush are a sort of Canadian Leni Riefenstahl, belting out anthems to the triumph of the will; if one admired them, one was ipso facto a creeping fascist as well. (For an insightful analysis of the band’s critical reception and of the fan culture of progressive rock, see Durrell Bowman’s “Let Them All Make Their Own Music” in Progressive Rock Reconsidered.) Then again, I would argue that if we have to look to popular music to validate our political philosophies, we’re in a whole heap of trouble, regardless of whether one ends up a Joplin-inspired flower child or an Objectivist convert via the gospel of Neil Peart.

I want to suggest something unorthodox for the orthdox rock critic and the orthodox Rush fan alike: do Rush without the words. I’m sure I was prejudiced by growing up listening to classical music, and it’s one reason I landed so hard on jazz in my twenties; but I’ve always preferred rock that doesn’t depend much on lyrics. True, I did know a lot of the words, particularly where Rush was concerned, and they certainly articulated and flattered the more romantic-individualist strains of my nascent political personality. But I also seemed to have had a penchant for making up my own versions of songs without bothering to check them against the record sleeves. (Apparently this is the case for rock fans all over the non-English-speaking world: they will phonetically know every “word” of a band’s songs, but have no idea what they’re singing.) And even when I did know the words, I confess I didn’t think about them all that hard. The sound of Lee’s voice, the sounds of the words themselves, the way the words were sung—all these things were more important than any meaning they were supposed to convey.

This means I didn’t run out and buy The Fountainhead after discovering 2112. At that point I was reading Stephen King and Fangoria and finding Billy Budd and Portrait of the Artist painfully dull (it probably shows). A friend of mine, the bass player in my high school band and another rabid Rush fan, read Anthem. I can’t remember what he thought of it, and I didn’t borrow it. My single exposure to Ayn Rand’s writing wouldn’t come until ten years later. I was on a packed bus in Buenos Aires, reading over someone’s shoulder. (Come to think of it, that’s how I learned about Beyond the Lighted Stage, too.) The book was in English. I read a page or two, and thought it was some of the clunkiest, most godawful prose I’d ever read. It was a big book, too, and I thought, If this is an English language learner, I should do them a favor and advise them to find a less painful primer.

That book was The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged, I can’t remember which. Rand, anyway. I know it’s churlish of me to judge a writer based on a page of flabby prose. Dreiser (say) worked on a broader canvas, and it only takes a few chapters of cringing before the story sweeps me off my feet. The same is likely true of Rand. Or maybe not. I also know I’m supposed to dislike her ideas, not her prose. Regardless, that was my only direct contact with Rand; otherwise, I have only the hilarious sketch in Tobias Wolff’s Old School and a review in Harper’s of two recent bios to go on. If I had to guess, I’d say that when Peart’s lyrics are good, they’re good in spite of Rand, not because of her. Certainly I don’t need Rand to appreciate or acknowledge the power of those lyrics which still speak to me (a very partial list would include “The Fountain of Lamneth,” “Hemispheres,” “Natural Science,” and “Witch Hunt”). Anyway, who’s to say that Peart, who once described himself as a “left-wing libertarian,” hasn’t “grown out” of Rand, just as I’ve grown into Melville and Joyce? Or that she isn’t as yet a star in his universe, albeit a small, dim one? (In case you’re interested, the only scene in the movie where you can make out what the band is reading shows Lee with The Sound and the Fury, Lifeson with God Is Not Great.)

So … to post or not to post? This will throw a ghastly light over all my previous posts, I’m sure. All trust will be lost (trust is such a fragile thing, and so dearly earned!), all previous thoughts discredited, all endorsements made suspect. It’s a skeleton key for understanding my whole listening past, some vulgar Freudian plot worthy of ‘40s Hollywood, my musical primal scene disseminated throughout the web. I was supposed to get over this. Really. But I keep listening. That’s bad, isn’t it. Is it? I like dinosaurs, too. Sometimes, I watch Shark Week on the Discovery Channel. Jesus, Shark Week. That is bad. Should I have said that? Get out your little notepads, all of you. Scribble scribble scribble. Ah, see, I told you, didn’t I? I’m afraid that’s very bad. Ve-ry bad …

I promise my next rock post will not be a confession. But maybe the movie should have been called Out of the Closet instead of Beyond the Lighted Stage.

And since I promised I wouldn’t talk about it, here are the lines Rand Paul quoted: “Glittering prizes and endless compromises/ Shatter the illusion of integrity.” Ah yes, Mr Paul, but those lines are about music, not Washington. It says “music” twice before in the same verse, and the word “radio” is in the title, and words like “studio” and “concert hall” pepper the lyrics, too. In fact, the theme of the struggle between art and commerce wraps around the album; from “Natural Science”: “Art as expression, not as market campaigns/ Will still capture our imaginations.” Not that you can’t take it all metaphorically, of course; but to be honest, I can’t help but hear the “market campaigns” and “the sound of salesmen” in your rhetoric, as much as in the rhetoric of your colleagues across the aisle; and conversely, I can’t help but hear, in “The Spirit of Radio,” in tone, form and content, a partial self-indictment, a tempering of the anger of 2112 into a deliberation on what it means to be professional popular musicians, to be entertainers as much as politicians are … and yet to hold onto the possibility of retaining one’s honesty (ugh!) and integrity (hurl!) in the process—to finding a balance. It’s an idea that returns over and over in the words and music: Hemispheres, Counterparts; art-rock complexity and pop/hard-rock simplicity; their ongoing shuffle on that step between the sublime and the ridiculous.

But I’m as happy to hear you quote it as anybody. It’s a song so fine not even you can diminish it.

*

If I should apologize for anything, it’s probably the length of this post. Rest dismayed, where Rush is concerned I’m only ever just warming up. And as long as I’m being metacognitive, one other note: this blog as a whole is set up so that I have to approve comments before they appear. This may be wise, since it is open to the internet as a whole, not just CUNY; but I’m going to try to figure out how to set it so that comments appear when they are posted. In case, that is, you ever tried to leave a note and figured the site was busted. By the way, I just read that Paul got the cease & desist letter from the band’s lawyer. Copyright infringement, ya know.

Underground Man

One dusk not so long ago I was walking around the tract housing development (or “semi-custom,” as some of the locals call it, except that there are no locals there, and no such thing, when you come right down to it, as semi-custom) north of Houston where my parents live, listening to Out to Lunch. I should begin by saying that this is the sort of neighborhood that makes marijuana pointless. The combination of curving streets, dead ends, and nearly identical houses make me want to leave a trail of breadcrumbs. Everywhere I look are the haunted traces of suburban bliss: overturned bicycles on lawns, abandoned playgrounds with empty swings slightly rocking, single-car garages awaiting their occupants. Some days it all reminds me of a façade built on a testing range in the Nevada desert.

That evening, passing house after house in the near-dark, I was struck by a counterintuitive aesthetic kinship. For my typical feelings of disorientation were heightened almost to dizziness by the wonderfully disorienting compositions and improvisations that make up Out to Lunch … so much so that, after walking for a while, I was forced to retrace my steps in order to get back to my parents’ house, even though, as I realized later, I had made almost a complete circle. I could only blame Eric Dolphy for this: for pretzling the insipid curves of the suburban beautiful; for making me believe a man in a bowler hat stood poised with a net behind every door.

I think what Dolphy’s music did was expose the neighborhood’s essential weirdness, dis-integrating it, disassociating every element—every lonely pine tree, every shutter, every glass door—from every other, and making all of them seem like the products of an alien culture. In “Aminadab,” Sartre defines the fantastic this way: you order a coffee; the waiter brings you an inkwell; you say, “But I ordered a coffee”; the waiter says, “That’s right.” In fact, Sartre’s conception of the fantastic as “the revolt of means against ends” is a not a bad formula for describing Dolphy’s music.

Unlike in the suburbs, though, there is no retracing your steps with Dolphy, no equivalent of a trail of breadcrumbs. There is only a staggering forward motion, as of a man riddled with bullets, leading only to the most unexpected places, or to nowhere.

Out to Lunch is probably the pinnacle of Dolphy’s ensemble work. As has been noted, this is because it is the only Dolphy album where the walking rhythm section gives way to free-form improvisation by all the bandmembers. And what a band it is. Bobby Hutcherson’s vibes seem to fit most perfectly into Dolphy’s idiom, forcing us to ask where the vibes were before. (Mal Waldron’s piano occasionally has that vibelike timbre on the Five Spot sets and other albums; but it makes me wish Dolphy had recorded with Earl Griffith, whom I know only from the Cecil Taylor recording Looking Ahead!) The Richard Davis-Tony Williams rhythm section acts in perfect questioning counterpoint to the rest of the band, Williams’ resounding toms and bass drum in particular. In fact, the snare is almost vestigial. Only Freddie Hubbard seems a little out of his element here, as if he occasionally realizes he’s lost his way, and by doing so makes the listener aware of it, too (rather than simply being pleasantly lost with the rest of them, and us).

One thing that needs to be stressed about Dolphy is his gift for melody. It is a paradoxical gift. His melodies are at once catchy and unsingable, groovy and jagged. The heads of “Out to Lunch,” “Gazzelloni,” and other tunes will stay stuck in my head for days after I listen to them; and yet I’m sure my memory of them is corrupted, both in terms of time (for “Out to Lunch,” for example, it’s notoriously difficult to remember where each symmetrical part of the melody ends, as well as how long are the breaks between each part) and pitch (I hear a travestied version in my head, and woe is me if I try to hum them accurately, or figure them out on my guitar). There is something magical about this combination of the seemingly-accessible but perennially-out-of-reach. They’re a long tease; the alto sax, the flute, and the bass clarinet are all laughing at me, each in its appropriate register (whoop, giggle and guffaw, respectively).

Part of what makes the tunes so catchy is their infectious rhythm, which Dolphy carries over into his soloing. I remember listening to him on the Live at the Village Vanguard recordings with Coltrane’s quartet (this while driving a rental car into San Francisco via the Bay Bridge) and realizing that he swung like crazy, yet every note—every note!—was “wrong.” The rhythmic grammar of bebop was being co-opted to speak a new language. If Scott Deveaux is correct (in his awesome Birth of Bebop) that it was the rhythmic more than the harmonic advances that made bebop bebop, then perhaps it was with Dolphy (and the other musicians forging the avant-garde at that time) that bebop rhythm began to find an appropriately crooked harmonic language.

There are other fascinating elements to his soloing, on Out to Lunch and other albums. Dolphy can play a slow, whining blues like nobody else, with a plaintiveness that borders on self-mockery. And then those trills, always too high or too low. The huge leaps across the range of the instruments. The moment on “Out to Lunch” when, after all that empty space (the whole album absolutely revels in space), the alto irrupts back into the song in a long cascade of misplaced notes. On the other hand, I also like the way Dolphy has a standard line that he plays over and over and over again, that he must have played a million times over his short life. He plays it seemingly unthinkingly as he gears up for each next musical idea, returning to it obsessively, though with slight variations. It is the musical equivalent of “ummm …” As such it is the purest expession of his musical thinking, the background radiation of his personality. I imagine it was what he was thinking from the moment he forsook the nipple for the reed.

Dostoevsky’s Underground Man raged against the tyranny of 2 + 2 = 4. Why, oh why couldn’t 2 + 2 = 5? Well, Dolphy is that happy psychotic for whom 2 + 2 is 5. He was utterly, unshakeably convinced of this. It was his great leap of faith to believe so, the law of his particular universe, to which, of course, he was perfectly well-adjusted. It’s probably why he was (reputedly) such a sweet person. And it’s no wonder so many other musicians wanted to come along.

Encore

If I had to hazard a guess as to what was the musician, ensemble, or band I’d seen live more than any other, it would probably be Maurizio Pollini. The first time I saw him I was in my early teens, and I’ve repeated the experience maybe thirty times since. I know this is a number more commonly associated with rock bands, like The Dead and The Who, but it does make some sense: reunion tours notwithstanding, most rock bands don’t have this sort of longevity; classical and jazz musicians are more likely to age with you (plus the jazz musicians, when they’re local, are playing around town all the time). I saw Pollini play the complete Beethoven cycle in the late ‘80s, and got stage seats in the late ‘90s when the regular auditorium was sold out. There are some pieces by Beethoven, Chopin and Debussy I’ve probably seen him play a dozen times. If for whatever reason a year goes by without his coming to Carnegie Hall, I feel like I’ve skipped a season.

This year promised to be a treat: a series of three recitals, all of them all-Chopin. I bought tickets for all three, and then promptly missed the first during a blizzard of grading. It made me that much more eager for the second, which was last weekend, and the third, which, as I post this, is later today.

Among Pollini’s many gifts, perhaps the chief one—particularly for a pianist who specializes in that instrument’s romantic literature—is his ability to play commandingly at both ends of the dynamic range, from quiet passages of great expressive subtlety to tempestuous, often technically brilliant outbursts. It may just be my aesthetic, but the second seems the rarer gift. Playing the climactic moments of the great Beethoven sonatas (for example) convincingly, in such a way that the listener (at least this one, at least occasionally) is transported by the sublimity of the music, seems to me the true test of romantic pianism. It is in just such moments that many of even the greatest pianists fall short. Maybe it’s the dread of sentiment, or ridicule. (Emmanuel Ax to a student in a master’s class, regarding Brahms: “I want you to play faster and louder.” Chuckles from the audience, but hell, that’s the way I want my Brahms, too; and if you don’t give it to me that way, you might as well go play Haydn.) In fact, one of the things that has most impressed me about Leif Ove Andsnes (of the younger generation of top-notch pianists) is just this confidence at the all-guns-blazing end of the dynamic range.

One other thing about Pollini: he is as close to technically flawless as seems humanly possible. One can’t help but get used to such perfection … and to come to expect it.

Last weekend’s was a lovely program: two nocturnes, two polonaises, four mazurkas, the second ballad, the second sonata, and the opus 49 fantasy. But with the exception of the ballad and parts of the sonata, the execution fell well short of my expectations. Had it been only the fantasy (a piece I’ve always had trouble with, and hence am perfectly willing to blame Chopin for …!) and the occasional missed note, I might not have been bothered enough to write. But my disappointment was general, and seemed to arise from every facet of his playing. A nocturne, for example, should be easy to fall in love with. Just last year he played one as an encore, after a program of breathlessly-executed Beethoven, and my partner and I agreed that it was the finest thing he played that whole evening. So delicate. But on this night the nocturnes did not seduce me; the high notes in particular sounded strident. As for the sonata, the bells of the funeral march were muted—hardly bells at all—while the last movement, which on Pollini’s recording is barely audible, eerily affectless, and blisteringly fast, an undertow of notes, notes, notes, like some dark thought tormenting you, was muddled by dynamics that diminished the overall effect. The encore—the second scherzo—only sedimented my feelings about the whole recital. That technically daunting passage bridging back into the piece’s “A” section was almost painful to listen to.

Pollini, off? Surely it was a sign the end is nigh. I remembered the recent spate of earthquakes, the volcanic eruption in Iceland, the oil spill in the Gulf. Faiths would crumble, relationships end, distraught listeners leap from the balconies …

Or perhaps not. Nobody seemed to notice; the applause was general, thunderous; apparently the heavens don’t fall for such a trifle, as Conrad so aptly put it.

To be honest, by the end I wanted the audience to stop applauding. They’d never seemed so sadistic, or the pianist so much a gladiator, helpless but to engage in combat, now not with the music, but with his own body. I’d seen him play that scherzo before as an encore, obviously exhausted. But this seemed like more than mere exhaustion. And to think he could have come out and played a nocturne. I’ve seen him shrug before sitting down to play an encore, too, as if to say, What the hell. But there was no shrugging last weekend. It was as though he realized that he had no choice, that he was chained to that piano, slave to whipping-post.

*

During the concert, as my disappointment grew, my mind wandered from the music, and I started thinking about the piano’s role in our culture, and about what the public expects of its classical pianists generally, and Pollini specifically. Robert Walser traces the piano’s role as “music’s central vehicle for heroic individualism” back to Franz Lizst’s “invention” of the solo recital in 1839. Little seems to have changed since then, at least in terms of what we desire from our pianists: the incarnation of that heroic ideal, a musical athleticism that we don’t expect even from other classical performers. Not for nothing Chopin was portrayed by a barrel-chested Cornel Wilde in 1945’s A Song to Remember: the thirtysomething dandy already dying of tuberculosis must be dashing and exuberant, and built like Michael Phelps, at least for Hollywood. Today, the classical music industry seems to churn out hot young pianists as fast as supermodels, all bemedaled from this or that international competition. What happens to them as they grow old, or obese, or infirm—that is, as the body interposes itself between the music and the heroic spirit? Do they really age with us, as I said earlier, or are they turned out to pasture?

The above is not true of all pianists. Alfred Brendel, for example, crafted a very different persona for himself, a sort of living New Yorker caricature: bashful, introspective, erudite. (None of this is meant as a criticism of his playing, which I admire.) But Pollini has always seemed to be the poster-boy for romantic pianism. And he has retained this persona as his hair has grown whiter with each passing year.

I’m wondering, then, if what I witnessed last weekend was the passing on of the younger pianist, and if it is a transition that Pollini has not yet fully embraced, or does not quite yet know how to make, or, perhaps, is as yet unwilling to. I’m wondering, that is, if Pollini still wants to be the great athlete of the piano, even as his overwhelming technical facility begins to fail him. Because only an athlete could play the second scherzo for an encore. And last weekend, the athlete stumbled. Thinking back, I’m wondering if the desperate speed at which he played the Beethoven sonatas last year, his near-Puritanical distaste for rests, was a harbinger of this year’s recitals. And I can’t help but remember tubercular Tristram’s desperate, sentimental journey through France in Book VII of Tristram Shandy, fleeing Death and dancing mad circles with peasant girls; and the aging protagonist of John Cheever’s story “O Youth and Beauty!” assembling the furniture around the living room to run the hurdles one last time, about to be shot dead by his long-suffering wife.

All this is not to say that Pollini is a virtuouso without the depth of spirit to interpret these works. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pollini is a brilliant, even generous, interpreter. Today, we tend to be suspicious of virtuosity, as if any such display were necessarily emotionally bankrupt. It’s a combined product, I would guess, of the cult of authenticity and the culture of distrust. But like anything, great technique is as full or empty as the uses the artist puts it to. Virtuosity and affect aren’t so easily extricable from one another as seems to be imagined. Anyway, what was remarkable about this Pollini recital was the way in which a slight shift in the pianist’s ability to phrase and articulate and ornament pulled the curtain aside on the wizard, and all the gorgeous effects on which our emotional engagement with the music depends, and which themselves depend so much on coloring and sustain and a jumbling of musical phrases into a warm, distorted whole, suddenly vanish before our ears.

Finally, an irony to ponder. What does it mean for the music of a terminally ill thirty-five-year-old to be routinely performed by robust men and women of twice that age? Do the inverted ratios of health and age lead performers to perennially miss something in Chopin’s music?

Addendum. While I was in line for the bathroom at today’s third and final recital, I overheard an older gentleman commenting on the previous recital. He was disappointed, too, and when he saw me nodding vigorously, we fell to talking. It turns out that Pollini had been ill, though I’m not sure how he found this out. He thought they should have canceled or postponed that concert, and I agreed. Anyway, I’m just pleased that the infirmity was only temporary. The berceuse today was a gem—how can anyone’s right hand can get those sounds out of a piano? It was also great to hear him back in form for the Bm sonata, a piece which, like Pollini, grows with me. May he continue to run those hurdles for many years to come, Death nipping at his heels the whole way.

And still the nagging question: Why the second scherzo for an encore, if he was indeed sick? And so all the musings about sadism and aging romantic bodies and musical athleticism continue …

Convalescing With Miles

milesA few Fridays ago I was listening to Out to Lunch, WKCR’s weekday afternoon jazz program, as I try to do whenever I have the opportunity. Because Friday is the day I’m least likely to be listening, and because the DJs rotate from one day to the next, and some only work every other week, the voice on this Friday was unfamiliar to me. It was a female voice, a British voice; apparently, it was the voice that DJ’s every other Friday. I was at home, convalescing, or hoping I was convalescing, the process can be so slow, the body so unreliable. And this voice, it seemed better suited to a classical music program than to jazz … but of course it’s ridiculous to associate British accents with classical music, just as it would be to associate New York ones with jazz. The whole ethos of KCR would crucify me for such a prejudice—if, that is, one could be crucified by an ethos, and if it weren’t too ironic to be crucified for a prejudice.

Anyway: I want to thank this DJ, whatever her name is, for playing Miles Davis, and nothing but Miles Davis, on this day, day of hoped-for convalescence. For playing songs from Walkin’, and Seven Steps to Heaven, and Miles in the Sky. New Miles, old Miles, Miles known and un-: I could think of nothing I’d rather have listened to. In the best possible way, and as he has in the past, Miles settled on me. I remember many years ago listening to Kind of Blue and sensing that there was an effortless perfection about Miles’s playing, and a sense of inevitability about his choices. Each note spoke the next one, which looked back upon the last, and which, somehow, could have been no other. And I was convinced of this, even as I understood that, at each moment, he could have chosen any other. And so I walked along with Miles, carried by him, expecting and not expecting each next note, each next note making so much sense that I couldn’t imagine it otherwise; listening, I couldn’t help but say yes, of course, that’s right, as if Miles had just proved to me that this note necessarily follows that one, and the next the next, with all the beauty and certainty of the simplest proofs of geometry. Miles told me there was noplace else to go. And that, in its small way, was comforting.

Miles settles and rolls, never strains or trembles, hoeing that straight, simple line (for a hoe in the hands of an experienced farmer is as expressive a tool as a jazzman’s horn). Wherever he moves—and he never really stops moving—he’s always at home. Such grace and poise and confidence, even in those growled motherfuckers. The result doesn’t sound like improvisation; it has more the feeling of sculpture; even as it unfolds in time, it has a spatial, plastic quality, as if, after he were done, you could hold the entire solo in your hands, turning it; or as if, while listening, you were walking not with but around it. You appreciate it as a whole, even though you can never hear it all at once. Sonny Rollins has been credited with introducing this sort of structural unity to the jazz solo. But I can’t imagine Rollins without Miles; there is the same seeming inevitability of choice about both men’s playing.

I’ve listened to a lot of Miles since that moment many years ago when I realized the above, listening to Kind of Blue, realized but never tried to say it; but I hadn’t really felt it again until this day—felt it and remembered that feeling, remembered what Miles is (as opposed to who he was). And that made me want to go on, and go back, and keep listening. So again, Ms. DJ, with your fine British accent and good taste, and with those vast archives at your disposal, whose name, in this age of the internet, I have chosen to let remain a mystery: thank you. A lot of music is a salve when you’re ill, but some is more salve than others. And then there’s some you just can’t be healed without. Miles fits the last category.