|
|
Post by Girdle on Feb 19, 2009 18:40:29 GMT 10
I can't find any discussion here about John Shand's book Jazz: The Australian Accent. Its publication seems like a pretty significant Oz jazz event to me. Can you point me to any discussion? If not, what do people think of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Feb 20, 2009 16:53:46 GMT 10
I'd be keen to hear some opinions too, don't have a copy myself but have read most of it. The biggest criticism I've heard is who was left out. Could be sour grapes could be fair comment. It is one persons view so it's his call,,,
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Feb 21, 2009 11:37:44 GMT 10
John makes it clear in the foreword that his book is not intended as a comprehensive history of modern Australian jazz. So it doesn't make sense to mount a case as to who should (or shouldn't) have been included. It's a human reaction given the paucity of coverage of the music generally to feel disappointed that one's work is not included, or that there is not a chapter on all of one's favourite artists (especially when they are widely acknowledged to have made a significant contribution). But it's important to approach the thing on its own terms, and not as if it were a different kind of book entirely.
That said, hopefully a comprehensive history will be written one day that as its primary mission sets out to cover all the significant contributors to the music. Both John's book and John Clare's earlier Bodgie Dada are to a significant extent products of their personal taste, a perfectly valid approach that just leaves room for a different kind of work to fill the gap they leave.
I bought and read the Shand book and enjoyed it, John is a strong writer and has plenty of knowledgeable and passionate things to say. I missed some focus on (and acknowledgment of) the high quality of modern Australian jazz composition, in fact if I recall correctly John says at one point that he doesn't feel it's kept up with the playing. I would beg to differ, even (or in some cases especially) in the context of the artists John chose to focus on. James Muller writes brilliant pieces for example, he's not just a superb player/improvisor but John's chapter on him only focusses on his playing as I recall. But again, it's his call and really I would need to read the book again to confirm this sense that I have, perhaps I have forgotten some references to compositions.
One of the revelations for me was Phil Treloar's marimba playing on the CD that accompanies the book. Magic!
|
|
|
|
Post by spoons on Feb 23, 2009 22:09:22 GMT 10
im reading the book at the moment and really enjoying it, its really opened my eyes to some new artists and informed me about some i already enjoyed listening to.. it also filled alot of the gaps in the history of australian jazz, for me at least...being very young and not having read much into the subject specifically.
any way, congratulations john on an excellent publication...,,
|
|
|
|
Post by spoons on Feb 23, 2009 22:10:31 GMT 10
i might add that i got my copy with the first issue of extempore ... great deal!
|
|
erin
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by erin on Feb 25, 2009 11:01:07 GMT 10
I just finished this book yesterday and I agree with spoons, as a young'un i thought it was great to read about the older players.
I didn't mind that people were missed out. Shand didn't try to pass it off as a text book on the history of jazz. If I went to all the effort of writing a book I'd probably only include the people I really enjoy listening to.
Jazz world aside, I found this book an odd one to read. I found some sections very interesting while other bits I had to force myself to keep reading. -this could just be that my current attention span has gone to shit.
I loved it when Shand tells of the threats he has received from giving bad reviews to musos.
on that note... I will give this book a good review. -Definitely worth the read in my opinion and a bargain if you buy it with extempore
|
|
|
|
Post by WanderWyn on Mar 1, 2009 14:37:34 GMT 10
I really enjoyed it.
But I think Shand's opening assertion that "Australia has become a creative centre of jazz, rivalling the Scandinavian and Western European countries" is simply insupportable. With all due respect to the fine creative musicians we've produced; some of them unique in the world (and I think overall, Shand does a pretty good job of telling us about the bunch he's selected), anyone who's spent any amount of time checking out the scene in Europe would know that it is vastly bigger and deeper than here. We're just not even in the same ballpark, and to open his argument with a claim like that rather throws the reader, I feel. Certainly I had to read on quite a bit more before he'd won my trust back.
Also quite disagree with his little essay on applauding solos. I'd like to hear MORE applause. In the MIDDLE of solos even. I want to go to a jazz gig that feels more like a gospel meeting than a classical recital. (I guess this is where Keith Jarrett and I part company.) Cannonball's live quintet albums must make John Shand awfully depressed.
Overall though, a very fine book, which does the Oz scene proud, especially compared to John Clare's rather petty, personal volume of a decade or so ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewh on Mar 1, 2009 20:15:09 GMT 10
I think Shand's opening assertion that "Australia has become a creative centre of jazz, rivalling the Scandinavian and Western European countries" is simply insupportable. With all due respect to the fine creative musicians we've produced; some of them unique in the world (and I think overall, Shand does a pretty good job of telling us about the bunch he's selected), anyone who's spent any amount of time checking out the scene in Europe would know that it is vastly bigger and deeper than here. We're just not even in the same ballpark Maybe it's just semantics, but he isn't comparing Australia to all of the countries in Scandinavia and Western Europe, but to each of them. Yes, the European scene overall is bigger and deeper than here, but is it not fair to say (as Shand does) that Australia is at least the rival to any one of these countries? I think that's all he is saying, and I think it's utterly supportable. |
|
|
|
Post by spoons on Mar 1, 2009 23:12:12 GMT 10
yeah his spiel on applause made laugh..i see where he's coming from but the tone of the whole essay, i just cant take it seriously. .haha . i agree more audience enthusiasm.. but of course it depends on the context..
|
|
|
|
Post by WanderWyn on Mar 2, 2009 6:22:19 GMT 10
I think Shand's opening assertion that "Australia has become a creative centre of jazz, rivalling the Scandinavian and Western European countries" is simply insupportable. With all due respect to the fine creative musicians we've produced; some of them unique in the world (and I think overall, Shand does a pretty good job of telling us about the bunch he's selected), anyone who's spent any amount of time checking out the scene in Europe would know that it is vastly bigger and deeper than here. We're just not even in the same ballpark Maybe it's just semantics, but he isn't comparing Australia to all of the countries in Scandinavia and Western Europe, but to each of them. Yes, the European scene overall is bigger and deeper than here, but is it not fair to say (as Shand does) that Australia is at least the rival to any one of these countries? I think that's all he is saying, and I think it's utterly supportable. Fair question, but even if we compare Australia with individual European countries, we come up short. We're not in the race compared to countries that dwarf our population, like Germany, France and the UK, but I believe we don't even match up against ones with smaller populations (eg Netherlands), let alone dramatically smaller populations (any of the Nordic states - what Norway has done with a population of 4 mil is just incredible.) I stress I'm not bagging the great individuality that Shand celebrates in his book, and I acknowledge that our isolation is also a factor that must be acknowledged, but I still feel this claim of his is unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 2, 2009 10:31:14 GMT 10
Man..... who gives flying fuck if we're 'better' or 'worse' than some lame Europeans? When did this become a competition with world rankings? And all these writers continue to insist that America ranks below Europe (there we go again with the rankings), just because they prefer music that doesn't swing. Stupid stupid stupid.
Shall we assemble some sort of judging panel to decide which countries are more 'creative' than others? Then perhaps we can finally figure out which race is superior too.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothystevens on Mar 2, 2009 11:58:26 GMT 10
So the Bell Awards for Most Outrageous Jazz Generalisation and Narrowest Definition of Jazz Argot are going to be toughly contested this year.  |
|
|
|
Post by WanderWyn on Mar 2, 2009 12:41:59 GMT 10
captain, it's unclear from your outburst whether your issue is with John Shand, or myself and andrewh.
I won't presume to speak on Shand's behalf, except to say that he wrote a book about what he perceives as the distinctive qualities of Australian jazz and improvised music, so it shouldn't be too surprising that respective countries' contribution to the artform would get an airing in one form or another.
And if your gripe is with me and andrewh, well, gosh, Girdle asked people what they thought of Shand's book, and I responded, including my thoughts on a point that Shand makes in the second paragraph of the entire book; a point which is one of the major foundations of the book's argument. I take issue with that point. Sorry if that so annoys you.
Care to elaborate on your statement about "all these writers" (who, exactly?) and their insistence that "America ranks below Europe... just because they prefer music that doesn't swing"? There are some pretty sweeping assertions in there, that require a great deal further substantiation before you can expect to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 2, 2009 13:18:48 GMT 10
Yeah it was a good outburst wasn't it!
My beef is with writers who rank each continent/country/culture as if its a competition as to who can prove they're more creative than the American mainstream. Stuart Nicholson is the worst of these.
No hard feelings for any poster here.
You see, I'm agreeing with your point that his assertion is ridiculous. Any assertion of a 'superior scene', which does come up alot in contemporary Jazz writing is stoopid.
And the comment about swing (sorry Tim...) was just a thinly veiled stab at Mr Nicholson, who out of all the world's Jazz critics seems to have the biggest chip on his shoulder about the American musicians playing blues and swing based music.
And basically everyone is wrong because the Bhutanese Jazz scene is by far and above the best, coolest, and most innovative on the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 2, 2009 13:21:07 GMT 10
|
|
