|
|
Post by isaacs on Jan 12, 2005 16:21:59 GMT 10
Just before Christmas Channel 4 UK showed a brand new 90 minute documentary they co-commissioned called "Keith Jarrett: The Art of Improvisation", the first made with his co-operation and with the guidance of Jarret/Miles biographer Ian Carr. Lots of archival footage, extended interviews with Jarrett and colleagues etc. I was very keen to see it of course, and a few days ago did a Google search about it and was led to the Branford Marsalis website forum, where a UK user said she had recorded it and transferred it to a Windows movie file and was offering to anybody interested. Of course I put my name on the list but one of the first people to get on his own Board and ask for it was Branford himself. Because the file is 290MB you can't send it by email, she used a free 3rd party service called yousendit that she uploaded to and they sent me a link that I used to download it. I downloaded it, enjoyed it immensely and checked back and .... it seems that it stays there for the 7 days they give you to download it! So my link is still good, so I am going to provide it to my buddies here. You'll need broadband of course and you'll have to do it before January 18 when the link expires. Enjoy, what a marvel to be able watch a program that was broadcast only on UK TV just a few weeks ago! s21.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3T5MCXN12W3HC0E9RVN00JNIN8 |
|
|
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 12, 2005 18:56:32 GMT 10
The good news for Ian Carr is that there's actually now a worse jazz biography than his ghastly job on Keith Jarrett: 'Duke Ellington and His World: A Biography' by A. H. Lawrence (Routledge, 2001). Just when you thought it couldn't be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jan 12, 2005 19:05:06 GMT 10
I found elements of Carr's writing style irritating, however probably half the bio consists of verbatim quotes from a wide selection of people and/or clear paraphrase of what he has been told without much editorialisation, so I still found it illuminating as a source of information, the substance was there even if the style was arch at times.
Is the link of interest to anybody?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vicki HB on Jan 12, 2005 21:18:41 GMT 10
But Ian Carr is so NICE - and well intentioned, you gotta to give him credit for enthusiasm too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 13, 2005 16:57:15 GMT 10
Maybe, but that book is trash. Where is the interview with Jarrett's first wife? Where is the investigation - appropriate to a biography - of his character and his motives? Why is the authour so credulous, and tone so vomitously fawning, to the point that he can even contrive a means of defending 'Restoration Ruin'? Why are some issues conspicuously avoided, such as 'what exactly was the cause of the financial disaster in the 80s?' Reading closely, we find that the date of Jarrett's separation from his wife and his moving in with Rose Anne were within the same month, and yet Carr claims that Jarrett and Colavito had been in a motel room together trying to nut out a way to save his marriage. It may be so, but when you rely only on the testimony of the two involved, as Carr does, there's little to convince the cynical. And what about the delightful turns of phrase: 'Garbarek and his family stayed at Jarrett's house for a few weeks in 1976. They played badminton and tennis, walked in the forest in which which Jarrett's house was situated, and ate a lot of nice food.' They ate a lot of nice food. How good that is to know. The book has 'authorized' written all over it, and as in so many cases where the subject is still living, the end product is absolutely gutless. A very ordinary read. Half a banana from me.
Still, Lawrence's hatchet-job on Ellington is worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jan 13, 2005 20:32:51 GMT 10
Keith Jarrett is not a political figure. Personally I don't find the issues you raise so important, though I did find the book irritating in parts as I have said. Questions like "Where is the interview with his first wife?" presume contrivance on the part of the subject and author to exclude her. How do you know this Tim? Perhaps she was approached and refused to be interviewed. Regarding the "financial disaster" the glaring lack of detail on this subject I presumed to be because there are legal issues still surrounding it. Perhaps this is all the information that Jarrett was prepared to give Carr, in which case it is hardly fair to blame Carr. Or if he did say more he may have said it "off the record" which a writer with any integrity would respect. I thought there was plenty of investigation of Jarrett's character and motives, not only in the revealing quotes that Carr elicited from Jarrett himself, but in what he gleaned from others, and not all of it was complimentary including Ron McClure's comments about Keith not being a "team player" and refusing to show him the changes to tunes. Of course it's an authorised biography and has the pitfalls that such a book would have, nonetheless I enjoyed reading it and more importantly grew a little as a human being from the insights I gained there, not only in the quotes from Jarrett but from what others said. So while it gets up my nose here and there I can't treat it with the unrestrained and shrill contempt that you do. Also Keith was very nice to me during the few days I spent with him, I don't mind reading that Jarrett and Gabarek shared some nice food, human beings tend to do that whenever they have the good fortune to be able to do so and it doesn't hurt for a writer to "humanise" figures like Jarrett and Gabarek who may become larger than life in some reader's minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 14, 2005 5:44:39 GMT 10
*sigh* I always seem to have to spell things out.
1. If Margot Jarrett refused Carr an interview, or if there are legal issues concerning the financial disaster - both of which possibilities had of course occurred to me - a good biography would have said so. You can't defame someone by saying they refused to be interviewed. Such information makes the account more plausible and demonstrates the author's thoroughness.
2. Perhaps Keith Jarrett is not a political figure, although why this matters I don't know. Biography is not confined to political figures, but in any case ought to be more than a chronology coupled with approved testimony and garnished with breathless praise. (The politics of hagiography are another issue.)
3. 'ate a lot of nice food' is just bad, boring English.
4. What do we learn about Jarrett outside music? Does he have mates? Does he go to the cinema? Read books? Write letters? Get involved in politics? Ride a motorbike? Collect stamps? Does he have a kick-arse recipe for Goulash pie? Maybe there's nothing else. But we're left wondering, and a decent biography... (you know where this is going)
5. If Jarrett was nice (there's that word again) to you Mark, that's great, but it's absolutely irrelevant to an assessment of this book.
A biography as restricted as Carr's is not a good biography, in my opinion. For examples of how it ought to be done, try Peter Ackroyd on T. S. Eliot, Thomas Kunkel on Harold Ross, or David Marr on Patrick White.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jan 14, 2005 6:35:15 GMT 10
Sorry to make you sigh the world-weary sigh of an eminent schoolmaster stuck with a slow pupil displaying the "profound lack of imagination" you mentioned in another thread! I'm not going to get into a blow by blow rebuttal of your points. In any case I agree with quite a few of them, am still not sure about others but at worst even if all your charges are true I still find much of value in the book. I'm glad it's there, I found plenty of inspiration and on balance the good outweighs the bad in my opinion, so I don't agree with your blanket dismissal of it as trash but respect it as your individual opinion. I mentioned my experience meeting Jarrett because I thought you were being dismissive per se regarding the relevance of Carr reporting Jarrett and Gabarek doing some ordinary things. I had found it inspiring in its own way to enter the ordinary with a great artist so I wanted to defend Carr's inclusion of such mundane detail as it might offer readers a similar experience. It seems it was the quality of English that bugged you the most, apparently it's not nice to use the word "nice".
Somebody told me the other day your album was very nice. I must try and hear it.
Be nice!
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jan 14, 2005 7:00:40 GMT 10
Ok I can't resist this, just for fun. All these answers to Tim's ad hoc questions are straight from the biography.
"Does he have mates?"
Probably not many according to what Ron McLure says.
"Does he go to the cinema?"
Information not supplied, but he wrote the music for a French film so has certainly viewed projected images.
"Read books?"
Yes, the writings of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and various Sufi masters at the very least and since we learn that he writes poetry we can safely assume he's read a few poets.
"Write letters?"
Yes, he and Eicher exchanged many letters. In one instance their letters, with basically the same content, crossed.
"Get involved in politics?"
Information not supplied.
"Ride a motorbike?"
Information not supplied, but he has a strong interest in cars which he inherited from his father. As a child he liked to identify makes of cars by the tone/pitch of the engine. He put his back out as a youth pushing a car that had broken down.
"Collect stamps?"
Information not supplied but he collects many instruments, including "toy" ones.
"Does he have a kick-arse recipe for Goulash pie?"
Information not supplied, but either he or Margot had a nice one for lamb and aubergine (eggplant) which they utilised when they hosted Gabarek.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Jan 14, 2005 9:05:33 GMT 10
... and ate a lot of nice food. Come on - there's no room for equivocation here. Tim's 100% right and then some. Nice food? Crap. We want details and recipes and finger bowls! Deep-fried pizza? Station platform potato cakes? Tim's nailed it - this is just plain ol' sloppy, lazy, irresponsible writing and research. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jan 14, 2005 9:18:00 GMT 10
I told you, he already told us. Lamb and aubergine (eggplant). I believe there was a "nice" red mentioned as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 14, 2005 13:12:09 GMT 10
Um, Mark - I think that might be Kenny taking the piss out of both of us.
Incidentally Kenny: topic 200 is yours for the taking...
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jan 14, 2005 13:43:06 GMT 10
Um, Tim - I think that might have been me joking right back at Kenny
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 14, 2005 14:51:18 GMT 10
Ah, you're a funny man. Have a nice day. Bye now.
|
|
|
|
Post by specs on Jan 16, 2005 0:26:14 GMT 10
I enjoyed the Keith J doco..watched it all the way through after getting home from the Grabowsky concert in Melbourne with Joe Lovano et al...
Thanks for the link Mark....
K J's an intense character who seems to have given most of his life to music..we should forgive him a few flaws....I've seen a few muso's in intense circumstances
over the years..and the music K J's given to us I think should be celebrated, even though I'm sure he could be a prick at times....
|
|
