australian musical identity

[Kenny]

I've created a new thread on this from Rob's post on the master class thread in the hope that others will have a crack at it, too:

robburke wrote:3. I think critiics are very important and the ones here in Australia are very supportive - I think there needs to be discussion on what should be make a a good 'jazz' critic. I would like to see more in depth anysis of the music. eg Australian musical identity just for starters. ( this could be big)

I think about this quite often, and it's sometimes brought up on the other boards I frequent, and was even raised on the earlier incarnation of this forum.

But any attempt I, or others for that matter, have made to address such issues have been brief and fumbling at best.

It's a very elusive thing, and trying to find the right words makes me a little nutty.

But let's take, just as an example at random, the following recordings:

Mike Nock - Live
Rob Burke on Jazzhead
Paul Williamson (trumpet model) on Newmarket
Andrea Keller Quartet, plus presumably her new one.
The Toy Band
Murphy's Law
Mark Isaacs - Closer
Assumptions Trio
Sam Keevers/Jamie Oehlers - Grace
Way Out West
Bernie McGann - Bundeena
Scott Tinkler Quartet - Live

Well, despite there being quite a range of sounds and approaches in there, it seems to me that all those releases share a common, very real yet intangible bond - a freshness and slightly warped approach - that makes them uniquely Australian.

Putting aside the more experimental side of Australian improvised music, which I often enjoy but equally often find perplexing, it is this "Australianess" that I find so beguiling about the above named performers and many more.

Using, in many cases, familiar forms and configurations, yet creating music so, so different from that coming of NY and elsewhere. It's almost like there's something alchemical in the air and the sun and the rain that makes this so.

Whatever this is, I know my San Diego pal James, who these days boasts quite a hefty Australian collection, feels it, too, although like me he is reduced to stumbling when he attempts to define it.

And as ever, I find it incredibly frustrating that the likes of Murphy's Law, which I have been enjoying this week, would - if released on the likes of Palmetto or Fresh Sounds - be generating all sorts of rave reviews and so on overseas.

And, of course, I hear quite a few highly regarded albums from "over there" that sound drab and unimaginative when compared to Australian releases.

But then again, I've got a heap of form and baggage in that regard!

[PeterK]

What about this??? Good criticism is about opening dialogue. A well written review presents an argument as to why the critic has arrived at a particular point of view about a piece of music/album. Obviously there's no definitive right or wrong but it's great when a review actually says something. Blandly 'good' reviews, or those that slam an artist without presenting a cogent argument as to why, are of little value. Kenny's argument about Australian music is interesting precisely because it promotes discourse whether you agree with what he's saying or not. I reckon it's pretty obvious that there's something to what he's on about when he mentions an Australian sound, and it is such a shame that so much of our music doesn't get heard more widely... what to do?

[Kenny]

I sometimes think of I feel an intense Australianess of our jazz simply because I share such a strong geographical and even lifestyle sense with its makers, but as I've said, some of the northern hemisphere buds I've turned on to some of this stuff feel it, too.

I'm only sketchily aware of Australian jazz of the '40s-'80s, but from what I've managed to learn, there was a pretty cool and defiant thing going on there, too. (John Sangster's book is a hoot and a half ...)

But when it comes to the past decade, I think there is another that is having a big impact.

Plenty of Australians are touring, many regularly (where the hell are you, Mark?), but very few are making their home far from home for lengthy periods, as Mike Nock and Dale Barlow once did.

When I interviewed Scott Tinkler a year or so ago, I was impressed by his firm belief that he wanted to make HIS music in HIS country.

It's for that powerful reason that I absolutely prefer Paul Grabowsky's trio album (with Niko and Philip) or Scott's live album (with Philp, Ken and Paul) to Paul's NY album (with Scott, but also Joe Lovano, Branford Marsalis, Jeff Watts, Ed Schuller).

And why I certainly expect Aaron Choulai's marvellous stuff, as heard during the festival at Bennetts Lane, to be a significantly superior listen to his Place album (recorded in NY with Tim Ries, Scott Wendholdt, Clarence Penn, James Genus).

But hell, that sounds a bit simplistic, too.

And I'm certainly open to trans-country projects, like Mark's live trio album.

As to Peter's query - what to do - I simply don't know, apart from the efforts everyone concerned is already making.

Thinks: MUST MAKE AUSTRALIAN JAZZ A WORLDWIDE SENSATION BY END OF YEAR OR WILL BECOME VERY, VERY ANGRY AND HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL I TURN PURPLE.

[frustrated]

The sound is definitely there, but is also often derivative of flash-in-the-pan New York and European trends. The obsession with odd meter vamps, both here and abroad, gives me the shits, it's getting to a point where you can go out and hear five bands and they're all jamming on the same silly riff in 7/4.

We need to be careful not to laud something simply because it's Aussie. Treat every artist and recording on it's musical merits, not it's nationality. If a group can ONLY deal with static harmony and repetitive vamps, their music will be weak and lacking depth compared to music that intelligently deals with ALL aspects of musicianship.

This is why I get particularly frustrated hearing Australian bands sound lame because they are imitating lame NY bands. Often this means there is very little 'Jazz' happening (and I'm trying to use the broadest definintion of that word here), but the music is still critically applauded for being 'new' or 'fresh'. Considering the history of Jazz and other world music for hundreds of years, aint nothing new about playing long solos on one chord in an asymmetric time signature.

[Kenny]

frustrated said:

The sound is definitely there, but is also often derivative of flash-in-the-pan New York and European trends ... This is why I get particularly frustrated hearing Australian bands sound lame because they are imitating lame NY bands.

You raise some interesting points, but ... I think you're playing half empty to my half full.

Who is derivative of who? Given the common ground and the shrinking world, I think it's unfair to assume that simply because Australians are mining similar territory, that therefore it is the Australians who are doing the imitating. It could even be taken as a sort of cultural cringe: e.g., they're doing it, too, so we must be copying them.

And for the sort of music we're talking about, it could also be said that the Americans - and everyone else for that matter - have drawn much inspiration from the other side of the Atlantic.

Finally, on the basis of my listening - and as stated above - where, very generally speaking, the Americans are lame, the Australians are not. Frequently. IMHO. So much so that I'd find it believeable if told the influence worked in the other direction

In fact, more often than not I find it notable how little Australian musicians use northern hemisphere sounds and players as reference points, expressed - as I hear it - live, on record, in interviews and expressed verbally in more social occasions. Especially those contemporaries their own age.

As for ...

We need to be careful not to laud something simply because it's Aussie. Treat every artist and recording on it's musical merits, not it's nationality.

I absolutely agree. And I would like my enthusiasm for Australian music to be that much stronger and pure for coming from exactly that foundation.

Me and Bennie are off to see the Toy Band at the kids' room at the Fed Square gallery right now. Time for arch sillines.

[Iron Guts]

Jesus Christ this one is a tough subject for sure. Some good points raised, one chord 7/4 vamp totally boring, that is unless the language is understood well enough to have that simply as a starting point, sadly thats not too often the case.
When I think of Aussie muso's like Lois Burdett, Mark Simmonds, the Necks boys, Greg Sheehan, Roger Frampton and the many other great Aussie artists, then I know that they are unqustionably indicitive of what might be called an Aussie sound, but fuck its hard to put a finger on it. Some words come to mind - Larriken ( could spend a day on just this word) integrity, honesty, strength, intellegence, individual.
Im going to have to think more on this one.

[robburke]

Australian identity - I think there will always be influences from what is happening O/S - especially tradition and the language of the music. The key is the culmination of all those influences and what happens in the local scene - this reflects the what our identity is. Social and cultural influences are paramount to style and content
What has to be taken into account is that musicians in this country have developed their skills in Australia and in many other countries, either specifically studying at an institution, completing workshops or performing.

Here's a bit of history in Melb over the last 25 years -
In 1980 the VCA started a jazz course that basically played free music (loads of criticism from many musicians for a long period - sometimes very unjust and not educated riticism) -(1980 - 1998=Brian Brown) the main objective was to play what what was true to you - always look for something new. Fundamentals of the jazz language were not a major priority in the earlier periods. The result of this is really is taking affect now because the musicians that play today have developed the technique and the harmonic knowledge but have that freedom of expression that was such a main object in those years. I believe that the musicians from this earlier period of the VCA have made a huge influence on the younger musicians - eg. Scott Tinkler, Steve Magnusson, Ian Chaplin, Julian Wilson

Okay - what makes it Australian - lets look at Steve Magnusson - he plays with a strong guitar tradition - a rock influence and is rhytmically very fluent. What makes him what he is - is his influences from living in Europe - Studying with Brian Brown at the VCA - listening to the intensity of Ian Chaplin - listening to the beauty of Tony Gould and opening up classical music to him - hanging out with Scott Tinkler being a 'lunatic' - playing with his best mate Julian Wilson.
I would describe Steve Mags as a lyrical player that is true to his past and present influences. He manipulates the time and creates the unexpected. He has a strong understanding of the 8th note (swung) tradition that in a way rules jazz - but he doesn't over focus on this. It's about him being creative melodically and rhythmically whilst the mainstay is being interactive. Not a over reliance on 8th notes.
Then there is the layed back culture - the stirring culture - How many jokes has Nick Haywood told - The John Sangster legacy - his music being a parallel of his character "I am going to buy a place in Queensland with a tin roof for the rain".
These attributes could be said for many jazz musicians in this country who play creative jazz.

I will continue this rave over the next couple of weeks.

[happy]

Iron said:

one chord 7/4 vamp totally boring

I think that's a bit rough - 7 is a beautiful, challenging and catchy meter and I for one would rather hear it all night than the same ol' blues-inflected sub-funky 4/4 grooves with evryone trying to play too many notes and not listen to each other.

I think the point about 'understanding the language' is well made, but christ it doesn't excuse that wankery of "look mum I'm playing a note that's not in the chord. I must be really hip and clever, must make sure I don't resolve a phrase or everyone will think I'm not hip and jazzy"

I don't want to hear everyone playing the same shit either, but I think one of the most crucial things about Australian music is that it hasn't decended into being about empty virtuosity (pace James Morrison, but perhaps that's why he's never been accepted by the jazz community here).

[happy]

happy

frustrated said:

The sound is definitely there, but is also often derivative of flash-in-the-pan New York and European trends. The obsession with odd meter vamps, both here and abroad, gives me the shits, it's getting to a point where you can go out and hear five bands and they're all jamming on the same silly riff in 7/4.

We need to be careful not to laud something simply because it's Aussie. Treat every artist and recording on it's musical merits, not it's nationality. If a group can ONLY deal with static harmony and repetitive vamps, their music will be weak and lacking depth compared to music that intelligently deals with ALL aspects of musicianship.

This is why I get particularly frustrated hearing Australian bands sound lame because they are imitating lame NY bands. Often this means there is very little 'Jazz' happening (and I'm trying to use the broadest definintion of that word here), but the music is still critically applauded for being 'new' or 'fresh'. Considering the history of Jazz and other world music for hundreds of years, aint nothing new about playing long solos on one chord in an asymmetric time signature.

[happy]

whoops, sorry, dunno what happened there...

I just wanted to know, in the interest of informed critical analysis, what "there is very little 'Jazz' happening" means?

[frustrated]

"Very little Jazz happening", to quote myself - I know this is very dangerous territory. In the broadest sense of the word (when it's not happening), for me, is hearing groups imitating a 'sound' rather than the 'feeling' of Jazz. This is dependant on interaction. A groove will not groove if no one is listening to each other. This goes for Jazz, funk, reggae, salsa, etc etc, any music from the african diaspora. Now, this is only the first step. If a band is playin a static vamp (in any time signature!) and a soloist plays all his Jerry Bergonzi licks over the top, THIS is not Jazz (to me). It doesn't matter how hard the band is grooving. (and they better be grooving, otherwise, why the fuck are we listening to it?)

If all musicians are willful particpants in the direction of the music, we are getting closer to the 'feeling' of Jazz. A swing groove is, still, the best (and the most difficult) context to be able to execute an interactive ensemble improvisation, AND retain the booty shaking groove element. This is why we love the greats, is it not? Davis, Armostrong, Coltrane, Monk etc etc - we listen because it's free, there's communication between musicians, and the shit grooves HARD. Now over the course of the last forty/fifty years, we (the jazz world?) have found other contexts to get this feeling of everybody participating - free improvisation, latin influenced grooves, occasionally rock and funk influenced contexts keeep the feeling, the best stuff from the fusion era.

So that is what i mean by 'Jazz happening', the process of the band, not the sound.

Sorry for the rant, I know it's off topic, but does have relevance.

[Iron Guts]

The wankery of playing a note that is not in the chord is just as much a wank as playing all the right notes in the chord ( most bebop today). Surely its not the technical correctness or incorrectness of the material being played but the intent behind it. Ive seen plenty of players playing the most inside stuff that sound amazing and plenty sound shit, its the same in out or free stuff too.
Yes I agree 7 can be great, anyone that sounds lame playing in 7 probably sounds lame in 4.
I agree to that for the most part Aussie jazz hasnt desended to the empty virtuosity stuff, though the area of virtuosity is another big topic. I happen to love virtuosity in music but by no means think its neccessary. My favorite players - DeJon, Trane, Coleman, Miles etc were all increadable virtuosi (is that the pluaral). I think your point about James is accurate.

[frustrated]

In fact, more often than not I find it notable how little Australian musicians use northern hemisphere sounds and players as reference points, expressed - as I hear it - live, on record, in interviews and expressed verbally in more social occasions. Especially those contemporaries their own age.

Is this a good thing? What are we referencing if not Jazz? Lack of study and historic context in music creates stagnation and endless repitition (look at the rock industry). If you went to get brain surgery and the surgeon said, "I don't actually know anything about this, but I'm confident that I can innovate a new method if I try hard enough" You wouldn't hang around.

The best Australian Jazz musicians have a thorough knowledge and respect for American music, even if they don't admit it.

To address your other points, sorry to sound glass half empty, I do intrinsically agree that aussies sound different, but NY muso's sure as fuck aren't copying us. (this is not to say I like that music more).

[frustrated]

Notes and chords are not the issue here. This is part of the problem. If your primary concern is what note or what scale your going to play over a chord, you've already totally missed the point of Jazz. Unfortunately this is not what Jazz students (anywhere in the world) are learning. All they get is scales on chords. My point is that these musical issues need to be addressed in Australia just as much as anywhere else in the world.

[Iron Guts]

Totally agree with that. There is a lot of "Jazz eduaction" around today, all the information needed to play a jazz solo, and you can get a degree to prove it too quite easliy.
Unfortunately there is not so much apprenticeship stuff going on, even in the states it seems. Learninn in a live situation with great players is the most immediate way to realise what needs to be learnt. Thats why its important to support live music, thats the breeding ground, not the Uni's.